Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter.

4,452 Views | 60 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by ABATTBQ11
oragator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter over shooting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64337761
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Him and the armorer both. Probably a fair charge, may be a little light.
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I doubt he ever even has to appear in court other than maybe for a day.
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm torn on this. Firearms are integral component of my livelihood. Literally part of my career on a daily basis. Only bring that up to point out I am an absolutely laser focused on firearms safety in use, transportation, maintenance, and storage.

But............Alec Baldwin is an actor. He's not a soldier, LEO, armorer, professional hunter, etc. The firearm was supposed to be a prop. And we can argue gun safety all we want but the weapon is going to get pointed in unsafe directions to film that actual scene, regardless (I would think anyway).

I haven't kept up with this story so maybe these questions have been answered. Was it made known to the cast and anyone who handled the firearms that it was in fact a working, operable firearm? Second, how did live ammunition get on the set and who actually loaded the firearms before it was handed to Baldwin? To me that's the responsible party.

Let's say that during the filming of SPR that somehow a live grenade got mixed in with the prop grenades. Then Tom Sizemore, while filming the scene, pulls the pin, chuck it at the actor playing the German soldier, it goes boom and kills the guy. Would we charge Tom? Surely not.
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with you. I do wonder if this changes how hollywood films scenes because it seems they routinely violate the rules of firearm safety.

Unless there is more than we know I don't feel like Baldwin should have been charged.
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a producer he hired the armorer that violated safety protocols which lead to this incident (and if I recall correctly there was supposedly several other safety protocol violations on set prior to this). This isn't just as simple as an actor trusting that people are doing their jobs.
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fenrir said:

As a producer he hired the armorer that violated safety protocols which lead to this incident (and if I recall correctly there was supposedly several other safety protocol violations on set prior to this). This isn't just as simple as an actor trusting that people are doing their jobs.
Were the other producers charged?
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fenrir said:

As a producer he hired the armorer that violated safety protocols which lead to this incident (and if I recall correctly there was supposedly several other safety protocol violations on set prior to this). This isn't just as simple as an actor trusting that people are doing their jobs.
This is what IMDB says

Production was halted on October 21, 2021 after a gun that was handed to Alec Baldwin and was discharged while in his hand, caused the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and a serious injury to director Joel Souza. Before that incident, six union workers walked off the set due to the safety concerns and in protest of the working conditions, after which they were replaced by non-union workers. Several days prior, another firearm incident occurred and a firearm safety complaint was made.
Al Bula
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would imagine some level of evaluation about how much different parties contributed to the incident was performed and I suspect that someone that both pulled the trigger and contributed to repeated safety concerns/incidents was found to be more culpable.
Corporal Punishment
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't know about Baldwin…but that armorer is definitely at fault and should be charged.
imjustsayin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If he is charged with anything, it should be as his role as producer running an alleged unsafe set, rather than actor pulling the trigger… not sure if that would be manslaughter or not (not a lawyer). Maybe wreckless endangerment? Is that a thing?

…again, I'm SOO uninformed on this thing, so what do I know.
imjustsayin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
David Happymountain said:




This gif NEVER. gets old
ElephantRider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
imjustsayin said:

If he is charged with anything, it should be as his role as producer running an alleged unsafe set, rather than actor pulling the trigger… not sure if that would be manslaughter or not (not a lawyer). Maybe wreckless endangerment? Is that a thing?

…again, I'm SOO uninformed on this thing, so what do I know.
I would agree with this if the other producers were charged. It seems like the charge is related to pulling the trigger.
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Producer is the most mysterious movie credit. It can range from putting up a bunch of money, to choosing the director, crew, etc. then being hands off, all the way through having a day to day interaction with production. I don't know what level of production Baldwin was participating as.
Rudyjax
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag said:

I'm torn on this. Firearms are integral component of my livelihood. Literally part of my career on a daily basis. Only bring that up to point out I am an absolutely laser focused on firearms safety in use, transportation, maintenance, and storage.

But............Alec Baldwin is an actor. He's not a soldier, LEO, armorer, professional hunter, etc. The firearm was supposed to be a prop. And we can argue gun safety all we want but the weapon is going to get pointed in unsafe directions to film that actual scene, regardless (I would think anyway).

I haven't kept up with this story so maybe these questions have been answered. Was it made known to the cast and anyone who handled the firearms that it was in fact a working, operable firearm? Second, how did live ammunition get on the set and who actually loaded the firearms before it was handed to Baldwin? To me that's the responsible party.

Let's say that during the filming of SPR that somehow a live grenade got mixed in with the prop grenades. Then Tom Sizemore, while filming the scene, pulls the pin, chuck it at the actor playing the German soldier, it goes boom and kills the guy. Would we charge Tom? Surely not.
That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Completely fair and warranted.

Actor or not, he has a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure the firearm he's pointing at someone is not loaded with a real round. This is doubly so if there were complaints about firearm safety on the set. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and plenty of people have been similarly charged for similar incidents of discharging firearms they assumed were unloaded.

That said, Baldwin is no stranger to firearms on set and should be intimately familiar with basic safety. He's not some neckbeard off the street who'd never held a gun until that day. Every set may be different, but the basics of no live ammunition and always verifying what's in the gun should have been stressed to him many times by now. This seems like a consequence of arrogance moreso than ignorance.

There is no question the armorer should be charged.


I bet both cop a plea for a very minimal jail sentence or probation in the end
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Completely fair and warranted.

Actor or not, he has a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure the firearm he's pointing at someone is not loaded with a real round. This is doubly so if there were complaints about firearm safety on the set. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and plenty of people have been similarly charged for similar incidents of discharging firearms they assumed were unloaded.

That said, Baldwin is no stranger to firearms on set and should be intimately familiar with basic safety. He's not some neckbeard off the street who'd never held a gun until that day. Every set may be different, but the basics of no live ammunition and always verifying what's in the gun should have been stressed to him many times by now. This seems like a consequence of arrogance moreso than ignorance.

There is no question the armorer should be charged.


I bet both cop a plea for a very minimal jail sentence or probation in the end
I don't think it is that simple. Many actors came out and said once the expert on set gave them a gun they trusted that person and some said the armorers didn't want them messing with the gun in any way. They often don't have the expertise that the armorer has. I highly doubt Baldwin ever handles real guns outside of sets.
Milwaukees Best Light
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think if he wouldn't have been such an ass about it, and was apologetic, saddened and angry at the armorer, he would not have been charged. Saying stuff like the gun just went off and he didn't pull the trigger just make him look guilty. Just say, I hired folks that were supposed to be competent, they handed me a live gun, and didn't tell me and a terrible accident occurred and I am terribly sorry about it. Then have the production company pay the family a whole pile of money.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
powerbelly said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

Completely fair and warranted.

Actor or not, he has a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure the firearm he's pointing at someone is not loaded with a real round. This is doubly so if there were complaints about firearm safety on the set. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and plenty of people have been similarly charged for similar incidents of discharging firearms they assumed were unloaded.

That said, Baldwin is no stranger to firearms on set and should be intimately familiar with basic safety. He's not some neckbeard off the street who'd never held a gun until that day. Every set may be different, but the basics of no live ammunition and always verifying what's in the gun should have been stressed to him many times by now. This seems like a consequence of arrogance moreso than ignorance.

There is no question the armorer should be charged.


I bet both cop a plea for a very minimal jail sentence or probation in the end
I don't think it is that simple. Many actors came out and said once the expert on set gave them a gun they trusted that person and some said the armorers didn't want them messing with the gun in any way. They often don't have the expertise that the armorer has. I highly doubt Baldwin ever handles real guns outside of sets.
That and the main actor is the most expensive time on the set. If Keanu took 1 minute to check the gun everytime before he fired it in the Wick movies, then they would spend a crazy amount of money on the most expensive person taking that one minute every time. That job should be delegated to someone cheaper and more knowledgeable.
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And Keanu would be one of the few actors I would trust to check his weapons.
Belton Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quad Dog said:

powerbelly said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

Completely fair and warranted.

Actor or not, he has a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure the firearm he's pointing at someone is not loaded with a real round. This is doubly so if there were complaints about firearm safety on the set. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and plenty of people have been similarly charged for similar incidents of discharging firearms they assumed were unloaded.

That said, Baldwin is no stranger to firearms on set and should be intimately familiar with basic safety. He's not some neckbeard off the street who'd never held a gun until that day. Every set may be different, but the basics of no live ammunition and always verifying what's in the gun should have been stressed to him many times by now. This seems like a consequence of arrogance moreso than ignorance.

There is no question the armorer should be charged.


I bet both cop a plea for a very minimal jail sentence or probation in the end
I don't think it is that simple. Many actors came out and said once the expert on set gave them a gun they trusted that person and some said the armorers didn't want them messing with the gun in any way. They often don't have the expertise that the armorer has. I highly doubt Baldwin ever handles real guns outside of sets.
That and the main actor is the most expensive time on the set. If Keanu took 1 minute to check the gun everytime before he fired it in the Wick movies, then they would spend a crazy amount of money on the most expensive person taking that one minute every time. That job should be delegated to someone cheaper and more knowledgeable.
Echoing powerbelly... I'd almost be willing to bet money that Keanu Reeves either personally checks his weapons on set once they get handed to him or has a some kind of failsafe system down.
Aggie_Journalist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Chuck Cunningham said:

Urban Ag said:

I'm torn on this. Firearms are integral component of my livelihood. Literally part of my career on a daily basis. Only bring that up to point out I am an absolutely laser focused on firearms safety in use, transportation, maintenance, and storage.

But............Alec Baldwin is an actor. He's not a soldier, LEO, armorer, professional hunter, etc. The firearm was supposed to be a prop. And we can argue gun safety all we want but the weapon is going to get pointed in unsafe directions to film that actual scene, regardless (I would think anyway).

I haven't kept up with this story so maybe these questions have been answered. Was it made known to the cast and anyone who handled the firearms that it was in fact a working, operable firearm? Second, how did live ammunition get on the set and who actually loaded the firearms before it was handed to Baldwin? To me that's the responsible party.

Let's say that during the filming of SPR that somehow a live grenade got mixed in with the prop grenades. Then Tom Sizemore, while filming the scene, pulls the pin, chuck it at the actor playing the German soldier, it goes boom and kills the guy. Would we charge Tom? Surely not.
That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.

Doesn't it require negligence or recklessness on the part of the accused?

And if you're following the guidance of someone who is supposed to be a safety expert, someone who was hired specifically to make sure the set is safe and everyone must follow their guidance, doesn't that mean they, not you, are the negligent or reckless party?
Thanks and gig'em
Rudyjax
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wouldn't you think pointing a gun at someone is reckless? Or having a production that has lived ammo with blanks? Or not checking?

Someone was reckless for damn sure.

And I think he should be charged but will probably walk as it was the recklessness of thd armored of first AD.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
powerbelly said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

Completely fair and warranted.

Actor or not, he has a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure the firearm he's pointing at someone is not loaded with a real round. This is doubly so if there were complaints about firearm safety on the set. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and plenty of people have been similarly charged for similar incidents of discharging firearms they assumed were unloaded.

That said, Baldwin is no stranger to firearms on set and should be intimately familiar with basic safety. He's not some neckbeard off the street who'd never held a gun until that day. Every set may be different, but the basics of no live ammunition and always verifying what's in the gun should have been stressed to him many times by now. This seems like a consequence of arrogance moreso than ignorance.

There is no question the armorer should be charged.


I bet both cop a plea for a very minimal jail sentence or probation in the end
I don't think it is that simple. Many actors came out and said once the expert on set gave them a gun they trusted that person and some said the armorers didn't want them messing with the gun in any way. They often don't have the expertise that the armorer has. I highly doubt Baldwin ever handles real guns outside of sets.


It's not like he didn't know that guns are potentially dangerous and was completely ignorant as to safety protocols like the assumption it's always loaded and muzzle awareness. Those are the most basic rules of fun safety, and I can't imagine that they're not impressed in every gun safety meeting on set. He may not handle guns on a daily basis, but he had certainly handled them before and should have been cognizant of the dangers. Ultimately, the gun was in his hand, and he was responsible for it.

And as mentioned, there were complaints around gun safety on set, including multiple unintentional discharges from supposedly "cold" guns. Baldwin's own stunt double twice shot a blank round after being told his gun was "cold" and unloaded, and the props director shot herself in the foot with a blank. Given that, Baldwin should have been at least somewhat wary of the status of the gun. If a gun has been declared "cold" twice only to be accidentally discharged, a reasonable person should question the validity of such an assertion when they're handed a supposedly "cold" weapon.
torrid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm trying to imagine the production company HR department having mandatory firearm safety training for everyone on set, just like all the various stupid training sessions my company's HR department requires. I somehow suspect that didn't happen. Should have hired more lawyers upfront, would have been cheaper.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
torrid said:

I'm trying to imagine the production company HR department having mandatory firearm safety training for everyone on set, just like all the various stupid training sessions my company's HR department requires. I somehow suspect that didn't happen. Should have hired more lawyers upfront, would have been cheaper.


It didn't. One of the camera assistants quit the day before the shooting and cited lax gun safety and a lack of safety meetings in his reasoning.
Roll the Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bunk Moreland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie_Journalist said:

Chuck Cunningham said:

Urban Ag said:

I'm torn on this. Firearms are integral component of my livelihood. Literally part of my career on a daily basis. Only bring that up to point out I am an absolutely laser focused on firearms safety in use, transportation, maintenance, and storage.

But............Alec Baldwin is an actor. He's not a soldier, LEO, armorer, professional hunter, etc. The firearm was supposed to be a prop. And we can argue gun safety all we want but the weapon is going to get pointed in unsafe directions to film that actual scene, regardless (I would think anyway).

I haven't kept up with this story so maybe these questions have been answered. Was it made known to the cast and anyone who handled the firearms that it was in fact a working, operable firearm? Second, how did live ammunition get on the set and who actually loaded the firearms before it was handed to Baldwin? To me that's the responsible party.

Let's say that during the filming of SPR that somehow a live grenade got mixed in with the prop grenades. Then Tom Sizemore, while filming the scene, pulls the pin, chuck it at the actor playing the German soldier, it goes boom and kills the guy. Would we charge Tom? Surely not.
That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.

Doesn't it require negligence or recklessness on the part of the accused?

And if you're following the guidance of someone who is supposed to be a safety expert, someone who was hired specifically to make sure the set is safe and everyone must follow their guidance, doesn't that mean they, not you, are the negligent or reckless party?


1. As the producer on set and star actor, he of course knew about prior workers walking off set before this.

2. He also very likely knew about the previous firearm incident on set.

3. He also chose to squeeze the trigger while rehearsing a scene, not even when they were actually filming the scene for the movie. I don't care if it's a prop gun shooting blanks or a real gun shooting real ammo, do not pull the trigger unless it's absolutely time to do so. Rehearsing does not seem like the time to do so.

Also, I do think (could be wrong) the NM AG said anyone who handles a firearm on set is required to check if it's loaded in advance of firing. So even if the armorer handed it to him, he may have supposed to have checked as well.

I think given the prior issues on set you could argue negligence and the fact that he squeezed the trigger while rehearsing, you could argue recklessness.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe

Sounds more to me like "accessory "

/not a lawyer
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Again, are these real operable firearms? I don't know I'm asking. Even the US military has safeguards installed when firing blanks in training simulation
At least they did when was in and that was the 90's
lethalninja
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The assistant director pled guilty to a misdemeanor and got six months probation.
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag said:

Again, are these real operable firearms? I don't know I'm asking. Even the US military has safeguards installed when firing blanks in training simulation
At least they did when was in and that was the 90's
Yes, they are real operable firearms.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.