Alec Baldwin Just Indicted on Two Counts of Involuntary Manslaughter

a reply to: network dude

it is possible for a fire arm to malfunction and upon inspection, testing and be found in working order.
one example, back about 15 years ago, maybe longer there were reports of SKS firing multiple rounds (slam firing), one of the causes turned out was dirty trigger group.

besides, if memory serves the first time the FBI inspected the revolver they only fired it once, and said that it was also possible that it could fire if hammer was jarred. it was also claimed and denied they destroyed / broke and couldn't test it any more.

“The gun fired in testing only one time — without having to pull the trigger — when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places,” Nikas said. “The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition.”

FBI’s ‘Rust’ shooting analysis leaves key questions unresolved

“The defense’s unexpected statement in the status hearing today that the gun had been destroyed by the state may be a reference to a statement in the FBI’s July 2022 firearms testing report that said damage was done to internal components of the gun during the FBI’s functionality testing. However, the gun still exists and can be used as evidence.”
Prosecutors deny claim by Alec Baldwin’s lawyers that authorities destroyed gun in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

so what happen between then and now. if it was destroyed/ broke before complete testing was done how could with 100% certainty say it was working correctly.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: network dude

if it was destroyed/ broke before complete testing was done how could with 100% certainty say it was working correctly.

There's the 'Reasonable Doubt' Baldwin's lawyers will use to get him off.

As an actor on a set I don't belive he is responsible. It would be impossible to make movies if actors followed normal gun safety rules.

However as a producer he has to have some responsibility for tthe massive safety failures that allowed this to happen.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

I don’t want to live in a society where people who can’t do anything but play make believe have more rights than me.
And why should anyone of us participate in such a society?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

However as a producer he has to have some responsibility for tthe massive safety failures that allowed this to happen.

true only if he didn't follow up on reports of poor performance of crew, or told crew to cut corners. which there was reports of but not sure what became of it. if the revolver was damaged during play time by the crew before being used on set, or loaded incorrectly by crew and not inspected before handed to the actor by at least two other people that are paid to ensure that it was safe how can it be his fault.

he relied on their professionalism, you can't expect a CEO do do every job in a company, unless your self employed and they only person in it.

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

I don’t want to live in a society where people who can’t do anything but play make believe have more rights than me.
And why should anyone of us participate in such a society?

It isn't anything to do with rights.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

However as a producer he has to have some responsibility for tthe massive safety failures that allowed this to happen.

true only if he didn't follow up on reports of poor performance of crew, or told crew to cut corners. which there was reports of but not sure what became of it. if the revolver was damaged during play time by the crew before being used on set, or loaded incorrectly by crew and not inspected before handed to the actor by at least two other people that are paid to ensure that it was safe how can it be his fault.

he relied on their professionalism, you can't expect a CEO do do every job in a company, unless your self employed and they only person in it.

If unqualified or incompetent people are employed , particularly for safety roles, then yes the CEO is responsible. The very fact it happens strongly suggest that was the case here.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Naive

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Naive

Care to elaborate?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

This is all about drilling home to the plebs that we have a two tiered justice system.
You never point a gun at something you don’t intend to destroy. You are responsible for the bullet, the target, and anything behind the target.
Your argument would set dangerous precedent.
Well, the precedent has already been set by the way this situation has been handled. I just refuse to accept it.
A society is based on mutual agreements.
If you don’t understand any of this, you probably were blindsided by the normalization of pedophilia after gay marriage became legal.

The charge "involuntary manslaughter" is exactly what this situation is for. He didn't intend to kill or harm anyone, but did because of direct action on his part. It's like a person rolling big boulders down the mountain just to see what happens and having it run over a tent full of campers.

In no way does this belong in the "Oh well" category that they threw it in before.

According to reports early on, he was having a what appeared to be a good humor argument/conversation with the victims and said "How about I just shoot you?" then pulled the trigger twice. If they could have proven this, he would be looking at negligent homicide. This charge is designed for this circumstance when negligence can't be proved. Unless they have the recording somewhere, he should feel very lucky to just get a short stint in the pen.

I have tried to look at this as just some random Joe doing it as I have no love for Alec.

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

This is all about drilling home to the plebs that we have a two tiered justice system.
You never point a gun at something you don’t intend to destroy. You are responsible for the bullet, the target, and anything behind the target.
Your argument would set dangerous precedent.
Well, the precedent has already been set by the way this situation has been handled. I just refuse to accept it.
A society is based on mutual agreements.
If you don’t understand any of this, you probably were blindsided by the normalization of pedophilia after gay marriage became legal.

Gun safery is not about rights.

It would be impossible to shoot a movie using guns without breaking normal gun safety rules. They are a special case which is why having proper safety rules are so important. Not having real guns and live ammunition on the same set seems a good start to me.

I won't even dignify the last paragraph with a response other than say that if you really need to demonstrate your own ignorance and bigotry so badly then set up a thread on it. Try and keep to the topic of this one.

originally posted by: Halfswede
The charge "involuntary manslaughter" is exactly what this situation is for. He didn't intend to kill or harm anyone, but did because of direct action on his part. It's like a person rolling big boulders down the mountain just to see what happens and having it run over a tent full of campers.

In no way does this belong in the "Oh well" category that they threw it in before.

According to reports early on, he was having a what appeared to be a good humor argument/conversation with the victims and said "How about I just shoot you?" then pulled the trigger twice. If they could have proven this, he would be looking at negligent homicide. This charge is designed for this circumstance when negligence can't be proved. Unless they have the recording somewhere, he should feel very lucky to just get a short stint in the pen.

I have tried to look at this as just some random Joe doing it as I have no love for Alec.

If it can be shown that this was Baldwin messing around then that is different from him performing normal part of film rehearsal.

However the main problem still seems to be that proper safety processes weren't in place to make sure that live ammunition and a real gun were never going to be used in an environment where people can't follow normal gun safety rules.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

This is all about drilling home to the plebs that we have a two tiered justice system.
You never point a gun at something you don’t intend to destroy. You are responsible for the bullet, the target, and anything behind the target.
Your argument would set dangerous precedent.
Well, the precedent has already been set by the way this situation has been handled. I just refuse to accept it.
A society is based on mutual agreements.
If you don’t understand any of this, you probably were blindsided by the normalization of pedophilia after gay marriage became legal.

I won't even dignify the last paragraph with a response other than say that if you really need to demonstrate your own ignorance and bigotry so badly then set up a thread on it. Try and keep to the topic of this one.

This is about society breaking down because of slippery slopes. Myself and many other are going to refuse to participate in a society where actors get away with premeditated murder and drag queen story hour is considered a good thing. Be offended. Call me a bigot. I care about society and the children and future than this fake virtue.
Alec Baldwin had the live rounds on his person. Tim Pool covered all this. I’m not here to make friends.
I’m here to speak the truth.
There was no need for real guns or ammo.
Your argument is moot.

a reply to: Myhandle

There was no need for real guns or ammo.
Your argument is moot

Since that was my point I am not sure how that makes my argument moot.

However that is a decision for the production team, not the actors.

Baldwin culpability is for his failure to ensure a safe working environment. Who actually pulled the trigger is almost irrelevant.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: Myhandle

There was no need for real guns or ammo.
Your argument is moot

Since that was my point I am not sure how that makes my argument moot.

However that is a decision for the production team, not the actors.

Baldwin culpability is for his failure to ensure a safe working environment. Who actually pulled the trigger is almost irrelevant.

I don't think it's cut and dry at all. Involuntary Manslaughter seems to fit the situation, but as the OP noted, there is a "get out of jail free" card in that the weapon was damaged by the investigation, and had to be repaired.

Baldwin shot the woman. That is undisputed. The gun used was loaded with a live round, that is obvious. Who's fault it is will likely fall on several people who were negligent in their duties. To me, the largest issue that exists, is having live ammo for a real gun, that was supposed to be used as a prop. The guy in charge should have never let that happen. Who was ultimately in charge?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: Myhandle

There was no need for real guns or ammo.
Your argument is moot

Since that was my point I am not sure how that makes my argument moot.

However that is a decision for the production team, not the actors.

Baldwin culpability is for his failure to ensure a safe working environment. Who actually pulled the trigger is almost irrelevant.

I don't think it's cut and dry at all. Involuntary Manslaughter seems to fit the situation, but as the OP noted, there is a "get out of jail free" card in that the weapon was damaged by the investigation, and had to be repaired.

Baldwin shot the woman. That is undisputed. The gun used was loaded with a live round, that is obvious. Who's fault it is will likely fall on several people who were negligent in their duties. To me, the largest issue that exists, is having live ammo for a real gun, that was supposed to be used as a prop. The guy in charge should have never let that happen. Who was ultimately in charge?

That is broadly my point. The actor isn't responsible for making sure the gun is safe to use. If the role calls for him to point the gun at someone then that is his job. If it was a driving scence and the car had defective breaks I wouldn't blame the actor for a crash.

However Baldwin was also a producer so is at least partially responsible for making sure the set is safe. If real guns where required for realism then it should be impossible for live ammunition to be present when shooting scenes like this.

I can’t believe a firearms expert loaded a weapon with a real bullet instead of a blank. All the blanks I’ve shot (No comments from the peanut gallery pls) are crimped at the end and very distinctive.

It doesn’t take an expert to tell the difference between blanks and live rounds , even a novice should notice something isn’t right when loading 2 different bullets in a revolver 1 bullet at a time.

In my opinion the expert who was hired to handle the weapons on set should be held responsible.

originally posted by: Enduro
I can’t believe a firearms expert loaded a weapon with a real bullet instead of a blank. All the blanks I’ve shot (No comments from the peanut gallery pls) are crimped at the end and very distinctive.

It doesn’t take an expert to tell the difference between blanks and live rounds , even a novice should notice something isn’t right when loading 2 different bullets in a revolver 1 bullet at a time.

In my opinion the expert who was hired to handle the weapons on set should be held responsible.

Absolutely.
No brainer telling a blank from a real round. Shape, size, weight all very much different.
I’m sure they had dummy rounds on set. They look exactly like a real round but with no powder, completely inert.
A real round was loaded instead of a dummy round.
There should have only been two types of ammo on that set, or any set. Dummy and blank.
There should never even have been real rounds on the property. Complete fail by those crew members and Alec.