Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

[pmv]

The problem that most seem to have is that the argument for criminal charges is illogical. Should every actor that handles a prop gun be required to be a gun expert? Has there always been an expectation that these actors be gun experts? And if the actors are required to be the gun experts, then what purpose does the armorer serve? In professional environments it is not normal to have to doublecheck someone else's work, especially when the person doing the doublechecking is not the expert.

But what about the point that Baldwin wasn't handed the gun, and told it was safe, by the armourer, but rather by someone who was not qualified to make that claim?
Seems to me it depends what the normal procedure is, and what the regulations say, but it's less that he should have checked it himself and more that he had no business pointing it and (possibly, allegedly - that point itself seems still uncertain) pulling the trigger, when he hadn't been handed it, and told it was 'cold', by that armourer.

Otherwise you would potentially have a position where anyone on the set could pass a prop gun around and wave it about and point it at people.

 

[Vic]

It’s not even a lynch mob, it’s just dishonest shitheads like Taj who are mad at him because he made fun of Trump.

I think most people on here discuss things in good faith and sometimes when they get backed into a corner descend into dishonesty and that’s not great. It annoys me when if you disagree with someone people here call you a liar because for the most part people here aren’t liars. People like @imported_tajmahal lie on purpose. He’s just not a moral person.

The funny thing about lies is that they are often not as apparent to the teller as they are to listener, as one generally cannot try to deceive others without having deceived themselves first.

 

[Pens1566]

But what about the point that Baldwin wasn't handed the gun, and told it was safe, by the armourer, but rather by someone who was not qualified to make that claim?
Seems to me it depends what the normal procedure is, and what the regulations say, but it's less that he should have checked it himself and more that he had no business pointing it and (possibly, allegedly - that point itself seems still uncertain) pulling the trigger, when he hadn't been handed it, and told it was 'cold', by that armourer.

Otherwise you would potentially have a position where anyone on the set could pass a prop gun around and wave it about and point it at people.

The vanity fair article linked earlier in here calls into question the claims that he was handed the gun by the asst/2nd unit director. There are conflicting crew statements about it. And not just from those involved.

 

[Moonbeam]

The funny thing about lies is that they are often not as apparent to the teller as they are to listener, as one generally cannot try to deceive others without having deceived themselves first.

I personally feel that the reason for this is that I do not think children can survive heavy demands for conformity to parental insanity because of the enormity of the pain it would take to resist.

The tragedy of our culture, in my opinion also, is that those of us who may have suffered less condemn those who had it worse and became the next generation of the sickest among us. Instead of explaining the situation we practice condemnation, the same they and we also experienced and were sickened by already. More of what made us sick will not cure anybody. Only self-understanding can

 

[pmv]

The vanity fair article linked earlier in here calls into question the claims that he was handed the gun by the asst/2nd unit director. There are conflicting crew statements about it. And not just from those involved.

Oh yeah, I read that, and then promptly forgot again, because I got distracted trying to work out the convoluted discussion of how the live rounds might have ended up on set. Every aspect of this case seems to be disputed and subject to contradictory accounts. Surely though the investigators will be able to definitively work out the timeline of events by the time it comes to court?

 

[NWRMidnight]

Question authority seems to be a lost principle. Well said.

What the fuck did you think you, and your fellow brain dead conservatives, with your brain dead thinking, was going to happen, when that is agenda you, and your party has pushed onto people?

Aren't you the one always bitching in various discussions like police brutality for example, claiming people should comply, and they should not question their authority? Yet here you are, saying something completely different because it doesn't serve your bullshit agenda. So which is it, do you believe people should comply with authority or question it? You can't have it both ways. For once in your life, be a man, answer the question. And don't do it with your normal, twisted, dishonest answers. Give an honesty answer.

On another note, people need to step back and realize this is a work place accident that resulted in a death. Which is how it needs to be looked at, which is how the law is going to look at it. But many of you are looking at it from a completely different perspective, applying a completely different logic to it. If we looked at all work place accidents like many of you are looking at this, we would need to double and triple our jail capacity of of the other CEO's and employees that should be charged and convicted of the same. Of course part of that is on the media, as they are portraying it in a different light than what it is due to who he is, his political views, etc, and what keeps their ratings up. Some of you are guilty of the same, except the rating part of course.

 

[pmv]

If we looked at all work place accidents like many of you are looking at this, we would need to double and triple our jail capacity of of the other CEO's and employees that should be charged and convicted of the same.

There are many cases where I find myself thinking that is indeed what should happen, though.
Grenfell comes to mind. So does Bhopal.

Maybe it should also apply to the "CEOs" who preside over unnecessary wars - like Blair and Dubya, or Nixon, JFK and LBJ.

 

[Pohemi]

'Prosecutors have said that Baldwin’s involvement as a producer and as the person who fired the gun weighed in the decision to file charges.

The filing Tuesday comes nearly two weeks after prosecutor Carmack-Altwies first announced that Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed would be prosecuted for what authorities have described as a pattern of criminal disregard for safety.'

Manslaughter charge for Alec Baldwin in 'Rust' set shooting

A Santa Fe district attorney has filed involuntary manslaughter charges against actor Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the Western movie “Rust.”

apnews.com

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It’s not even a lynch mob, it’s just dishonest shitheads like Taj who are mad at him because he made fun of Trump.

I think most people on here discuss things in good faith and sometimes when they get backed into a corner descend into dishonesty and that’s not great. It annoys me when if you disagree with someone people here call you a liar because for the most part people here aren’t liars. People like @imported_tajmahal lie on purpose. He’s just not a moral person.

Awww, did i somehow hurt widdle Eskimos feelings by having an opinion he doesn't agree with ?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What the fuck did you think you, and your fellow brain dead conservatives, with your brain dead thinking, was going to happen, when that is agenda you, and your party has pushed onto people?

Aren't you the one always bitching in various discussions like police brutality for example, claiming people should comply, and they should not question their authority? Yet here you are, saying something completely different because it doesn't serve your bullshit agenda. So which is it, do you believe people should comply with authority or question it? You can't have it both ways. For once in your life, be a man, answer the question. And don't do it with your normal, twisted, dishonest answers. Give an honesty answer.

On another note, people need to step back and realize this is a work place accident that resulted in a death. Which is how it needs to be looked at, which is how the law is going to look at it. But many of you are looking at it from a completely different perspective, applying a completely different logic to it. If we looked at all work place accidents like many of you are looking at this, we would need to double and triple our jail capacity of of the other CEO's and employees that should be charged and convicted of the same. Of course part of that is on the media, as they are portraying it in a different light than what it is due to who he is, his political views, etc, and what keeps their ratings up. Some of you are guilty of the same, except the rating part of course.

It's not an "accident" it was gross criminal negligence by the people in charge.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There are many cases where I find myself thinking that is indeed what should happen, though.
Grenfell comes to mind. So does Bhopal.

Maybe it should also apply to the "CEOs" who preside over unnecessary wars - like Blair and Dubya, or Nixon, JFK and LBJ.

Don't forget Biden and our involvement in the Ukraine. tick tick tick

 

[fskimospy]

Awww, did i somehow hurt widdle Eskimos feelings by having an opinion he doesn't agree with ?

It is pretty funny that you, as a presumably old adult thinks that my feelings are hurt by you.

That is so sad. You are totally the uncle at thanksgiving that everyone hopes doesn’t come.

 

[Tsinni Dave]

Don't forget Biden and our involvement in the Ukraine. tick tick tick

And the War on Christmas.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It's not an "accident" it was gross criminal negligence by the people in charge.

On what grounds? Because guns are involved? What does that say about you argument about guns, if guns is the determining factor? Have you ever been around industrial accidents? Ever been involved in OSHA investigations?

Of course, you once again showed you are not man enough to answer the question I presented to you in my previous post. Man up for a change, and stop acting like a little brat toddler.

 

[Pohemi]

It's not an "accident" it was gross criminal negligence by the people in charge.

Negligence does not equate to intent. Without intent, it was an accident, possibly through gross negligence that caused the death of a person. That's why it's manslaughter charges, and not murder. You can't just change the definition of the word 'accident', and apply intent just because you hate the guy involved.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Negligence does not equate to intent. Without intent, it was an accident, possibly through gross negligence that caused the death of a person. That's why it's manslaughter charges, and not murder. You can't just change the definition of the word 'accident', and apply intent just because you hate the guy involved.

classic conservative move, don’t like a word? Just make it mean something else. There’s been quite a few posters that come thru AT and do this, all apologists for bad people if there’s an R next to their name

 

[allisolm]

Baldwin's attorneys have asked for dismissal of the 5-yr firearm sentencing enhancement since the version of the law he was charged under wasn't passed until after the shooting.
They also want to "disqualify the special prosecutor in the case, asserting that her position as a state lawmaker constitutionally prohibits her from holding any authority in a judicial capacity."

IANAL but I'm thinking that doing away with the first one sounds right. I didn't think you could charge someone under a law that wasn't in existence when the "thing" (whatever it was) happened.

Don't know about the last one.

Alec Baldwin says part of shooting charge unconstitutional

Alec Baldwin has asked a judge in New Mexico to dismiss a five-year firearm sentencing enhancement in the charges against him, saying it is unconstitutionally based on a law passed after the shooting on the set of the film “Rust.”

apnews.com

 

[Paratus]

Alec Baldwin Wins Critical Battle in 'Rust' Case, D.A. Drops Gun Enhancement Charge

Alec Baldwin wins a critical battle in the "Rust" case as the D.A. drops the gun enhancement charge.

amp.tmz.com

Prosecutors dropped mandatory 5 year minimum sentence after Baldwins lawyers successfully argue law wasn’t in effect at the time.

 

[Lanyap]

Halls was the only member of the "Rust" cast and crew to enter a plea bargain.

As first assistant director, prosecutors said Halls was responsible for set safety on "Rust."

"Halls did not check every round in the gun to confirm it was a dummy round and not a live round," state prosecutor Kari Morrissey told the virtual plea hearing.

'Rust' set manager convicted in Alec Baldwin shooting case

Dave Halls, first assistant director on Western "Rust, was sentenced on Friday for the on-set shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, marking the first conviction for the 2021 fatality which shook Hollywood.

www.reuters.com

 

[allisolm]

Halls was the only member of the "Rust" cast and crew to enter a plea bargain.

'Rust' set manager convicted in Alec Baldwin shooting case

Dave Halls, first assistant director on Western "Rust, was sentenced on Friday for the on-set shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, marking the first conviction for the 2021 fatality which shook Hollywood.

www.reuters.com

"six-month suspended sentence with unsupervised probation, a $500 fine, 24 hours of community service and a firearms safety class."

Somehow I don't think that judge falls in the "tough on crime" category.

 

[SKORPI0]

Plea Bargaining in America: An Overview & Conversation [POLICYbrief] | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

 

[JEDI]

Plea Bargaining in America: An Overview & Conversation [POLICYbrief] | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

youtube video produced by the Federalist society.
arent they ultra-right wing?
ie: to be picked for supreme court as a repub, you have to be member?

 

[tcsenter]

As a gun enthusiast and CCW supporter, it is beyond a kind of pedantry IMV to suggest there is NO possible scenario where real firearms may ever be used because it would violate one of the "Five (variously Six) Rules of Gun Safety". i.e. for training or THEATRICAL (including rehearsals). So long as:

- the firearms are disabled. e.g. firing pin removed, otherwise modified that even if loaded with live ammunition, could not fire

- there is a qualified safety officer with expertise in firearms (as opposed to electrical, hazardous chemicals, safety of rigging, platforms, etc) and has AUTHORITY on set at all times when firearms are not under lock and key, who has the responsibility to ensure conditions such as no live ammunition gets used, that blank loads are kept separate and uniquely identifiable (color, label, other conspicuous marking), scenes never mix functional firearms that could fire blanks with firearms that are disabled or inert (one or the other, but never both), among other measures.

- an UNDERWRITER has approved/accepted the studio or producer's firearm safety officer as qualified, and policies or protocols that will be implemented to prevent an accident.

That's pretty much what the industry already does and did for the set of Rust. Any liability should not be on actors, anymore than a vehicle owner should be expected to double check the work of a licensed mechanic, to ensure their brake job was done properly and the lug nuts were tightened, else the car owner is liable for failing to check these things were properly done.

 

[Moonbeam]

As a gun enthusiast and CCW supporter, it is beyond a kind of pedantry IMV to suggest there is NO possible scenario where real firearms may ever be used because it would violate one of the "Five (variously Six) Rules of Gun Safety". i.e. for training or THEATRICAL (including rehearsals). So long as:

- the firearms are disabled. e.g. firing pin removed, otherwise modified that even if loaded with live ammunition, could not fire

- there is a qualified safety officer with expertise in firearms (as opposed to electrical, hazardous chemicals, safety of rigging, platforms, etc) and has AUTHORITY on set at all times when firearms are not under lock and key, who has the responsibility to ensure conditions such as no live ammunition gets used, that blank loads are kept separate and uniquely identifiable (color, label, other conspicuous marking), scenes never mix functional firearms that could fire blanks with firearms that are disabled or inert (one or the other, but never both), among other measures.

- an UNDERWRITER has approved/accepted the studio or producer's firearm safety officer as qualified, and policies or protocols that will be implemented to prevent an accident.

That's pretty much what the industry already does and did for the set of Rust. Any liability should not be on actors, anymore than a vehicle owner should be expected to double check the work of a licensed mechanic, to ensure their brake job was done properly and the lug nuts were tightened, else the car owner is liable for failing to check these things were properly done.

In my opinion the more children are blamed for things as children the more they grow up accusing others of being guilty of something. Nobody wants to face this because they don't want to open the door to those guilty feelings they had to repress as too painful to consciously live with.

 

[soundforbjt]

Prosecutors dismiss charges against Baldwin.