Alec Baldwin facing prison and shouldnt be.

[motionclone]

I dont like his politics or stance on gun rights but i dont think he should have to do any jail time for what happened. It seems the person that loaded up the gun with actual bullets or the person that was supposed to check the gun for having the correct ammunition is fully to blame.(The Armorer)

Yeah he was dumb for pointing a gun and having his hand on the trigger but hes an actor using the gun on an acting job so its a prop to him not a deadly weapon. Should have never been allowed to be a deadly weapon on the movie set. It was the armorers job to make sure it was a prop not a gun.

 

[The Evil Twin]

I don't know about jail time, but he bears some responsibility in my opinion. There are checks and balances (according to my old neighbor in the movie industry‐ Law & Order SVU) that should be followed. The actor is supposed to be present when the armorer performs the final check to determine which firearm it is; prop, blanks or live fire. The actor is supposed to verify the weapon when they take possession. And of course, you never put your booger hook on the loud button until you are intending to fire.

 

[GeoHorn]

Yep. He’s not a gun-enthusiast …he’s an actor …and actually is completely unknowledgeable about guns.
His comment that he never pulled the trigger…(he reasonably may believe that)…. isn’t a lie. It’s a belief. He was “acting” like a shooter…not actually trying to shoot a director who is behind a camera trying to develop a great camera-angle.

The idiot, incompetent, amateurish “armorer” …. who actually had taken that and other prop-guns to shoot them with real ammo…then returned with them to the movie-set….is the real culprit.

I’m hoping the selected jury is intelligent enough to see that as an actor who was handed a “prop” and was attempting to realistically portray an active-shooter with a “cold movie prop”…. will see his innocence.

Unfortunately, as we said when I was in law-enforcement, “You can beat the rap…but you can’t beat the ride!” Baldwin will suffer thru an improper accusation, wrongful indictment, and expensive ride.

(And he is doubtless suffering doubly…having to go thru this …as well as the deep regrets of the loss of life the scene became because of the criminally-incompetent ”armorer”.)

Even if he is found innocent of this charge…he will doubtless still face a civil suit from the deceased estate/family because he was a co-producer who ultimately shares in the liability of hiring that idiot.

 

[skeets]

It WAS his responsibility to make sure it was safe, and yes there is enough blame to go around

 

[lynnmor]

When I was big enough to hold a gun, my Dad taught me to NEVER point it in the direction of another person no matter if it was loaded or not. Crybabies need to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[fried1765]

I dont like his politics or stance on gun rights but i dont think he should have to do any jail time for what happened. It seems the person that loaded up the gun with actual bullets or the person that was supposed to check the gun for having the correct ammunition is fully to blame.(The Armorer)

Yeah he was dumb for pointing a gun and having his hand on the trigger but hes an actor using the gun on an acting job so its a prop to him not a deadly weapon. Should have never been allowed to be a deadly weapon on the movie set. It was the armorers job to make sure it was a prop not a gun.


View attachment 94994

We obviously differ significantly on this issue.!
ALL REAL guns should be treated as loaded guns,..... until verified unloaded by the holder of the gun!
The armorer did not pull the trigger!
Baldwin claims he did NOT pull the trigger either....HUH ?????

 

[Biker1mike]

He picked up a gun. He pointed it at a person. He pulled the trigger. A person is DEAD.
Stupid in no excuse.
Perhaps no jail but there should be consequences.

 

[hodge]

Everything prior to his handing of the firearm is irrelevant. He was the final one in control. He did not check it. He aimed it at another person. He pulled the trigger. He is responsible. I don't believe that it was premeditated or intentional, but he is still at fault. He should pay, appropriately.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

I'd like to see him be found guilty and rot in jail for '25 years to life'.

He IS guilty of NOT checking the firearm when handed to him..
He IS guilty of pointing a pointing a firearm at a person
He IS guilty of PULLING THE TRIGGER and KILLING the girl

3 strikes and he's out.

However,he WON'T spend one second in jail...probably get off with doing 24 hours of 'community service' IF he's convicted of anything. Hollywierd types have gotten away with lots of things, murder isn't any different.

Yes others( the person who brought live ammo onto the set, the amrourer who loaded the live rounds, the guy who carried the firearm onto the set,maybe 1-2 more ?) need to be convicted as well but in the end HE PULLED THE TRIGGER AND KILLED SOMEONE.

 

[GeoHorn]

. He did not check it. He aimed it at another person..

No, he did not aim it an another person. He aimed it at a camera-lens. The director stood behind he camera lens to see what the camera would see.
If it were Baldwins’ responsibility to check it and if he did not check it in front of everyone…why would the director stand in front of it?
OF COURSE it was not Baldwins error.

Movie props are designed to be realistic. Even the ammo in the movie-prop is designed to be realistic. (A revolver, viewed from the front, will display the ammo in the cylinders….so the movie-prop-ammo must also appear realistic. It must even produce a muzzle-flash..and then as the cylinder rotates to the next round…the just-fired round must appear to have discharged a projectile (bullet).

Actors…whether they are portraying a Doctor cutting open a heart in a surgical-scene… or a gunfighter shooting directly at a camera-lens…are not realistically knowledgeable about the profession they are portraying, ….and. must rely upon the prop-managers/armorers …to assure that the prop is safe. THIS is WHY a professional “armorer” is employed at movie sets.

An actor cannot be expected in a fake-scene gun-fight to ….”hold it…. ”CUT!”….while I check this to see if the person charged with its’ safety…..the armorer who has just-assured me it is safe…... and me, a person who, anyway is not gun-savvy…and who therefore doesn’t really know how to check it for safety… ..OK, now… “Action!” …then demonstrate a quick-draw-and-shoot scene….purely in an attempt to see if the camera angle is good for the actual “shoot” of the film….

No. It’s not Baldwins’ fault. I’m surprised that folks here who I presume are gun-savvy would think so.

It will be an interesting trial to follow.

 

[NCL4701]

Seems to me Baldwin’s responsibility, if the law/jury accepts the argument that the actor bears no responsibility (a position I have a hard time completely swallowing as someone who has used firearms for 45 years), is complicated by the fact that he wasn’t “just an actor” but also a producer. He was, to my limited knowledge, the armorers boss. It’s difficult for me to believe a producer who has overall responsibility for the production who is also the person who aimed and fired the gun has zero responsibility for the outcome. If there is truth to the allegations that there had been similar accidents on set with live ammo which hadn’t previously caused injury are true, seems there would be some responsibility at the feet of the producers, at least civilly if not criminally. It isn’t helpful to his defense that he comes across to many as an entitled and generally unlikable person.

Also think with all the butt covering and scapegoating that would typically follow such an incident, the full truth of who did what and who was responsible for what will not be fully known prior to trial if it’s ever known. While I have a very hard time envisioning a realistic scenario where Baldwin is faultless both as actor/trigger man and producer, I also have some difficulty convicting him in my mind of murder v manslaughter v negligent homicide without more confidence in the details of what transpired on set prior to and at the time of the shooting.

 

[hagrid]

Who hired that armorer anyway?

 

[hodge]

Movie props are designed to be realistic. Even the ammo in the movie-prop is designed to be realistic. (A revolver, viewed from the front, will display the ammo in the cylinders….so the movie-prop-ammo must also appear realistic. It must even produce a muzzle-flash..and then as the cylinder rotates to the next round…the just-fired round must appear to have discharged a projectile (bullet).

Actors…whether they are portraying a Doctor cutting open a heart in a surgical-scene… or a gunfighter shooting directly at a camera-lens…are not realistically knowledgeable about the profession they are portraying, ….and. must rely upon the prop-managers/armorers …to assure that the prop is safe. THIS is WHY a professional “armorer” is employed at movie sets.

An actor cannot be expected in a fake-scene gun-fight to ….”hold it…. ”CUT!”….while I check this to see if the person charged with its’ safety…..the armorer who has just-assured me it is safe…... and me, a person who, anyway is not gun-savvy…and who therefore doesn’t really know how to check it for safety… ..OK, now… “Action!” …then demonstrate a quick-draw-and-shoot scene….purely in an attempt to see if the camera angle is good for the actual “shoot” of the film….

No. It’s not Baldwins’ fault. I’m surprised that folks here who I presume are gun-savvy would think so.

It will be an interesting trial to follow.

It's clear that you are not gun savvy. I don't want to be anywhere near you with a firearm present.

 

[GeoHorn]

Who hired that armorer anyway?

Who hired the taxi-driver that recklessly ran-over and killed the pedestrian while he was taking you to your destination?

 

[GeoHorn]

It's clear that you are not gun savvy. I don't want to be anywhere near you with a firearm present.

I taught firearms safety at the PPC course for the police dept I worked at.

I’m NOT a movie producer, director, or actor tho’.

And there’s no reason to turn this into a hateful ad hominem attack.

 

[fried1765]

Who hired that armorer anyway?

ALEC BALDWIN !!!!

 

[GeoHorn]

ALEC BALDWIN !!!!

I guess all those airline crashes must be the Passengers’ Fault…..

 

[The Evil Twin]

Movie props are designed to be realistic. Even the ammo in the movie-prop is designed to be realistic. (A revolver, viewed from the front, will display the ammo in the cylinders….so the movie-prop-ammo must also appear realistic. It must even produce a muzzle-flash..and then as the cylinder rotates to the next round…the just-fired round must appear to have discharged a projectile (bullet).


It will be an interesting trial to follow.

There are 3 types of 'ammo' on sets:
Blanks. Charged with powder and primer but are crimped at the end instead of having a bullet. Also foam plugs are used in place of a crimp.
Brass. Discharged (or never loaded) casings that resemble a spent round.
Dummy. Look real and have a bullet but have never been loaded with a primer or powder charge. Instead, there is a pellet in the case that rattles if shaken. This identifies it as a Dummy.
Firing a blank in a revolver will allow it to appear as a spent round as the cylinder indexes to the next round (a dummy round). It doesn't take a genius to check for a rattle.
It will be interesting for sure.

 

[John T]

Who hired that armorer anyway?

One Word,
NEPOTISM.... Just like a LOT of unqualified people in hollywood.

Her father was a long time professional armorer...
and she got the golden ticket.

She is not much of a professional though... A quick search on line and all you find is pictures of her showing off her T&A posing with pistols and displaying ugly tattoos...
25 years old.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed


I haven't really followed this, but if I hope she gets slapped with a huge civil suit. along with Baldwin.

 

[hagrid]

I'm gonna bite that spider before it can scurry away.