Current Events > Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter

(+) Yeah! (+)

He wont get jail time but he will lose civil lawsuit.

JJH777 posted...

I hope that if Alec either had any inkling of an idea that the gun was loaded with live ammunition or if he was responsible for poor safety culture on set he is charged and thrown in jail/prison.

In no way is he responsible as an actor pulling the trigger though. Holding actors accountable for shooting what they believe to be a prop gun is such a braindead take. It doesn't matter if he shouldn't have been pointing it at the camera woman. If it wasn't her it just would have been someone else during an actual scene when he's supposed to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. The fault lies with whoever allowed live ammunition on set and permitted it to be loaded into a prop gun. If he was involved in those decisions then he should burn but it has nothing to do with him being the one who pulled the trigger.

It's a very slippery slope. If you don't hold Baldwin accountable here, then what's stopping this from happening again? What's stopping another actor to fire another live round "accidentally" on a movie set, but for them to claim "they didn't know it was loaded" and skate away with no consequences?

It's braindead to not think Baldwin should be held accountable on some level here. He needs to be made an example of so this never happens again. An innocent person was killed on a film set that he was not only acting in but was producing. He fired the projectile. Claiming willful ignorance doesn't undo what happened. Obviously the armorer is far more responsible for what happened than Baldwin, and you can make the argument that Baldwin had no responsibility to what happened. But I strongly disagree. Because if you don't think an actor has any responsibility then you set a dangerous precedent and make it more likely for something like this to happen again. You allow actors to continue to not check whether their firearms are loaded, you turn a blind eye to film set safety so actors can kill people then claim willful ignorance that it was just an accident, and the cycle has a greater chance of repeating itself.

Alec may not have intended to kill, he may truly have been unaware that the gun was loaded, but he was the person that fired the projectile. He has to bear some responsibility for what happened, especially since he's been going around claiming that he didn't actually pull the trigger which FBI experts claim is impossible. If he continues to make that claim at trial under oath, that presents a problem as to his credibility which makes him more suspicious that maybe he's hiding some of the facts about what happened and playing dumb to avoid more bad publicity.

If you don't punish Alec Baldwin, not for being at fault for what happened, but for being negligent and for not taking proper precautions along with the armorer then you send the wrong message. The message that needs to be sent here is that actors are responsible as well as the armorer for checking, and double checking, that any firearm used on set is not loaded as a backup failsafe to ensure this never happens again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq6zMnG_OzA

In this interview, the prosecutors explain why they are charging Baldwin. They were asked about director Dave Halls role in this and they explained that director Dave Halls will be testifying. Alec Baldwin has indicated that Dave Halls handed him the gun and that Halls yelled "cold gun" when he gave him the gun, or at least that he was supposed to do that according to procedure. It will be interesting Dave Halls' testimony.

Because if he says that he did in fact hand him the gun and yell "cold gun" as Baldwin claimed, then he would put himself in danger of being charged criminally. If he says he didn't hand Alec the gun or yell "cold gun" then he contradicts what Baldwin says and that proves that they all didn't follow procedure.

Apparently Dave Halls the assistant director was charged with involuntary manslaughter as well but decided to take a plea deal to be guaranteed probation in exchange for testifying against Baldwin and the armorer. For him to take a plea deal suggests that he may have handed Baldwin the gun. It's unclear if he yelled "cold gun" as Baldwin said. The problem with this is that procedurally the assistant director shouldn't have ever touched the gun let alone handed it to Baldwin.

So if Halls did handle the gun, if he did give the gun to Baldwin, then why? For him to take a plea deal suggests that he may be more involved than people realize. If he handed Alec the gun, then Alec as a veteran actor who has handled guns in a ton of movies throughout his career loses the ability to claim that he was following procedure, because he would have known that the assistant directly shouldn't have ever touched the gun let alone handed it to him.

So it seems that Halls' testimony is going to be critical to understanding what happened. Either he admits to handling the gun and handing it to Alec when he shouldn't have, or he says he didn't which would contradict what Alec said. For him to take a plea deal, it makes me wonder if Halls will admit that he handled the gun when he shouldn't have to protect Baldwin.

I'm also hearing that there could not be a jury trial but that the judge could hear the case and be the arbiter here, so it could be the judge and not a jury who would find them guilty or not guilty. I'm not sure if that's true, but I heard something about how in Santa Fe they still have special covid related court measures that don't require juries in certain cases.

Surely involuntary implies he didnt do it on purpose and it was an accident. Why are people wanting someone imprisoned for something that wasnt there fault?

SHRlKE posted...

Surely involuntary implies he didnt do it on purpose and it was an accident. Why are people wanting someone imprisoned for something that wasnt there fault?

Because he's rich and he's a dickhead. It's fun to watch rich dickeheads go down.

Frankly i'd love to see him and trump share a jail cell.

SHRlKE posted...

Surely involuntary implies he didnt do it on purpose and it was an accident. Why are people wanting someone imprisoned for something that wasnt there fault?

Well at this point we don't know who's fault it was. That's what the trial's for, to get the persons responsible for the incident under oath to explain what exactly happened. No one's suggesting that any of them did it on purpose, but that their negligence and lack of taking the required precautions and procedures as to how to handle and check firearms resulted in the woman's death.

DIstance77 posted...

Well at this point we don't know who's fault it was. That's what the trial's for, to get the persons responsible for the incident under oath to explain what exactly happened. No one's suggesting that any of them did it on purpose, but that their negligence and lack of taking the required precautions and procedures as to how to handle and check firearms resulted in the woman's death.

Sometimes its just an unfortunate accident.

SHRlKE posted...

Sometimes its just an unfortunate accident.

They need to get to the bottom of it to ensure it never happens again. That's what the trial is for.

It's madness the fact that it's clearly a homicide, a live round was put in the gun and someone put it there. But clearly the investigation was dropped, and now they're settling to pin involuntarily manslaughter on the unluckiest suspect. There's no justice here.

DIstance77 posted...

They need to get to the bottom of it to ensure it never happens again. That's what the trial is for.

No, that's what the investigation is for. The trial is for if there's significant evidence of guilt, which isn't the case here.

Kami_no_Kami posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/5/AASfTXAAEGsl.jpg

lmao

Saying he should not be responsible because hes just an actor is a bad take. If actors will be handing firearms they have to be trained. If Baldwin received firearms training and still broke all four rules of firearms safety without first checking the firearm he was absolutely being reckless and is responsible. Even though no one would ever expect live ammo to be on a movie set, how someone could take a gun from someone and then proceed to break the four rules without personally checking it is beyond me, especially if that person had received any kind of professional firearms training.

Banning firearms on movie sets is also a dumb take. Weve been using firearms in movies for what, a hundred years? And we have 3 total fatalities in that amount of time? One of which may have been an intentional suicide. Its not hard to not shoot somebody on set, these incidents are all freak accidents.

JScriv posted...

Saying he should not be responsible because hes just an actor is a bad take. If actors will be handing firearms they have to be trained. If Baldwin received firearms training and still broke all four rules of firearms safety without first checking the firearm he was absolutely being reckless and is responsible. Even though no one would ever expect live ammo to be on a movie set, how someone could take a gun from someone and then proceed to break the four rules without personally checking it is beyond me, especially if that person had received any kind of professional firearms training.

Banning firearms on movie sets is also a dumb take. Weve been using firearms in movies for what, a hundred years? And we have 3 total fatalities in that amount of time? One of which may have been an intentional suicide. Its not hard to not shoot somebody on set, these incidents are all freak accidents.

Film sets have a different set of rules. That's the end of the story. The armorer, and only the armorer, checks the gun.

dj1200 posted...

Why? Because he was literally being an actor and fired a weapon unknowingly filled with live ammo?

he pulled the trigger using a gun that he didn't check was unloaded on another human being and killed them. involuntary manslaughter is what you call such an event if the person did it by accident (hence the involuntary part)

...and if you believe the gun "just went off", then I have a bridge to sell you.

SenlinDescends posted...

Film sets have a different set of rules. That's the end of the story. The armorer, and only the armorer, checks the gun.

that can be his defense if he wants, but the charge is completely reasonable

famfam posted...

that can be his defense if he wants, but the charge is completely reasonable

It's factually not because he followed all rules.

The only chance they have for the charges to go through is by holding him accountable for the hiring of an incompetent armorer, which may be justified, nobody here has any real information on that.

SenlinDescends posted...

Film sets have a different set of rules. That's the end of the story. The armorer, and only the armorer, checks the gun.

Thats nonsense, when it comes to firearms, the ultimate responsibility lies on the one handling the gun, end of story. Last I heard, the armorer wasnt even present at the time, in which case why was Baldwin even handing the firearm at all?

JScriv posted...

Thats nonsense, when it comes to firearms, the ultimate responsibility lies on the one handling the gun, end of story. Last I heard, the armorer wasnt even present at the time, in which case why was Baldwin even handing the firearm at all?

Not on a film set. End of story.

I have a dumb question: why two counts of manslaughter for killing one person?

SHRlKE posted...

Surely involuntary implies he didnt do it on purpose and it was an accident. Why are people wanting someone imprisoned for something that wasnt there fault?

Well if we can say anything I think the one thing we can say is that it damn sure wasn't intentional (or that would be some wild ass Perry Mason shit if it was). Because, as a gun shooter myself (and I know a number of you all are too), RIP to that lady...but that was one hell of a shot. Through the fucking camera lenses straight to the eye? If he had TRIED to make that shot on purpose, he most likely would not have been able to do it, I bet. But when he's feeling, loose, lazy, and...safe, like I said earlier, he let's his guard down, puts that gun anywhere, and...there's where it ended up. When you try to aim it's difficult, but of course with practice you can get good. When you're not even thinking about it, chance will apparently surprise the fuck put of you.

If you're wondering why an idiot armorer fucked up so many times yet still found jobs, it was because her father was a legendary armorer in Hollywood. So it was possibly nepotism.

I would assume theyre laying the blame on him as a producer, with their case buttressed by all of the other safety issues on set that had been reported even prior to the shooting. To the point, if I recall correctly, that all union workers left the production.

Patchwork posted...

I would assume theyre laying the blame on him as a producer, with their case buttressed by all of the other safety issues on set that had been reported even prior to the shooting. To the point, if I recall correctly, that all union workers left the production.

Ah so more an issue with negligence H&S as a whole and this being the unfortunate conclusion of that.

What a waste of the states resources.
How can you go 8 years of schooling and a law degree and reasonably believe youll get a conviction on Alex Baldwin?

DIstance77 posted...

It's a very slippery slope. If you don't hold Baldwin accountable here, then what's stopping this from happening again? What's stopping another actor to fire another live round "accidentally" on a movie set, but for them to claim "they didn't know it was loaded" and skate away with no consequences?

It's braindead to not think Baldwin should be held accountable on some level here. He needs to be made an example of so this never happens again. An innocent person was killed on a film set that he was not only acting in but was producing. He fired the projectile. Claiming willful ignorance doesn't undo what happened. Obviously the armorer is far more responsible for what happened than Baldwin, and you can make the argument that Baldwin had no responsibility to what happened. But I strongly disagree. Because if you don't think an actor has any responsibility then you set a dangerous precedent and make it more likely for something like this to happen again. You allow actors to continue to not check whether their firearms are loaded, you turn a blind eye to film set safety so actors can kill people then claim willful ignorance that it was just an accident, and the cycle has a greater chance of repeating itself.

Alec may not have intended to kill, he may truly have been unaware that the gun was loaded, but he was the person that fired the projectile. He has to bear some responsibility for what happened, especially since he's been going around claiming that he didn't actually pull the trigger which FBI experts claim is impossible. If he continues to make that claim at trial under oath, that presents a problem as to his credibility which makes him more suspicious that maybe he's hiding some of the facts about what happened and playing dumb to avoid more bad publicity.

If you don't punish Alec Baldwin, not for being at fault for what happened, but for being negligent and for not taking proper precautions along with the armorer then you send the wrong message. The message that needs to be sent here is that actors are responsible as well as the armorer for checking, and double checking, that any firearm used on set is not loaded as a backup failsafe to ensure this never happens again.

An actor should never have the opportunity to load a gun.

Following your logic we should be charging literally 10,000+ actors with criminal negligence. In 90% of movies you watch the actors aren't checking for real ammunition. In fact I doubt the majority of actors and actresses can even tell the difference between a real bullet and a blank.

XxKrebsxX posted...

What a waste of the states resources.
How can you go 8 years of schooling and a law degree and reasonably believe youll get a conviction on Alex Baldwin?

I wasn't aware of all the other reports of negligence that had gone on and apparently Baldwin was pretty high up in terms of who was in charge as producer so I kinda get it now.

A lot of the time things like this end up being settled out of court.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

From the first item...

"1. There was real, live ammo on set. "

I think that is probably one of the most major fuck ups on this scene.

Funny enough, Baldwin's biggest defense, the fact that he was supposedly told they were "cold rounds" might not hold up either. The person he's accused of telling this to him may testify against it, and there's no real evidence to definitively prove otherwise.

But yeah it ain't looking good for him. They're not exactly aiming for some prison sentence, but it's unlikely Baldwin will ever come out of this unscathed. At least there will be a few years of more strict regulations on guns on set after this too

legendarylemur posted...

Funny enough, Baldwin's biggest defense, the fact that he was supposedly told they were "cold rounds" might not hold up either. The person he's accused of telling this to him may testify against it, and there's no real evidence to definitively prove otherwise.

But yeah it ain't looking good for him. They're not exactly aiming for some prison sentence, but it's unlikely Baldwin will ever come out of this unscathed. At least there will be a few years of more strict regulations on guns on set after this too

His first strange ass defense was that he cocked the hammer but didn't pull the trigger. Even if that's true it'd just make the whole tragic thing even more bizarre.

Hard to not find Alec a little guilty if he knew enough about gun safety and depending whether or not he even checked with the Armorer or even asked if all the guns were cleared or checked. They're weapons, even with blanks in them.

Then again, the set sounds like a bunch of people didn't give a fuck. A bunch of incidents on set with misfires, people taking the prop gun off site for target practice. Just a big dumb mess.

How hard is it to check the gun yourself before you pull the trigger? Does it take one second? Five seconds? Sure seems like an insignificant amount of time compared to how many years the victim was robbed of.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

How hard is it to check the gun yourself before you pull the trigger? Does it take one second? Five seconds? Sure seems like an insignificant amount of time compared to how many years the victim was robbed of.

Are you stupid?

Its not his job to do it. They have people literally hired to do that. They flat out tell you not to tamper with it.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

Are you stupid?

Its not his job to do it. They have people literally hired to do that. They flat out tell you not to tamper with it.

I mean the set had been plagued with so many safety issues that the crew went on strike, it would behoove oneself to doble check...just to make sure.

I mean, I guess he could have checked. Though, he might have actually been told not to. That said, would checking have done anything? Wasn't the gun suppose to be loaded with blanks? Not everyone would know the difference. If anything, he would probably trust the crew to make sure there weren't real bullets in there...

What is supposed to happen is the armorer checks the gun with the actor present, often directly showing the actor the dummy or blank rounds, before declaring the gun is cold and handing it off to the actor. Apparently nothing like this happened, the AD simply handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it cold himself, the armorer was not around at the time. Gross negligence all around. Also keep in mind that this set has already been plagued with safety issues, complaints were made, and previous to this incident there were two times when a gun that was supposedly cold (which means no blanks, nothing loaded whatsoever) went bang. So again, its insane to me that Baldwin wouldnt take the few seconds needed to ensure the gun was indeed cold before using it. Its extremely easy to tell the difference between live ammo and dummy rounds or blanks. With a revolver you dont even have to open it.

Id say for some people, its easy to tell Not everyone will always know the difference between blanks and real bullets, though

Fair enough, but again it was supposed to be a cold gun, which means blanks should not have even been in it. I misspoke in my previous post. A cold gun should not have blanks, but may have dummy rounds, which are also different and easily distinguishable from live ammo. Even blindfolded you can tell if you have dummy rounds because they rattle when shaken.

There are reports that the movie guns were being used for recreation after-hours, taken to the range and actually used to fire live ammo. This is another catastrophic safety failure, movie guns should never be used in this way while filming because it introduces a mechanism for live ammo to be put in the gun and possible left in there.

While I would say its probably easier to tell the difference of a dummy round compared to a blank, thats again, not always true for everyone Someone who doesnt use weapons a lot might not know Thats assuming everyone knows everything about weapons and ammoThough, if it was suppose to be cold, a quick check might have been nice

And I think people using it after hours was probably a pretty big mistake

Sheiky-Baby posted...

What happened with the Brandon Lee accident back in the day? Was anyone charged/sued for that fiasco?

Brandon Lee was slightly differently. A fragment of a previous blank cartridge was left midway in the muzzle and the fired blank pushed it out. The armorer checked the chambers but didn't check the muzzle. If the muzzle had been clear, there would have been a harmless puff of smoke. Instead, the misspent previous blank turned into a projectile and killed Brandon Lee.

It was negligence, but you could see how it could have happened. The fragment was lodged in a place where even a responsible gun owner wouldn't normally check for when seeing if a gun is loaded. The worst you could say is that as a professional armorer, he should have foreseen the possibility.

This is a far cry from Baldwin's set, where live ammo ended up in the prop gun, which is completely mind-boggling and gross in its stupidity.

For me the biggest stand out is live ammo on the set. Why would they do that? It's like if they had a heroin junkie scene, and some of the syringes had dummy heroin and others had real. And the AD hands him a syringe and says shoot this one up it's clean, unlike all these other fuck ups that have real heroin for some weird ass reason.

Wouldn't it be ironic if forensics show that there was rust in the chamber...