Alec Baldwin: on-set 'Rust' shooting - NEW UPDATE

[eustace_stelio]

View attachment 1471807
Alec Baldwin done it. Btw, who the hell names their kid Alec anyway?

I actually like some of Alec's work as an actor. Beetlejuice and 30 rock are great. The hunt for red October was good. At least better than Stephen's biodome and Young Guns credits

As far as his shooting this poor woman I really don't care one way or the other. I'm confident he won't see any real jail time from it. I mean even if he was a far right conservative he's still a rich celebrity. He'll walk.

 

[Kruel J]

I actually like some of Alec's work as an actor. Beetlejuice and 30 rock are great. The hunt for red October was good. At least better than Stephen's biodome and Young Guns credits

As far as his shooting this poor woman I really don't care one way or the other. I'm confident he won't see any real jail time from it. I mean even if he was a far right conservative he's still a rich celebrity. He'll walk.

He does have some good work out there. Red October is fantastic and he did a great job.


That said, he's a rotten person. Not just the shooting, but the way he treats people even and including his own daughters. I mean even if he was a far right conservative he'd still be a POS human being with zero sympathy from me. And you're right, he'll probably walk while Danny Masterson is facing 30-life for whatever those girls remembered he did 20 years ago. Makes perfect sense.

 

[eustace_stelio]

He does have some good work out there. Red October is fantastic and he did a great job.


That said, he's a rotten person. Not just the shooting, but the way he treats people even and including his own daughters. I mean even if he was a far right conservative he'd still be a POS human being with zero sympathy from me. And you're right, he'll probably walk while Danny Masterson is facing 30-life for whatever those girls remembered he did 20 years ago. Makes perfect sense.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm curious as to why FBI testing would result in the pistol being damaged or broken.

I have seen a few post around the web that the FBI hit the back of the cocked hammer with another hammer or mallet to see if that would make the hammer fall, but none of the post I have seen quote a source or provide evidence that it was this testing that damaged the hammer, or even that the hammer / sear were not damaged prior to this testing

 

[DunRanull]

View attachment 1471807
Alec Baldwin done it. Btw, who the hell names their kid Alec anyway?

"Alec" is generally a nick for "Alexander" IIRC. Al and Alex are others, as is Zander in some foreign countries. Not a totally unknown name. Had I been named "Alexander", I would have changed it to the Persian form "Sikander" and told ya'll to go to hell...

 

[dangerranger60]

If the prosecutor decides to pursue the case based on the new forensic testing, then the defense will be able to make a case that the gun was modified after the incident. Following is an excerpt from the AP wire story on the testing.

"The new gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI."

They'll argue that the replacement parts repaired the "defect" that originally led to the shooting and nullify the results of the testing. The prosecutors should rely on the original FBI report which said the gun could not have fired without pulling the trigger.

I'm curious as to why FBI testing would result in the pistol being damaged or broken.

The way this come into court is, Baldwins case was dropped, But he has alleged that the armorer tampered with the gun making it unsafe.
So in her case she uses the FBI testing that showed that the gun only fired when the trigger was pulled, and added another labs evidence that the springs were correct and intact and that the gun was not tampered with in an unsafe manor.
Now once this is accepted by the court as evidence in her case, refuting Baldwins allegation that she tampered with the gun the court has to accept the evidence as fact in Baldwins case , and the DA is then open to refile their case against him with this new evidence.
And all because Baldwin could not keep his own mouth shut! DR

 

[Flopsweat]

The way this come into court is, Baldwins case was dropped, But he has alleged that the armorer tampered with the gun making it unsafe.
So in her case she uses the FBI testing that showed that the gun only fired when the trigger was pulled, and added another labs evidence that the springs were correct and intact and that the gun was not tampered with in an unsafe manor.
Now once this is accepted by the court as evidence in her case, refuting Baldwins allegation that she tampered with the gun the court has to accept the evidence as fact in Baldwins case , and the DA is then open to refile their case against him with this new evidence.
And all because Baldwin could not keep his own mouth shut! DR

None of us saw that coming. The idiot's been running his mouth from the get-go, and couldn't shut up even after he won.

 

[The Heretic]

Prosecutors investigating 'Rust' shooting intend to bring involuntary manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin before a grand jury

This comes five months after special prosecutors dismissed this same charge against Baldwin citing “new facts” in the case.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Pandaz3]

Certainly, needs to be done to let Hollywood know you must consider safety. They don't always get it right though, I remember the Vic Morrow mess where they hung the pilot and not the 'special effects' man who overcharged that explosion. Here they are getting the Armorer and the Shooter.

 

[eustace_stelio]

Even if they charge him he ain't gonna see any jail time. Just wasting taxpayers money at this point.

 

[Flopsweat]

Even if they charge him he ain't gonna see any jail time. Just wasting taxpayers money at this point.

Even if he doesn't serve any time, he'll be prohibited from owning or even holding a firearm. He'll have to use fake guns in any movie stupid enough to take him.


edit: sp

 

[Cavedweller]

I mean even if he was a far right conservative he's still a rich celebrity. He'll walk.

Far right conservative? You are joking, right? Or is this just a poorly worded hypothetical?

"One of Alec's biggest political talking points over the years has been gun control."

Alec Baldwin's Political Views and the Controversy Surrounding Them

An exploration of Alec Baldwin's political affiliations and recent controversy.

thepoliticswatcher.com

 

[Flopsweat]

Far right conservative? You are joking, right? Or is this just a poorly worded hypothetical?

"One of Alec's biggest political talking points over the years has been gun control."

Alec Baldwin's Political Views and the Controversy Surrounding Them

An exploration of Alec Baldwin's political affiliations and recent controversy.

thepoliticswatcher.com

I took it as a hypothetical.

 

[eustace_stelio]

Far right conservative? You are joking, right? Or is this just a poorly worded hypothetical?

"One of Alec's biggest political talking points over the years has been gun control."

Alec Baldwin's Political Views and the Controversy Surrounding Them

An exploration of Alec Baldwin's political affiliations and recent controversy.

thepoliticswatcher.com

Poorly worded? How should've I have written it then?

I meant that even if ole Alec was far right Trump supporting conservative he would not be convicted. As a far left liberal they sure as hell won't convict him.

 

[Cavedweller]

Poorly worded? How should've I have written it then?

I meant that even if ole Alec was far right Trump supporting conservative he would not be convicted. As a far left liberal they sure as hell won't convict him.

OK. I'm with you now. I thought that might be what you meant but I wasn't sure.

Something like. "Even if he were a far right conservative rather than a far left liberal, he still would not be convicted because of his celebrity status," would have been clearer.

"When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences."

“Was” or “Were” in the “If” Clause/Conditional

The correct choice between was and were in an if clause…

www.grammarly.com

I took it as a hypothetical.

I guess you are smarter than I am.

 

[eustace_stelio]

OK. I'm with you now. I thought that might be what you meant but I wasn't sure.

Something like. "Even if he were a far right conservative rather than a far left liberal, he still would not be convicted because of his celebrity status," would have been clearer.

"When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences."

“Was” or “Were” in the “If” Clause/Conditional

The correct choice between was and were in an if clause…

www.grammarly.com

I guess you are smarter than I am.

I gave up on my proper grammar and syntax once I finished uni, at least on forums and social media anyway. After thousands of pages of essays I tend to write in a haphazard vernacular nowadays.

 

[Flopsweat]

...

I guess you are smarter than I am.

Well duh.


More seriously, you'll probably get the next one before me. Plus you admit when you're wrong. So you got that on me.

 

[lucusloc]

Certainly, needs to be done to let Hollywood know you must consider safety. They don't always get it right though, I remember the Vic Morrow mess where they hung the pilot and not the 'special effects' man who overcharged that explosion. Here they are getting the Armorer and the Shooter.

Are they going after the armorer? Because honestly that is the person who bears the most direct culpability. She was the specialist in charge of firearms safety on the set. Now I agree that Baldwin also shares in this culpability, but not in his capacity of an actor handling a firearm, but rather in his capacity as a producer who did not replace the armorer after another safety issue on set in the previous weeks. Baldwin only has minor culpability as an actor handling a firearm, in that he was waving around a "prop" gun and acting brashly outside the directive of the designated armorer.

Remember, on sets it is assumed that the actors are dumb plebes who know nothing about the equipment they are being asked to use on set. This is why on properly run sets there are specialists for everything, from the firearms to cars to animals to special effects and even rigging. Actors are expected to trust the experts and follow directions, and not much else. The set of Rust (by all accounts) failed in these basic safety protocols, with little oversight on any of the safety gear or specialty situations. There was no discipline, no oversight and, obviously, no knowledge by the people actually handling the props.

While it is nice to bash on the anti-gun Baldwin for his ignorance (and in most any other circumstance this would be appropriate), in this case, in his capacity as an actor, he was trusting someone else to provide that safety. He was told it was a safe gun by the person in charge and he acted accordingly. The fact that he was acting out on set is of little consequence, as there would have been a similar incident if he had been following directions to the letter and pointed the gun at a fellow actor for the take. The fact that there was a hot gun on the set at all is the root of the problem, not Baldwin's temperamental outbursts.

Of course, as I said before, Baldwin does hold ultimate responsibility for the safety of the set as the producer in charge, but he would bear that responsibility regardless of if he pulled the trigger or not.

 

[Flopsweat]

Are they going after the armorer? Because honestly that is the person who bears the most direct culpability. She was the specialist in charge of firearms safety on the set. Now I agree that Baldwin also shares in this culpability, but not in his capacity of an actor handling a firearm, but rather in his capacity as a producer who did not replace the armorer after another safety issue on set in the previous weeks. Baldwin only has minor culpability as an actor handling a firearm, in that he was waving around a "prop" gun and acting brashly outside the directive of the designated armorer.

Remember, on sets it is assumed that the actors are dumb plebes who know nothing about the equipment they are being asked to use on set. This is why on properly run sets there are specialists for everything, from the firearms to cars to animals to special effects and even rigging. Actors are expected to trust the experts and follow directions, and not much else. The set of Rust (by all accounts) failed in these basic safety protocols, with little oversight on any of the safety gear or specialty situations. There was no discipline, no oversight and, obviously, no knowledge by the people actually handling the props.

While it is nice to bash on the anti-gun Baldwin for his ignorance (and in most any other circumstance this would be appropriate), in this case, in his capacity as an actor, he was trusting someone else to provide that safety. He was told it was a safe gun by the person in charge and he acted accordingly. The fact that he was acting out on set is of little consequence, as there would have been a similar incident if he had been following directions to the letter and pointed the gun at a fellow actor for the take. The fact that there was a hot gun on the set at all is the root of the problem, not Baldwin's temperamental outbursts.

Of course, as I said before, Baldwin does hold ultimate responsibility for the safety of the set as the producer in charge, but he would bear that responsibility regardless of if he pulled the trigger or not.

I know this has been gone over rather thoroughly, but I can't agree that it's not mostly his fault. You're handling a deadly weapon and you are the last chance for safety. He literally pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. There is no way I'd have done that even before I had ever a weapon, when I was very young. It's just stupid.

 

[lucusloc]

I know this has been gone over rather thoroughly, but I can't agree that it's not mostly his fault. You're handling a deadly weapon and you are the last chance for safety. He literally pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. There is no way I'd have done that even before I had ever a weapon, when I was very young. It's just stupid.

But this happens all the time in movies; guns are pointed at fellow actors and triggers are pulled. It is just that on a properly run set nothing actually happens and all the "bad stuff" associated with such an action is handles in post (or with other practical effects on set).

Remember, this is not just about guns, it is about every potentially dangerous object on set. Do you think every actor should know how to check a pneumatic jump pad? How about validate the safety of a drop rig? Maybe they should all be knowledgeable on the safety radius for a fireball mortar for any given load?

Actors cannot be expected to be proficient, or even base level competent, with every danger on set. Just because for you or I firearms handling is second nature does not mean it will be for every actor. They need to be able to rely on a certified safety manager for that device or situation, and if they are told that device or situation is safe when it clearly is not, that incident is less on the actor and more on the safety supervisor.

Baldwin was told the gun was safe. He was also given precious little direction on safe handling by the armorer. If he had been then he would be more culpable, but given the circumstances there is little difference between this situation and if he had been told to shoot at someone for a scene. The error is in set safety, and that falls to the armorer for the production, and to the producer who holds ultimate responsibility for set safety. It is that capacity that I think Baldwin should be charged (as well as his armorer as co-defendant), and he should be charged in that capacity even if he had not been the one to pull the trigger.

This is actually decently well established liability law for such productions. I do fear, given this precedent, that if he is charged in his capacity as an actor that he may escape the bulk of liability. And given how broadly our judicial system treats the concept of double jeopardy he may not be eligible to be tried under his more well established liability as the producer.