Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter over shooting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64337761
Were the other producers charged?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 saysFenrir 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.
David Happymountain said:
I would agree with this if the other producers were charged. It seems like the charge is related to pulling the trigger.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.
That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.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.
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.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
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 said: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.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
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.Quad Dog said: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 said: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.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
Chuck Cunningham said:That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.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.
powerbelly said: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.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
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.
Aggie_Journalist said:Chuck Cunningham said:That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter. He did something that he didn't mean to do and someone died.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.
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?
Yes, they are real operable firearms.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