He is going to regret doing that tv interview and saying he didn't pull the trigger. All top lawyers said until this case is closed he should keep his mouth shut and instead did that whole interview and all those statements can and will be used against him. This is going to be a battle of lawsuits between he and the girl who was in charge of hot ammo on the set on who really pulled the trigger. Both are being charged with involuntary manslaughter.
OT: Alec Baldwin is in trouble...
- Thread starter Bwifan
- Start date
I don't see how an actor, handed what he believes is a prop weapon, is responsible for live rounds that result in death. I don't know what the bar is for involuntary manslaughter, but I'd say it's worse for the woman in charge of the ammo/props. I guess we'll see.
Here is what I have seen as to why he is in trouble.... Baldwin and the set armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed both had an "affirmative duty" to inspect the gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and is the reason their conduct has risen to a level beyond simple negligence. The two were charged with involuntary manslaughter on Thursday in the deadly incident.
Were I a juror, it would be tough to convince me an actor has the same affirmative duty as an actual armorer.
Baldwin was a producer, which might make a difference. I agree with you about the actor thing.
This case will be hotly political because it will center on gun ownership and responsible handling of a weapon per that state’s laws/norms.
The other dynamic is how this fuels the civil lawsuit from the deceased’s family. All of this will factor in there and likely force some big settlements.
Baldwin is trying to CYA and I believe made the deceased family a producer on the film so they can cash in on the money.
Some will try to make it political but it isn't political in any way whatsoever. Gun ownership isn't an issue in this case. Responsible handling of firearms isn't a political issue either since everyone agrees that's important. In Baldwin's case, he wasn't irresponsible in thinking the armorer handed him a safe prop weapon. I doubt any actor would think they'd be given an actual loaded weapon on a set.
I would think that this is a major factor. The D.A. has said that the production had many complaints and people quit because of safety concerns. I would think that crew & set safety concerns would fall under the responsibility of the producer. Doesn't matter if it is a gun, car, plane, underwater dive, etc. If both are convicted of the same charge(s), I would think that the armorer would be held to a higher level of culpability with a harsher sentence.
Being a producer probably does open him up to more scrutiny though. Will be interesting to see how this goes…
Yeah. That may also be an attempt to pull them into more overall liability as producers.
I just can’t believe that they would still allow live rounds on a movie set… bizarre.
I could be wrong, but I thought they weren't allowed and weren't supposed to be there.
First off I think Baldwin is an insufferable ***, and foolishly ran his mouth. Plus his attempts to buy the victims family off is true Hollywood scumbagery.
However what’s his standard of care in this instance. Unless he opens the cylinder he can’t determine whether the round is live or not. (Well there is but pointing a gun at your face while looking down the barrel or a cylinder usually isn’t recommended).
If he opens the cylinder and examines the rear of the shell that won’t tell him anything. He has to remove the round and examine its front to ascertain the difference. And then how many people can actually tell the difference?
Is Baldwin considered an expert on ordinance?To expect all these steps may be higher standard of care than the average juror would expect for a conviction.
Now all the gun fanatics can expand this into a three page thread arguing where I was wrong in my ordinance explanation.
However what’s his standard of care in this instance. Unless he opens the cylinder he can’t determine whether the round is live or not. (Well there is but pointing a gun at your face while looking down the barrel or a cylinder usually isn’t recommended).
If he opens the cylinder and examines the rear of the shell that won’t tell him anything. He has to remove the round and examine its front to ascertain the difference. And then how many people can actually tell the difference?
Is Baldwin considered an expert on ordinance?To expect all these steps may be higher standard of care than the average juror would expect for a conviction.
Now all the gun fanatics can expand this into a three page thread arguing where I was wrong in my ordinance explanation.
Until today, I have been laying the blame squarely on the armorer. Baldwin is a dope and probably could not tell the difference between a .22 and 12ga 3.5” shot shell if asked or the difference between a pistol or revolver.
Reading today that they found live rounds in his trailer and in his gun belt has me baffled. He is an actor and obviously has seen and used blanks before. At the very least it is gross negligence hence the manslaughter charge.
Reading today that they found live rounds in his trailer and in his gun belt has me baffled. He is an actor and obviously has seen and used blanks before. At the very least it is gross negligence hence the manslaughter charge.
What is the reason why there should be Live rounds in a prop gun? It’s totally bizarre. Why would anyone other than an experienced shooter on a set handle a gun, and under very controlled conditions. This was anything but. Baldwin shouldnt have had a loaded gun at all.
I don't know if I fit your definition of "gun fanatic", but I come from a long line of gun owners.
The first rule of handling any firearm is to understand that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. If you check a gun to show me that it isn't loaded, the first thing I'm doing if you hand it to me is to check to see that it's unloaded.
The second rule is that you never aim a gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot.
Weren't there complaints they were shooting live rounds in the days before? I'm too lazy to look it up, and it's been so long since the shooting, but I seem to remember that.
I'm with you 100%.... he certainly should have followed Rule 1.
But In the context of a movie, I'm not sure it's possible to follow Rule 2.
but this shooting wasn't done while filming a scene and the victim wasn't an actor
Yes. My recollection is that during down time after their work was done for the day, they’d go to the edge of town and shoot the guns with live ammo, hence the reason live ammo ended up on the set. Negligence is absolutely in play here.
“No live rounds on a movie set ever.” The civil suit will be an absolute slam dunk. The legal charges against Baldwin? It will be about his being the producer, I’m more and more certain.
“I would never point a gun at anyone”
Ahhh…Alec is appears as if you did exactly that.
Ahhh…Alec is appears as if you did exactly that.
Absolutey but it was already political because of who he is and his past tweets. But I agree with you, it never should have been but then neither should have a lot of other things.
I agree to a point, but I hope jurors don’t think that avoiding grave danger is okay because “it’s hard.” With that said my life won’t change when the verdict is read. That is, I’m 1000x luckier than the victim.
I spoke with him and his wife at a fund raiser some years ago and found him to be very likeable but not the brightest bulb. He told me his brother Billy was a big PSU and JVP fan and that Billy attended Joe's memorial service. What a tragic event for the Baldwin and Hutchin's families. There are no winners here.
But if the documented SOP says you inspect the weapon when it is handed to you, it’s negligent.
Baldwin was also in charge of the set, and those working the set are saying it was chaotic. That won’t reflect well.
I don’t understand why they need real guns.
Have to agree with you. I am not a fan of Alec Baldwin, but I don't think he was supposed to check the gun handed to him. I believe if the armorer said it was safe, that being his/her job one, than the actor was to take it believing they did their job correctly. A real stretch for me to think he'll actually be found guilty.
Foolish to think producers are actually ‘in charge’ of a set. They’re the money guys. In a civil case I think it means a lot more. Criminal case? Will be tough to nail this on Baldwin, an actor, who should be able to rely upon the information provided to him which was that the weapon was ‘cold’. He also has the backing of the industry who says best practices are that actors are not intended to be firearm/weapons experts and depend upon the expertise of those on set who are.
Last edited:
Get unlimited access today.