Utopia Talk / Politics / alec baldwin

Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 19 11:45:08 Rofl.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 19 12:10:27 I love how his own attorney admits to negligence in their counterstatement. "I relied on other professionals to tell me the gun in my hand was safe". Rofl fail.
murder Member	Thu Jan 19 13:12:27 He should have relied on himself to make sure he wasn't being reckless.
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Jan 19 15:26:05 He was an actor on a movie set. Why the fuck would he be handed a loaded gun?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 19 15:28:07 Because guns are sometimes loaded. Thats why you double check.
murder Member	Thu Jan 19 17:10:12 It doesn't matter why. You always check and you never point the gun at anyone and pull the trigger unless you mean to kill that person.
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 19 17:16:49 I actually disagree with that, when you have a literal army of people on set to check these things it shouldn't be the responsibility of the actors to do quality control on the fucking equipment.
murder Member	Thu Jan 19 17:37:17 Basic gun safety is basic gun safety. When you take possession of a gun you accept responsibility for it's safe handling.
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 19 17:41:20 But he didn't think he was handling a gun, he thought he was handling a prop.
murder Member	Thu Jan 19 17:47:09 Well then he's too retarded to handle a gun.
kargen Member	Thu Jan 19 17:52:51 It is on the actor. I had the same argument Rugian has now that you shouldn't expect an actor who might not know much about guns to be responsible for checking the gun. Found out there is a protocol in place where the gun is suppose to be checked every time it is passed on to another person. Either the person holding the gun shows the gun is safe before handing it over or the person receiving the gun checks the gun while the other person watches. It is time consuming checking the weapon at each step and that is why they weren't doing it as diligently as they should. Everybody who handled the weapon between the time it was taken from storage up to the point where the trigger was pulled shares responsibility of a live gun being on set.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 19 18:40:40 A gun isnt a prop unless its been welded into inoperability. And even then you should probably check it. ESPECIALLY if the person handing you the gun is a theater major. Like maybe, just maybe, you could trust the gun handoff if a navy seal is handing it to you.... nah just check that shit like you are supposed to.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 19 18:41:18 Murder is correct.
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 19 21:09:29 Oh I forgot he was also the producer of the movie and had a responsibility to check it. Ruh roh.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:28:06 Murder: "Well then he's too retarded to handle a gun." Well that's the point - who gave the idiot a gun, didn't tell him it was a gun, in fact told him it was not a gun?
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:50:11 BTW, everyone saying it is "on the actor" is ignoring the fact the armourer is facing the exact same charges. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64337761 Pretty sure that the armourer will be convicted. Less sure about Baldwin but suspect they feel they can't place manslaughter charges on the armourer without charging the person who pulled the trigger. Kargen: So apparently the gun was loaded with dummy rounds - look real for the camera as the rounds in the cylinder are visible on high def - but don't have charge and propellant. In the circumstances, I'm not sure what you would be expected to check for. "Yes, there are bullets in this cylinder, but they are the prop rounds." Rugian: "Oh I forgot he was also the producer of the movie and had a responsibility to check it." That's covered in the article above. The Production company, of which he is owner/partner or whatever - has liability. But the armorer and director have the responsibilities for carrying out that duty and the criminal liability for negligence if they did not follow the producers set out by the production company. The producers would be criminally negligent only if they did not have processes in place. Hence the director - who was discharging those duties as the responsible person employed by the production company - pled guilty to criminal negligence, and the production company was found to have displayed "a degree of neglect" and producers were fined more than $136,000 by the New Mexico Environment Department for failing to enforce safety protocols (i.e. civil liability, but not criminal liability). If you go back you will recall I raised the point of Baldwin being both a producer and an actor and that this would mean he might face civil or even criminal liability as a producer depending on the exact degree of failings; but this was separate to any criminal liability in as an actor pulling the trigger. We will see what the jury decides but I suspect Baldwin is far more likely to be found innocent than Gutierez.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:51:38 "follow the procedures set out by the production company"
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:54:20 I would guess that Baldwin will be convicted only if the productions safety procedures say that actors are responsible for checking the gun or visually confirming it has been checked before handling.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:56:40 "Actor and producer Alec Baldwin and armourer Hannah Gutierrez Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter," the statement read. "I have determined that there is sufficient evidence." Ok, can anyone explain why two counts each?
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 03:57:47 How can an individual be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter for one victim?
jergul large member	Fri Jan 20 05:51:40 Prolly two types of involuntary manslaughter.
obaminated Member	Fri Jan 20 07:29:31 Seb - the armourer wasn't the one who pointed the gun at the victim and the armourer wasn't the one who plugged the trigger while pointing the gun at the victim. Even with dummy bullets it's gun safety 101 not to every point a gun at someone. Baldwin will be convicted and spend a year in jail.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 08:08:15 Obaminated: Nevertheless the armourer is facing the exact same charges. Probably because the whole point of the armourer is that they are the one who is supposed to ensure that an actor can point a gun at the victim and pull the trigger without risk. Otherwise there wouldn't be a gun on set in the first place. "it's gun safety 101 not to every point a gun at someone". http://fre...1/07/DirtyHarry1-1024x576.jpeg I mean, do we need a montage of every Western, cop or war movie where a gun is pointed at the camera and discuss how the shot was lined up? Or are we going to pretend this never happened and isn't something common in the industry that's been done regularly and most part safely for pretty much the entire history of film.
obaminated Member	Fri Jan 20 08:25:48 Seb doesn't realize the image he used doesn't have the gun pointed at the camera....
Seb Member	Fri Jan 20 10:48:06 Given the distance and angle it would certainly be pointed at someone holding the camera.
obaminated Member	Fri Jan 20 10:59:50 Very doubtful.
obaminated Member	Fri Jan 20 11:02:55 Not sure why you are even trying to defend Baldwin here. He pointed a gun at someone and pulled thr trigger and was surprised the wad used to keep blank rounds on the chamber was projected out of the pistol and into the person he pulled the trigger on. Also, this wasn't in the middle of a take. He was acting like a fucking moron and got someone killed because of it. He deserves jail time.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jan 20 11:40:51 "everyone saying it is "on the actor" is ignoring the fact the armourer is facing the exact same charges." Its on both of them. Re pointing guns: If you absolutely have to break this gun safety law for your shot: dont break all the others at the same time too. He pointed a gun at someone, pulled the trigger, and didnt check to make sure it was not loaded. If you break 1, make damn sure its not loaded, and dont pull the trigger. This aint hard.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jan 20 11:41:30 Lol I knew Seb would come in here cucking for Baldwin. Californians and Brits have no concept of personal responsibility, they can wrap it up in bureaucracy.
Rugian Member	Fri Jan 20 12:51:22 So if an actor throws a prop grenade on set, are they supposed to check it for explosive capability first? How about a prop bazooka, should an actor be qualified and expected to check to see if its loaded or not? If the actor is filming a scene in a surplus main battle tank or fighter jet, are they supposed to check the ammunition before squeezing the fire button? Let's say the shoot that day is in a model car on a CGI set. Should the actor be legally required to inspect whats under the hood to make sure that nothing happens when he starts moving the steering wheel? These are things for detail people to handle. Whether Baldwin is guilty or not is one question, but the idea that an actor of all people is supposed to be a certified expert on all the props he uses in a scene is kind of ridiculous.
Rugian Member	Fri Jan 20 13:02:16 And yes, I get it's delicious to see a blowhard liberal get his comeuppance for not knowing how to properly handle a gun. But the whole point of a movie set is that you are filming things that are NOT real. Actors are PRETENDING to shoot guns, they don't think they actually are. I dunno. In * any* other context what Baldwin did would 100% be criminal negligence, but this is the *one* exception i can think of.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jan 20 13:21:36 "should an actor be qualified and expected to check to see if its loaded or not?" All adult american males should know this.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jan 20 14:01:59 Personally, I wouldn't be pulling the pin on a grenade, or firing a MBT on a set that already had three misfires. And I guarantee a stunt driver is kicking and tires and performing minimally invasive checks before filming a high-speed chase. The gun is real. It is not a prop. Brandon Lee can attest to that.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jan 20 14:03:00 I'm not sure if that crosses the line into manslaughter. Perhaps civil liability. But it's extremely irresponsible to point it at a person and pull the trigger with nothing but assumptions for safety.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jan 20 16:23:33 I think it crosses the line into low end manslaughter. Because it was part of a filmset and an 'armorer' did claim it was unloaded, i think that mitigates some the actors criminal liability but not all. Id say that deserves a few months in jail. Hes blatantly liable on the civil side. I think he already settled that bit though.
murder Member	Fri Jan 20 17:20:59 I don't think anyone is saying that the armorer isn't responsible too. But he doesn't just get to shrug like an idiot and pass the buck. Frankly I don't even care if he's convicted. But I wanted him to be charged.
kargen Member	Fri Jan 20 17:39:00 "So apparently the gun was loaded with dummy rounds - look real for the camera as the rounds in the cylinder are visible on high def - but don't have charge and propellant. In the circumstances, I'm not sure what you would be expected to check for." THere is a visible difference in live rounds and dummy rounds. The difference would be easy to see in a revolver.
kargen Member	Fri Jan 20 17:47:32 Forgot to point out there are protocols beyond just checking if the ammo is dummy or live rounds. He pointed the gun at a person and pulled the trigger during a practice session. They were not even filming. Even while filming you don't point the gun at another person while firing the weapon. Camera angles and editing takes care of that. Even dummy rounds have some kind of projectile in them that though not usually deadly can cause injury. When Brandon Lee was killed the round in the gun actually was a dummy round.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jan 20 20:23:58 On the rare occaision i dry fire one of my guns... pointed harmlessly up through my roof... with a small easily fixed hole in my roof the consequence of failure... i still double check that shit multiple times.
obaminated Member	Fri Jan 20 22:31:17 Kargen, it is called a wad. It is used to keep the dummy round in place. They are made out of paper, plastic or occasionally wood. These objects are projected at the speed of a bullet. They don't have to be fatal but obviously a piece of plastic fires at close range moving at the speed of a bullet can cause serious damage. Alec Baldwin is totally culpable here. The armourer probably fucked up, as this films set had previous safety issues. But the armourer didn't point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger.
kargen Member	Sat Jan 21 00:02:11 We are kind of confusing things a bit. A dummy round won't fire. It is mostly just used for close-up shots or scenes where the actor might be loading the weapon. A blank is the round that has powder and wadding in it. Kind of has me wondering if the people on set and the people reporting are using "dummy" when they should be using "blank". Probably doesn't matter much. A blank would be really easy to distinguish from a live round. You only need the blank when you need to see smoke or a flash come from the gun.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 21 00:16:06 "I don't think anyone is saying that the armorer isn't responsible too. But he doesn't just get to shrug like an idiot and pass the buck. Frankly I don't even care if he's convicted. But I wanted him to be charged. " This
Seb Member	Sat Jan 21 09:03:12 Kargen: "THere is a visible difference in live rounds and dummy rounds" To be clear, not blanks. What's that difference that would be clear to see, given the intent is to allow high Def shots where the bullet is visible?
Seb Member	Sat Jan 21 09:05:25 Kargen: Yeah, and the way they check the camera angles etc work out is exactly this process - but with an unloaded gun. You want a shot of shooting into camera, you like the shot up with someone behind the camera to see what it looks like, then you shoot the film with nobody behind the camera, with the gun loaded with the blanks.
Seb Member	Sat Jan 21 09:08:02 Kargen: "the round in the gun actually was a dummy round." Not actually true. The dummy round had been created badly, the bullet fell out and lodged in the barrel at some earlier stage. The round in the chamber that killed him was a dummy round: some fraction of a full charge of propellant but no bullet. Only because there was a bullet inside the barrel, the blank had something to push on.
Seb Member	Sat Jan 21 09:12:18 As I understand it, the shot they wanted was Baldwins character in a church - people looking for him, so thin and lot of close in shots, reaching into his jacket, pulling a gun, close up of him shooting toward camera. And they probably would add in the actual discharge in CG these days rather than a blank.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 22 04:38:24 Argh *"The round in the chamber that killed him was a blank round:"
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 31 16:20:38 http://www...20C.%20Hong%20%2F%20AP%20Photo
murder Member	Tue Jan 31 17:26:57 That's going to sting.
kargen Member	Tue Jan 31 17:35:41 "What's that difference that would be clear to see, given the intent is to allow high Def shots where the bullet is visible?" Dummy shells have an indented primer and usually are hollow other than a few BBs so the shell will rattle when shook. Mickey Rourke trying to defend Baldwin kind of did the opposite. "It is bullshit that an actor who is working on the set is handed a gun by somebody else whose job it is to make sure the gun is not loaded," Rourke expressed in a video. "And Alec, if he doesn't have experience in guns or whatever… usually they dry fire the gun six times in front of you. If it is me, I will take it and do it 12 more times. It's like, he is not to blame." Baldwin didn't dry fire the gun so I'm thinking he is partially to blame.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 31 18:49:56 Bad Forwyn! Can you repost last so I can delete threadbreaker?
obaminated Member	Tue Jan 31 19:51:19 Imagine the complete lack of morality and accountability he must have. He half asked a gun safety training session and ended up killing a woman with the gun he wasn't paying attention in making sure was safe. And then blames other people.
murder Member	Tue Jan 31 20:37:29 Forwyn Member Tue Jan 31 16:20:30 Why would they teach the people handling firearms how to check if it was loaded, Seb? http://www...afety-training-for-rust-2023-1 Alec Baldwin missed multiple mandatory firearms safety trainings before filming began for "Rust," prosecutors alleged in court documents filed Tuesday. Both Baldwin and the film's armorer, Hannah Guiterrez-Reed, were charged Tuesday with involuntary manslaughter in connection to the October 2021 accidental shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Santa Fe, New Mexico, movie set of "Rust," according to court documents. "Baldwin was provided only minimal training on firearms," the statement of probable cause against Baldwin reads, adding that he had "limited training" on the cross draw technique that was required for the scene he was practicing and in firearms, as well as how to check if a weapon was loaded or unloaded. The documents allege Gutierrez-Reed then scheduled a private, on-set, hour-long session with Baldwin, but the session ended up only being 30 minutes in length because "Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training," Reed told prosecutors. "The on-set and limited time of training does not comport to industry standards," prosecutors said, adding "Baldwin's failure to ensure minimum standards were met is considered reckless in the industry."
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 31 22:31:58 Why would they teach the people handling firearms how to check if it was loaded, Seb? http://tinyurl.com/Insider-Baldwin Alec Baldwin missed multiple mandatory firearms safety trainings before filming began for "Rust," prosecutors alleged in court documents filed Tuesday. Both Baldwin and the film's armorer, Hannah Guiterrez-Reed, were charged Tuesday with involuntary manslaughter in connection to the October 2021 accidental shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Santa Fe, New Mexico, movie set of "Rust," according to court documents. "Baldwin was provided only minimal training on firearms," the statement of probable cause against Baldwin reads, adding that he had "limited training" on the cross draw technique that was required for the scene he was practicing and in firearms, as well as how to check if a weapon was loaded or unloaded. The documents allege Gutierrez-Reed then scheduled a private, on-set, hour-long session with Baldwin, but the session ended up only being 30 minutes in length because "Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training," Reed told prosecutors. "The on-set and limited time of training does not comport to industry standards," prosecutors said, adding "Baldwin's failure to ensure minimum standards were met is considered reckless in the industry."
murder Member	Tue Jan 31 22:42:28 Stop trying to fix it. Only jergul can do that. :oP
jergul large member	Wed Feb 01 07:12:49 Hopefully, lets give it a go.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 07:14:19 Forwyn: For safety. But I don't think that would remove responsibility from the Armourer, even if it created some liability for the performers. Ensuring staff are trained, and refusing to let them be armed until they have satisfactorily been trained, that remains the Armourers job. I think Gutierrez case would be better if Baldwin had been trained without incident. The fact that he did not complete training is on her, not him. Would be nice if media would link to charge documents (assume these are published?) rather than their previous coverage.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 07:16:36 If anyone can find the actual charge documents that would be interesting. I can only find a billion news articles with "charge documents" hyperlinked but which lead to the last story they themselves ran on this issue, and I've got bored of trying to find them. I swear we've gone backwards on this. I blame the fucking engagement / add revenue model.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 07:17:04 We need a way to visually differentiate links within a site to links to a different site.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 08:34:58 http://twi...us/1620542042442207232/photo/1
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 08:48:18 http://firstdistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/ They are right at the top there and under "High Profile Cases" along the left hand side.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 09:48:50 "The fact that he did not complete training is on her, not him." No, its 98% on him. Hes the boss.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:04:21 The probable cause makes interesting reading. It breaks it out by his role as actor and producer (if you look back I said that would be the case). What's interesting though is there were other producers who appear not to be facing criminal charges (and had understood the producers had got away with only civil charges so assumed that the process were in place etc .) In fact it's looks like there were a lot more deficiencies in the regime that Baldwin was aware of and did not act on. I don't think the arguments made in his role as actor would stand up were it not for the fact he was a primary producer. E.g. "he didn't post attention in training" - well in that case, the armorer and 1st director shouldn't have let him have a gun. Sam: As producer - maybe (looking at the detail, in this case yes). As actor, no. Its like a driving instructor passing their boss on a driving test even though they ough to have failed it. Your job, under those circumstances is to fail them and if necessary resign. That's literally the point of safety/ other compliance officers etc.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:07:20 Reading the probable cause, I think Baldwin as producer has a lot of liability here. By which I mean if everything had gone down as it did go, but it has been John Do minor actor who had fired the gun, charges against Baldwin would be appropriate. Less convinced about hypothetical John Doe.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 11:21:41 "Your job, under those circumstances is to fail them and if necessary resign." True, thats what should have happened. But thats not easy for a young kid especially in a fuzzy field like acting. Thus i said baldwin is mostly at fault in the failed training context, and she is at fault too but not as badly. Baldwin has a lot of liability as both producer and actor.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:25:19 Re checking the bullets - it's interesting difference in wording in the two probable cause documents. In the one for Guttierez reed it states she had a duty to check - her culpability comes from a negligent failure to discharge her duty. In the Baldwin one, it says from his own statements he *knew* the gun should have been checked, and hadn't witnessed that it had been or done so himself, so his liability as the actor/shooter is recklessness. Running around boasting about being an expert here hurt him.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:27:09 Sam: Sure it's not easy. But that's her literal job. She should not have been hired and she should not have accepted. Also, being an armourer isn't acting. Acting is what actors do, and the reason you have Armourers is you don't leave gun safety to actors.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 11:27:33 They are both fucked. But he has wealth and celebrity on his side.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 11:29:28 "But that's her literal job" Indeed. And she is at fault for not doing. Im just saying the order givers are always at more fault than the order followers.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:33:46 Btw on the *knowing* part, let's say it had been John Doe minor actor that had shot the gun and not payed attention in training. I suspect he would not be facing charges for the reasons I originally thought Baldwin would avoid them. The duty is on the armorer. He can't be expected to know, and he doesn't have the duty. Baldwin's liability arises not because he's *expected* to know the safety rules, but because he clearly stated in interviews he did know the safety rules for the set and was therefore reckless to handle the gun without insisting on the armorer doing the checks. Let's say he'd done the checks himself and somehow fucked up by not recognising that the rounds were live rather than dummies - he'd probably still be liable for recklessness because he knew that the job was the Armourers, not his, and the armourer might not have made such a mistake.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:34:55 Sam: As an actor, he's not an order giver. She is. Agree it gets messy when the actor is a primary producer.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 11:37:19 Cf. How in the documents it states that while Baldwin was under instruction by the director to point the gun at the camera (and hence director and the photographer) he was reckless to do so.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 11:41:33 "As an actor, he's not an order giver." Even if he wasnt also the producer a senior actor with all the money and power verse a junior assistant is not your traditional subservient roll. That he is both producer and famaous actor... he very clearly is superior and she is very much his inferior. Which doesnt make her blamless. It just makes it worse for him.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 11:43:49 I really dont get why you are bureaucraticly trying to defend baldwin when its obvious hes made multiple key mistakes in a variety of roles clearly contributing to the death of a coworker.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 11:44:37 "But that's her literal job." Actually it's probably not. She got the job because her dad was famous in the industry for doing the same ... except his main job seems to have been teaching actors how to look good on film handling their guns rather than safety. I'm not sure that job title has any real significance. It certainly doesn't imply any real qualifications.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 11:51:40 "As an actor, he's not an order giver. She is." Boy you don't understand Hollywood at all. That movie doesn't get made without Alec Baldwin or an actor of similar stature involved. If he wants her gone, she is gone. She may as well have been in charge of refreshments.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 12:33:27 Where Gutierrez is really fucked is that "prop guns" were taken off the set and used for plinking by members of the crew. That's almost certainly where the live round was introduced. If she was unaware then it means that she wasn't securing the firearms. If she did know then she didn't make sure to clear the firearms after the fact. That is egregious enough to possibly get Alec Baldwin off even though it shouldn't.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 12:51:43 Its egregious enough that she should also be in jail with baldwin for a few months.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 13:07:40 Sam: An armorer isn't a junior assistant. It's clearly a role with significant responsibilities!
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 13:15:18 Murder: Doesn't matter how she got the job, that's her job. She might be incompetent at it, which than becomes a further issue. "If he wants her gone, she is gone." Yup, like a CEO can sack any of their CFO or indeed any of the accountants. Nevertheless the accountants and CFO have their own responsibilities legal and professional and are personally liable even if the CEO orders to do something. Your professional and legal obligation under such circumstances is to resign, and alert the authorities. If you read the probable cause against Gutiérrez they found live ammo in the holster and bandolier that Baldwin was wearing. It's pretty clear that it's not just plinking introducing live ammo onto set, the armourer failed to notice it getting into costumes and shit. Possibly she negligently put it into the bandolier and holster herself not realising that were live. I'm still interested why, given the weight of the probable cause against Baldwin is in his role as producer, why the other principle producers weren't charged also.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 13:26:50 Sam: You see this all as "defending Baldwin" - it's not. Its about understanding liabilities etc. The key point we were disputing isn't really about whether Baldwin is to blame, but where culpability arises. Some folks first time round were obsessing about pointing guns and the ultimate responsibility was on the actor to check the gun. Largely, the charging bares out what I said: actually the duty and responsibility falls to the armorer, but the producers clearly knew she wasn't up to snuff and doing her job and failed to intervene. The probable cause paints a much worse picture in terms of total failure of oversight. Baldwin as an actor admits he knew that the armorer was supposed to check the gun before he handled it and knew she hadn't and therefore ought not to have handled it and by do doing was reckless, but not negligent (this clearly means the prosecutor does not think he had culpability for not checking himself, or they would say negligent). If he could credibly claim *not* to know that, he might avoid charges of recklessness. In the cases of a less experienced actor, it would be the Armourers duty to ensure the actor understood and followed procedures and not allowed to handle the gun until they were assured that they did, so the whole thing about an actor missing / being distracted in training etc. is more a statement about the failings of the armorer. I suspect his defence on this point will focus heavily on making the case that even if he knew it was industry standard practice, it was reasonable to assume it had been done and not reckless to fail to insist it be done in front of him.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 13:27:48 "why the other principle producers weren't charged also." One other has been charged and pled guilty i thought i saw recently. "An armorer isn't a junior assistant" Wrong. A young and new one is very much a junior assistant compared with a famous actor.
murder Member	Wed Feb 01 14:46:58 "If you read the probable cause against Gutiérrez they found live ammo in the holster and bandolier that Baldwin was wearing." I don't know if she'd even be responsible for that. That seems like more of a costume thing.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 17:34:44 Sam: That was the 1st assistant director - Hall - who Guttierez reports to, who has responsibility for safety overall, and who handed the gun to Baldwin. Murder: She's supposed to handle the all dummy and blanks, so she must have given them to the costume dept. as props. She also (and part of the issue) had responsibilities for props. It all looks utterly shambolic - apparently Hall never ran safety meetings (supposed to be one a day), there were multiple accidental discharges due to Gutierrez letting people take guns who had no training. I do feel a bit sorry for her - she was clearly massively, massively lacking in the skills, training and experience for this role. So a lot comes down to the producers - especially as (according to the charging document) they were well aware of her and Hall's failings. I had sort of assumed incompetence that the producers were not fully aware of - you know cargo cult lip service to procedures and norms but not actually taking them seriously.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 01 17:39:12 Sam: "A young and new one is very much a junior assistant compared with a famous actor." Nope. They have very clear responsibilities and they can't dodge those responsibilities by saying "I was scared the big famous actor would sack me if I didn't set aside my professional judgement". Was she too immature and unexperienced for the role? Sure. Was the role junior? Nope. She had the authority to order things stopped and the duty to do so; and the duty to resign if overulled.
kargen Member	Wed Feb 01 17:42:34 "I suspect he would not be facing charges for the reasons I originally thought Baldwin would avoid them." I suspect he would be in jail as quick as possible so they could get back to production. Even people defending Baldwin admit that seeing the gun tested or testing yourself is standard protocol on set. He didn't check the gun and because of that someone died. Anybody else that handled that gun from the time it was taken from storage to the time it was shot shares responsibility and I'm guessing charges for others may be pending.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 01 23:26:14 Yes seb, she fucked up. No one is saying she didnt. I'm just saying its worse for baldwin because hes older, more experienced, and should have known better.
kargen Member	Thu Feb 02 02:08:56 Would be interesting to know if Baldwin followed proper gun handling protocols in the other movies he was in and handled a gun. I'm guessing he knew he was suppose to check the gun and just couldn't be bothered with taking the time to do it.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 02 04:48:10 Kargen: If you read the charge sheet, the issue is he knew the *armorer* should have checked the gun in front of him. Which is the point I originally made months ago. He's reckless in that. Ironically he would still be reckless if he had checked the gun and somehow mistaken live rounds for safe inert ones, because that still would have not followed the agreed procedure and training. Sam: I am not sure the law will necessarily see it that way. She had the duty to perform the checks, the duty to ensure everyone knew and followed procedures, as well as the duty not to let live rounds get on set. All Baldwin had (as actor anyway) was a knowledge he was wrong to take the gun and point it at anyone without the armorer having checked it in front of him, this making him reckless to have done so. As producer on the other hand, so many things wrong about the useless bureaucracy he ignored. Sorry, I mean the safety procedures.
habebe Member	Thu Feb 02 05:15:43 bottom line, no matter what your job, excersize caution before you start shooting people in the face.
habebe Member	Thu Feb 02 05:17:47 The irony of a guy who doesn't think US citizens should be trusted with guns because they might shoot a woman in thr face is not lost on me. Typical arrogance.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 02 05:45:52 Habebe: He's not wrong. Unintentional firearms deaths in the US are 4 times higher than in other countries.
kargen Member	Thu Feb 02 11:16:04 "If you read the charge sheet, the issue is he knew the *armorer* should have checked the gun in front of him." and when she didn't he should have checked the gun. Protocol says it is checked every time it is handed off. If the armorer gives the gun to an assistant armorer the assistant either checks the gun or watches the armorer check it. If then the assistant give the gun to the on set prop placement person the prop placement person watches the assistant check the gun or checks it themselves. When the prop placement person hands the gun to the actor the actor again either watches the gun being checked or checks themselves. Most do both first watching the gun be checked and also checking the gun. If he knew the gun should be checked why did he not insist it be checked and/or check it himself? Answer is because he didn't want to take the time. He has been on a lot of sets as an actor where guns were used as props. He also knew he had hired an inexperienced armorer. As actor even if he wasn't the producer he is at fault. Also being the producer he is at fault to a greater degree.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 02 12:02:04 Kargen: "and when she didn't he should have checked the gun" No, he should have refused to take the gun. If he could have proceeded safely by checking it himself, they would have described it as negligence, not reckless. These terms have meaning in criminal law.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 02 12:46:23 Kargen: "If he knew the gun should be checked why did he not insist it be checked and/or check it himself? Answer is because he didn't want to take the time." I think, because of your assumptions about US party politics, you are under the impression I'm trying to defend Baldwin. This is not and has not been correct. The issue is what is he criminally liable for (and on what basis). Broadly the probable cause says reckless for using the gun when he *knew* he ought to only having witnessed it being checked by the armorer. Negligent through falling to intervene when he was aware that the productions safety regime was shit and his 1st AD and armourer were incompetent. But not negligent in failing to check the gun himself. It would not have been deemed safe for him to proceed based on his own checking of the gun, equally he cannot then be criminally culpable simply for failing to check it.
kargen Member	Thu Feb 02 17:09:31 "No, he should have refused to take the gun." That would have also worked. Most say both should check. He was reckless because he didn't check it then pointed it at a person and pulled the trigger. " I think, because of your assumptions about US party politics, you are under the impression I'm trying to defend Baldwin. " Actually not what I was thinking. I am thinking you are defending people not being responsible for their own actions or lack of action. Usually prosecutors charge high and are willing to negotiate to lesser charges. Could be the case here or it could be they want to pursue the charges without a plea. Either way a DA won't (or shouldn't) sign off on the charge if they don't see sufficient evidence to do so. He failed to check the gun and/or witness that the gun was checked. That to me is beyond negligent and as he is the one that ultimately aimed and fired the gun he bears more responsibility than all others involved. Not because he was the producer or big name actor with clout but because in the end he pulled the trigger not knowing if the gun was safe or not. No reason at all he couldn't take the time to check and then dry fire the gun before practicing his draw. A person is dead because of his lack of action and also his direct action.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Feb 02 19:51:55 The lesson from these threads: No one give any guns to seb.
Habebe Member	Thu Feb 02 20:18:38 *Agrees with Sam. "No, he should have refused to take the gun. If he could have proceeded safely by checking it himself, they would have described it as negligence, not reckless. These terms have meaning in criminal law." If he is unable to safely handle a firearm himself, maybe he shouldn't handle one, let alone point it at someone's face and pull the trigger. This is not having to comprehend source code.Many actors have said it is standard procedure to check the gun themselves and to have everyone who will be put in danger of it also check it, seems simple enough.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 03 01:59:44 Kargen: "I am thinking you are defending people not being responsible for their own actions or lack of action." Closer, but I think it is more which action or inaction they are legally culpable for. "Most say both should check" What if he had checked, but mistaken the rounds as prop rounds. Would he be negligent in screwing up the check or reckless in performing a check that according to the safety procedures is insufficient for him to proceed? The bit you folks don't seem to understand is actually he ISN'T responsible for doing a check, his responsibility is not too take the gun until he has witnessed that the check has been performed by the person responsible for doing the check. ". That to me is beyond negligent" You cannot be negligent in failing or inadequately performing a task that is not your responsibility. "No reason at all he couldn't take the time to check and then dry fire the gun before practicing his draw." That would also be reckless if it resulted in an accidental discharge. Habebe: "If he is unable to safely handle a firearm himself," Well sure you have your opinions. It's not whether he's able or unable to handle a firearm. It's that all actors ought to be treated as not able to. The point of an armorer is to have responsibility for preparing, checking, storing and overseeing gun safety. Not leaving it to random individuals on set. Generally not a good idea in these circumstances to have someone else unload and reload the gun outside of their supervision because then, if something goes wrong, it's not clear whether the actor, the armorer or both are responsible for the fuck up. Legally under the circumstances you describe, the armorer would be negligent & the actor reckless in exactly the same way as the current situation.
Y2A Member	Wed Feb 08 18:43:58 Thread closed
	show deleted posts