-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins With Real Gun
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
BlackTron
Member
You're missing a very critical logical connection here. It's like I'm talking to your avatar.
"He should go to jail because he did something unsafe you should never do, and it killed someone!"
"Well, never do it unless you're filming a movie, but even then, wait until you know the condition of the weapon!
"Well, even if someone told him the condition of the weapon when they handed it to him, he should have made sure everyone did their job for extra sure, using telepathy and time travel!"
"There is simply no conclusion for neglect this severe but throwing the bum in jail!!!!!"
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
You make this sound like such an easy black-and-white statement (textbook involuntary manslaughter) but then immediately start giving scenarios the above is actually OK, so it isn't so black-and-white is it. Killing someone on the freeway while going 120MPH is vehicular homicide. Getting in a crash during NASCAR is a tragedy that occurred during the course of your normal job duties. When it's your job, going 120 is fine. When it's your job, pointing a gun at a camera is fine.
Here's a better analogy, a food tester who confirms the food is safe to eat and is walking around, but never tested it. Consequently the King's family drops dead. The public blame the King for serving his family poisoned food, while the food preparer and tester lurk in silence. Why? Because the King is a big public divisive figure that people love to complain about and judge.
The smartest smoothbrains say "The King should have made sure the food was not poisoned first. This is textbook"
TDiddyLive
Member
So straw man arguments are all you have? Completely ignoring my entire explanation? Bad faith arguments like the one you presented here show you don’t care about logic, only your predetermined conclusion.
Let me break it down in a way that you can comprehend if you decide to listen to logic:
Handling a firearm is inherently dangerous. If all parties involved agree that a gun is to be pointed at a living person, the people involved need to have a trained professional, such as an armorer, walk them through the safety procedures to prove the firearm is safe. The parties involved can discuss any concerns and questions. Once everyone is shown the firearm is safe and everyone is comfortable, then they can safely proceed. That did not happen, so the firearm was handled in a reckless manner which led to death. That is where the involuntary manslaughter charge comes from.
BlackTron
Member
This is where the disconnect is taking place. You're using generic terms like "once everyone is shown". But for Alec Baldwin to be pointing a gun, the only person who needs to be shown is him. He's getting ready to act, not going around checking cameras to make sure people did the job they say they did. The guy has made many movies. After the 500th time a gun passes through an armorer before being handed to you and told it is safe, are you going to say "wait, I'm uncomfortable...this time. I think you might be lying to me. Just this one time, double check". If he did that every time he was handed a weapon and told "cold gun", people would think he was weird and too hard to make movies with.
Edit:
1. The prop company was not supposed to deliver live rounds (they did)
2. The armorer's job was to ensure there were no live rounds in it anyway, just in case (she didn't)
3. The assistant director confirmed "Cold Gun" and I can't see the reason where doubt would enter Baldwin's mind at this point to hold up the operation for fire concerns. After all, the system of not delivering live rounds, having someone on payroll to make sure, and receiving verbal confirmation worked for the rest of his career. Everyone else around him is there for a job so he can focus on his, acting. Who knows if he even knows how to check the gun or clear the chamber. He's an actor, not an armorer and his concern is to get HIS job done while surrounded with people draining the clock (who didn't do their job...)
Last edited:
TDiddyLive
Member
A couple points:
Baldwin wasn’t the only person that needed to be shown the gun, as shown by the fact he shot people, which means the gun was pointed at them. If they agreed that was what he was going to do, they all should have checked. If it was not agreed upon ahead of time, then that’s another terrible thing entirely. So not only did he not inspect the gun, neither did they. But they weren’t the ones handling it in a dangerous manner, he was, so the consequences would fall on him.
When an armorer hands an actor a gun, they should check it regardless of comfort level. It’s not about trusting them, it’s about safety. Humans make mistakes. An extra set of eyes, taking a couple seconds to verify, can prevent catastrophic results.
Trilobit
Member
So I'm watching the whole shabang where everything unfolds after hour 2 and it's serious popcorn material.
The defender on the right can barely contain his glee over the situation. He must have realized that this was in the bag at that point.
His reaction when the judge says she wants to question a witness, which I presume isn't too common:
Then some time in hour 3 when the prosecutor keeps skirting the real issue about withholding evidence. It doesn't matter according to US law whether it's exculpatory or not. The defender can barely contain himself lol.
(Sorry for PS watermark, on my phone now)
The defender on the right can barely contain his glee over the situation. He must have realized that this was in the bag at that point.
His reaction when the judge says she wants to question a witness, which I presume isn't too common:
Then some time in hour 3 when the prosecutor keeps skirting the real issue about withholding evidence. It doesn't matter according to US law whether it's exculpatory or not. The defender can barely contain himself lol.
(Sorry for PS watermark, on my phone now)
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer but I think the argument goes something like this. The state(IE the prosecutor) has a huge amount of resources to go after someone. Through out history this power has been regularly abused to go after people the government didn't like for one reason or another.(Or were just unpopular) So the American legal system has been setup specifically to try to prevent this from happening as much as possible. This means numerous safe guards specifically to prevent abuses of power and very much ensure the defendant gets a fair trial and gets their rights. (Because it's so easy to abuse and it's so dangerous once the state decides to go down this path.) The state has the time and resources to do this stuff right so because of this point of view they'd better do things right. (Specifically to prevent abuses of power.)
Anyway the way I like to think of it is I'm more worried about some corrupt prosecutor going after me since I wouldn't have the legal resources to fend this off than I'd be worried some rich POS getting away with something against me because of his lawyers. (I look at this case the same way as the Cosby case. By Cosby's own admissions he's a drug pusher who likes to cheat on his wife and people went after him because of a small part of his politics. However that shouldn't make it ok to railroad him with some pretty unethical behavior because if they can get away with it on Cosby and Baldwin I've got no chance in hell.)
BlackTron
Member
It is true that you can be more safe by double-checking someone else's work, but it's not criminal neglect. Especially when it is the literal one job of another person to ensure it is safe to handle. Baldwin is an actor, not a weapons master. While it would certainly be extra brownie points to put on an extra weapons master hat, he was behaving under the pretenses that it was a prop and therefore not being handled dangerously, as he had many times before.
I think that if I was really good with guns (reload as fast as Master Chief) I would recheck everything. If I didn't have much experience with guns and didn't like them (me) I would let the armorer hand me the gun and do my acting. That is why they are different professions with an additional person on the payroll.
It's literally in "My Cousin Vinny" that you can't do this. BTW they did that nonsense in the Rittenhouse case too. (Plus violations of 5th amendment protections.) So yeah, the hope is that the judges tamp down on this to prevent malicious prosecutions.
The armorer sole job is to make sure the weapons on set are ready and safe for use in the scenes. If the armorer hands you a weapon, you can only assume they have tested the weapon and it's ready for use and that it is safe to use for the scene at hand. That is LITERALLY THEIR JOB.
Yes, they do and in this case the armorer made a big mistake doing her JOB.
That's the WHOLE point of hiring an armorer, for that fact that they're the ones who are qualified in handling weapons and making sure they're safe.
That Morrissey lady is gonna disappear, then get hired by a nebulous consultancy firm and collect a paycheck for the rest of her life, courtesy of the Baldwin Foundation.
And I've still never seen a good breakdown of what was SUPPOSED to happen that day on set. He points the gun at the camera (and the two crew behind it) and pulls the trigger and the gun goes CLICK? Was it supposed to have a blank? Was he not supposed to pull the trigger in that scene at all, maybe just thumb back the hammer and draw? Was it a rehearsal with the crew behind the camera then he was to do it 'for real' with the camera now operated remotely?
And I've still never seen a good breakdown of what was SUPPOSED to happen that day on set. He points the gun at the camera (and the two crew behind it) and pulls the trigger and the gun goes CLICK? Was it supposed to have a blank? Was he not supposed to pull the trigger in that scene at all, maybe just thumb back the hammer and draw? Was it a rehearsal with the crew behind the camera then he was to do it 'for real' with the camera now operated remotely?
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
So what do you guys think, does Baldwin stay quiet and with the fam for a long while before attempting to re enter Hollywoood?
MayauMiao
Member
Probably do what Kevin Spacey did. Lay low until the hype dies down and slowly coming back into smaller roles.
IMO, I never understood why some is seeing him as a murderer for something he unintentionally did.
BlackTron
Member
People love to dogpile on high-profile people who they either don't like or are massively more successful than them.
That's it.
phant0m
Member
Glad to see it. Not really a fan of him but so many horrendous takes in here from people that think this guy should go to prison because 3 other people failed to do their jobs.
LimanimaPT
Member
Totally this.
Who ever thought that Alec was at fault here knows nothing about nothing.
BlackTron
Member
I don't care about Baldwin one way or another as a person or an actor but I am actively incensed that people think he is a criminal over this.
If people said that Vladimir Putin was a criminal for doing this I would call bullshit. Even being a criminal over everything else, that's not the point.
Jinzo Prime
Member
He wasn't proven guilty or innocent, the charges were dismissed. The title is still factually correct.
BlackTron
Member
The title would be factually correct even if he was proven innocent...there doesn't appear to be a single soul on the planet that contests that Alec Baldwin killed this woman with a real gun, including himself.
BlackTron
Member
I'm watching and just...woah. First I have to say, a lot of what I said before isn't 100% accurate...well depending on what you believe.
For example...I previously said that the gun was delivered from the prop company with ammunition (which I got from somewhere). But after the DA revealed the story about the withheld evidence and made the case that it should be dismissed based on the prosecutor's incessant violations, the prosecutor came out with a different story. Part of her explanation involved the armorer asking if it's okay to practice firing live rounds in prop guns and being told no.. But wait -if the prosecutor is trying to pin the blame on Baldwin, what is she doing? Well, part of the DA's story about the prosecution hiding evidence involved another party stating they wanted to get the armorer fired, but didn't know how. Now, the prosecutor must discredit the whole thing at all costs.
Who knows what is true, and what is bull at this point? What a fiasco!
Edit: You can really feel how nervous the prosecutor is. She knows she is in trouble and is trying to keep it together. The fear is palpable.
For example...I previously said that the gun was delivered from the prop company with ammunition (which I got from somewhere). But after the DA revealed the story about the withheld evidence and made the case that it should be dismissed based on the prosecutor's incessant violations, the prosecutor came out with a different story. Part of her explanation involved the armorer asking if it's okay to practice firing live rounds in prop guns and being told no.. But wait -if the prosecutor is trying to pin the blame on Baldwin, what is she doing? Well, part of the DA's story about the prosecution hiding evidence involved another party stating they wanted to get the armorer fired, but didn't know how. Now, the prosecutor must discredit the whole thing at all costs.
Who knows what is true, and what is bull at this point? What a fiasco!
Edit: You can really feel how nervous the prosecutor is. She knows she is in trouble and is trying to keep it together. The fear is palpable.
Last edited:
Eiknarf
Banned
Don’t know if this was posted
It’s new
www.tmz.com
It’s new
Alec Baldwin Breaks Silence on Shocking 'Rust' Case Dismissal
Alec Baldwin's finally ready to talk about the his manslaughter trial ... posting a grateful tribute to his friends and fans who stuck by his sides.
www.tmz.com
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
He was handed a weapon by the armorer who is the person in charge of weapons on movie sets. The armorer never mentioned there was live ammunition in the gun.
It's not his responsibility to make sure the gun is safe for use, that is literally the job of the armorer.
Also, another actor on set "Jensen Ackles" ALSO had live bullets that he was NOT aware of in his bandolier.
Live bullet found in prop holster of actor Jensen Ackles on ‘Rust’ set, crime scene technician testifies | CNN
One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.edition.cnn.com
This is entirely the armorer's fault.
Didn't know there was another gun with live rounds in it!
Toons
Member
Anyone Arguing you at this point just wanted to see him go down because of his politics. Its objective from every angle that he wasn't responsible for the condition of the gun.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I still think he deserves some punishment since this was HIS production.
I get the argument that he should have double checked the contents of the revolver... I do. Especially after what happened to Brandon Bruce Lee. But he didn't.
The prosecutor effed up with withholding evidence and filing it under another case file... Actions like that have put innocent people in prison and SOME of them have only been freed because it was FOUND the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence... There's plenty of cases you can find online of this happening. The prosecutor is 100% the reason this case fell apart.
Baldwin WILL be sued eventually by her family, most likely and it'll be settled out of court. Her family deserves compensation for their loss. I know her husband settled and got producer credit and financial compensation but her family she grew up with deserves something too.
I get the argument that he should have double checked the contents of the revolver... I do. Especially after what happened to Brandon Bruce Lee. But he didn't.
The prosecutor effed up with withholding evidence and filing it under another case file... Actions like that have put innocent people in prison and SOME of them have only been freed because it was FOUND the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence... There's plenty of cases you can find online of this happening. The prosecutor is 100% the reason this case fell apart.
Baldwin WILL be sued eventually by her family, most likely and it'll be settled out of court. Her family deserves compensation for their loss. I know her husband settled and got producer credit and financial compensation but her family she grew up with deserves something too.
MayauMiao
Member
Mostly cause he is a sanctimonious prick who posts shit like this
Karma is real
Even I don't like him but deep down we know he had no intention to kill. Maybe it will get him to be more humble on Twitter.
BlackTron
Member
When you discuss a crime and the most important details are, who did it, was it a man or a woman, what is their race, and what are their politics?
OK no that's fine you can stop there, already formed my opinion, you can stop talking now.
Edit: I had to add this quote I just picked up from a locked thread:
See what I mean? We're discussing Alec Baldwin's criminal case, which has nothing to do with politics but nobody can see anything outside of a political lens.
Thinking that Alec Baldwin is not guilty for this crime does not make you D. Believing he is guilty does not make you R. Either of these scenarios are plausible based merely on your understanding of the case itself. FFS.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
I thought I was done but I just came across this tidbit from an article written late last year about him getting re-charged. Wasn't looking for anything crazy but uhh...
What in the actual fuck? I thought the purpose of prosecuting someone was to pin them for a crime you believe they have committed? Not to "humble" them by going through the problem of the trial because you think they were a dick while talking about a completely unrelated event? Yeah it's nothing but "a source familiar" but it's easy to believe at this point.
What in the actual fuck? I thought the purpose of prosecuting someone was to pin them for a crime you believe they have committed? Not to "humble" them by going through the problem of the trial because you think they were a dick while talking about a completely unrelated event? Yeah it's nothing but "a source familiar" but it's easy to believe at this point.
Trilobit
Member
Insane if true. This is why there is such strict rules when prosecuting people. It's so easy for the state to make up shit and abuse the system. Imagine a prosecutor having a personal vendetta against you and you aren't rich enough for stellar lawyers.
BlackTron
Member
No surprise the judge tossed it with prejudice and a prosecutor resigned in the middle of the day.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
So I'm watching the whole shabang where everything unfolds after hour 2 and it's serious popcorn material.
The defender on the right can barely contain his glee over the situation. He must have realized that this was in the bag at that point.
His reaction when the judge says she wants to question a witness, which I presume isn't too common:
Then some time in hour 3 when the prosecutor keeps skirting the real issue about withholding evidence. It doesn't matter according to US law whether it's exculpatory or not. The defender can barely contain himself lol.
(Sorry for PS watermark, on my phone now)
Imagine the amount of incompetence to withhold evidence in a highly public trial. What foolishness.
Toots
Gold Member
Makes a lot more sense when you realize the prosecutor is in fact a deep undercover agent of the clinton foundation intelligence network whose only mission was to make sure Alec wasn't in jail for the november election so he can assassinate Trump during inauguration (which he'll attend as Biden +1).
Im kidding and believes in Occam's razor of course. It's baffling how the pettiness and hubris of the prosecutor seems to be even greater than Baldwin's overinflated ego...
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Makes a lot more sense when you realize the prosecutor is in fact a deep undercover agent of the clinton foundation intelligence network whose only mission was to make sure Alec wasn't in jail for the november election so he can assassinate Trump during inauguration (which he'll attend as Biden +1).
Im kidding and believes in Occam's razor of course. It's baffling how the pettiness and hubris of the prosecutor seems to be even greater than Baldwin's overinflated ego...
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
For anyone that thinks "Baldwin was just handed a gun, it ain't his fault!", go listen to the 2019 podcast "Inside of you...with Michael Rosenbaum" with the legendary Bruce Campbell as a guest. He talks about set safety culture and how to properly block and stage on set pyro, squibs, and gun handling. If you think an AD handing you a REAL GUN and saying "it's safe, go have fun" is somehow OK for an actor/producer versus having to personally verify the safety of said gun EACH AND EVERY TIME it is handled, clear your mind and hear what other actors are saying. YES Alec should have checked it himself, NO he should not have pointed it directly at crew, NO he should not have pulled the trigger.
He wasn't the only one to blame, but he certainly has a fair chunk of it.
He wasn't the only one to blame, but he certainly has a fair chunk of it.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Pretty insane stuff and im glad the prosecutor was exposed. The main fuck up was by the armorer who was already found guilty.
lets hope Alec Baldwin makes a sizeable payment to the family of the victim instead of being take to court over it. its ultimately his fault for hiring that woman. be a man and pay $10 million.
lets hope Alec Baldwin makes a sizeable payment to the family of the victim instead of being take to court over it. its ultimately his fault for hiring that woman. be a man and pay $10 million.
Last edited:
NecrosaroIII
Ultimate DQ Fan
Sucks she's probably going to get her conviction overturned because of this.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Unless there is some evidence showing that Alec Baldwin having intent of was aware of the live rounds...I really don't see why there is even a case.
Accidentally killing someone is punishment enough, unless you believe he is cold and has no morals he is probably going to be punished each day by himself.
And compensation is probably something he'll do anyway.
Daneel Elijah
Member
If Alec had been found drinking that day, would your opinion stay the same?
As a producer he was also in a position to react to any lapse in security on set. If rules have been broken, and it seems they have been, he should have acted before it got to a deadly conclusion. This is the problem. The situation should not have happened. Multiple protections had been in place, and failed. Some (most) of those had been the armorer fault, but the actors had a part in it too. And Alec did fail to do what he was supposed to do. The rest is procedural, but yes for me he should face consequences, not just pay the family to shut them up.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Thats involuntary manslaughter. Thats an actual charge. Mostly applied to fist fights that result in death.
The only way to get him for involuntary manslaughter for her death wouldve been if he knew the gun had live rounds and was mucking about trying to be a joker on set and the gun accidently misfired.
Right now, the only person at fault for involuntary manslaughter is the armorer.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Why would this make any difference to prop that wasn't supposed to be lethal under any circumstances in an Actors hands.
Being the producer doesn't change anything.
Exactly, this whole witch hunt to punish someone for a situation like this is mind blogging.
It's what I expect from the victims family sure because a lost like this, accident or not is always met with unreasonable mindset due to emotions.
But this whole mentality that's being displayed here is what's wrong with the world.