Baldwin Charged Again With Manslaughter

[FL-NC]

If you shot it, you own it- no re-do's. Incompetence is not an excuse- full stop. Glad the shooter is being held accountable.

 

[Speedo66]

While you're absolutely correct, I choose to go with a simple, professional assumption that the people involved in all this are simply there doing their jobs. We can always spice things up soap opera style, but I'll leave that to come out in the wash after the investigation/trial stuff takes place.

You’re probably right, but based on my experience as a former state LEO who worked in NYC for 40 years, all I can say is “you never know”.

 

[Styx]

I collect prop guns, some of which were found at the filming site.
The ones that might actually get pointed at someone were totally incapable of firing anything.
Most had no moving parts.
Others had electronic noise makers that could be used to cue special effects.
If Baldwin hired a prop master that allowed a loaded, functional revolver on a live set then he should be found culpable for anything that resulted from that error of judgement, regardless of who pulled the trigger and who was killed or injured.

You get it... The issue is that everyone else who os commenting are ignorant for how things work on a set, who's responsible for what, what is allowed and not allowed, etc.. Most are ignorant on the topic, so they're applying what they do in their daily lives and at the range to what the "think" Baldwin should have done while on a movie set.

It doesn't matter how you personally handle firearms. On set the armorer is considered to be the firearm expert and is charged with the safety of the actors and firearms on the set. There are protocols that are supposed to take place on set and ways things are done. The armorer makes sure the firearm is disabled and safe, they hand them to the actors who typically know less about firearms, and the armorer is supposed to collect the firearms when done. If anyone is act fault it should solely be the armorer unless there's other circumstances were the actor bypassed protocols or tampered with the firearm which is something they should never do.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the propmaster/armorer had done their job, ensuring no live ammo was on set when it was not required, that no live ammo was in the gun when it was not required, that an actor was not handed a loaded gun and told it was safe to treat it as an inert piece of metal (at least 3 different ways they could have prevented it), then this would not have occurred.

That is, of vourse, true.

But realistically speaking, no one in either position could have so ensured. There is no way that any individual could have ensured that there were no live rounds on the property. That would be an impossibility.

No matter what they did or could have done, unless they actually accompanied the gun to thet rehearsal, and witnessed it's having been handed to the actor, there is no way that either the armorer or the property master could realistically have been expected to ensure that the gun did not contain a live round at the time it was used in the rehearsal. The last two people to have had the ability to do so were the assistant director and the actor himself.

'The armorer had not been allowed on raw; the gun had been unattended, anyone who had access to it could have inserted a live round into it.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that what was known to be an actual firearm was pointed directly at another human being, that it was made to fire, and that if resulted in a death.

According to Attorney Andrew Branca. that makes Baldwin culpable of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law. Contributory negligence by others may well have existed, but that cannot exonerate Mr. Baldwin.

I do not believe that the SAG can be reasonably considered imparial at this point.

 

[Styx]

That is, of vourse, true.

But realistically speaking, no one in either position could have so ensured. There is no way that any individual could have ensured that there were no live rounds on the property. That would be an impossibility.

No matter what they did or could have done, unless they actually accompanied the gun to thet rehearsal, and witnessed it's having been handed to the actor, there is no way that either the armorer or the property master could realistically have been expected to ensure that the gun did not contain a live round at the time it was used in the rehearsal. The last two people to have had the ability to do so were the assistant director and the actor himself.

'The armorer had not been allowed on raw; the gun had been unattended, anyone who had access to it could have inserted a live round into it.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that what was known to be an actual firearm was pointed directly at another human being, that it was made to fire, and that if resulted in a death.

According to Attorney Andrew Branca. that makes Baldwin culpable of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law. Contributory negligence by others may well have existed, but that cannot exonerate Mr. Baldwin.

I do not believe that the SAG can be reasonably considered imparial at this point.

The details and facts matter. Yes, he pointed firearm at another person and pulled the trigger which are the only facts you want to focus on. What matters is that he was on a movie set, in the process of rehearsing a scene, and he was handed a firearm he thought was safe. IMHO, had this been some unknown actor, they would have never been charged as they should not be.

I see Baldwin getting off if justice is served. The person who was responsible for the firearm is the one who should have to face the consequences for what happened. Maybe it was impossible to insure no live ammo was on the property, but it was NOT impossible for the armorer to do his job and make sure no live ammo was around or loaded into the firearms he was in charge of.

 

[Meeks36]

So simple, even a caveman can do it.

I’m 100% sure some cavemen where smarter then that turd.

 

[MEHavey]

I see Baldwin getting off if justice is served.

And I (for one) do not see this happening as a slam-dunk.
.
Being handed what is known to be a fully-functional weapon...
...aiming it at a human,
...cocking the mechanism,
...and (as we know from tests) pulling the trigger....
. . . without "due caution and circumspection . . ."

places the Reasonable Man test through some considerable stress.

 

[Justin]

And I (for one) do not see this happening as a slam-dunk.
.
Being handed what is known to be a fully-functional weapon...
...aiming it at a human,
...cocking the mechanism,
...and (as we know from tests) pulling the trigger....
. . . without "due caution and circumspection . . ."

places the Reasonable Man test through some considerable stress.

Except for the fact that there is wide leeway given when doing things that are dangerous if it's being done as part of film or television production.

 

[MEHavey]

there is wide leeway

Again... Reasonable Man will come into play, and judged not by a bunch of actors, but but everyday citizens of New Mexico.

As noted prior: "but everybody does it..." will be thrown against the wall as a defense.
... and jury members will ask themselves whether that was in their own experience... reasonable.

 

[Kleanbore]

What matters is that he was on a movie set, in the process of rehearsing a scene

Why do you believe that that would that matter? The law makes no exclusions for movie sets--or for police departments. gun shops, gun ranges, or your back yard.

and he was handed a firearm he thought was safe.

That doesn't matter, either. Do you think that you would succeed in using that for your defense?

The person who was responsible for the firearm is the one who should have to face the consequences for what happened.

Baldwin assumed that responsibility when he took the gun in his hand.

it was NOT impossible for the armorer to do his job and make sure no live ammo was around or loaded into the firearms he was in charge of.

That would be true--could be true--while and only while the armorer was present, and in effective control of the weapon.

 

[Justin]

Again... Reasonable Man will come into play, and judged not by a bunch of actors, but but everyday citizens of New Mexico.

As noted prior: "but everybody does it..." will be thrown against the wall as a defense.
... and jury members will ask themselves whether that was in their own experience... reasonable.

Then it will be based on whether the lawyers can make a compelling argument that the standard rules don't apply within the context of filming a movie.

 

[MEHavey]

based on whether the lawyers can make a compelling argument that the standard rules don't apply

Concur.
(Were me, however, that would be a hard sell in this particular set of circumstances
given the totality of what was transpiring across the board on that set.)

 

[theotherwaldo]

If anyone is act fault it should solely be the armorer unless there's other circumstances were the actor bypassed protocols or tampered with the firearm which is something they should never do.

I disagree.
Baldwin is a fault for hiring an incompetent prop master, based on her relationship to his friends rather than her training or record.

 

[ilbob]

I disagree.
Baldwin is a fault for hiring an incompetent prop master, based on her relationship to his friends rather than her training or record.

That is a common practice everywhere. I don't see how it is criminal. It might create some civil liability.

 

[Justin]

I disagree.
Baldwin is a fault for hiring an incompetent prop master, based on her relationship to his friends rather than her training or record.

Yeah. The obvious thing that most of the "MUH FOUR RULES" crowd are missing with this case are that Baldwin hired an incompetent/inexperienced armorer, not that he was the one that pulled the trigger.

It's an issue of workplace/movie set safety protocols instead of shooting range safety rules.

 

[danmc]

This forum is a good prediction of the eventual outcome of any trial- there will not be a unanimous decision from a jury.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yeah. The obvious thing that most of the "MUH FOUR RULES" crowd are missing with this case are that Baldwin hired an incompetent/inexperienced armorer, not that he was the one that pulled the trigger.

Under the circumstances, no armorer, no mattee how competent or how experianced, acting under that direction of that producer, not having been present at the rehearsal, and not having had continuous control of the firearm could have ensured that the gun would not have fireed when it did.

It's an issue of workplace/movie set safety protocols instead of shooting range safety rules.

It is a matter of the law.

BUT the SAG guidelines do state that the actor is ultimately responsible, and that no one should ever point a real gun at any person. I'm sure that the prosecutor will make that point, should it come to that, should the defense try to contend otherwise.

This forum is a good prediction of the eventual outcome of any trial- there will not be a unanimous decision from a jury.

No one on this forum has heard the arguments, seen the evidence, been given the New Mexico jury instructions. or been charged with the duties of a trial court jury.

 

[Justin]

Under the circumstances, no armorer, no mattee how competent or how experianced, acting under that direction of that producer, not having been present at the rehearsal, and not having had continuous control of the firearm could have ensured that the gun would not have fireed when it did.

The job of the armorer is to keep track of the firearms at all time, and to ensure proper safety procedures are being followed. They do this in concert with the AD. The armorer has admitted to basically having no experience, to not following proper industry safety procedures. And if the armorer was not present for rehearsal, the guns should have been locked up. It's also my understanding that the director had done things that were unsafe on a previous production.

It is a matter of the law.

BUT the SAG guidelines do state that the actor is ultimately responsible, and that no one should ever point a real gun at any person. I'm sure that the prosecutor will make that point, should it come to that, should the defense try to contend otherwise.

It'll boil down to whether they were following proper film production safety procedures on set, and whether Baldwin could reasonably expect he could point a blank-loaded firearm into the lens of a camera. Plenty of what would be considered unsafe and/or illegal activities are undertaken in the production of movies and tv pretty much every day, which is why the industry has developed specific rules for how those activities are undertaken.

 

[Justin]

This is an interesting video from a propmaster who does film and tv production in Austin, TX, and he talks about how guns are handled on a set.

 

[Styx]

Why do you believe that that would that matter? The law makes no exclusions for movie sets--or for police departments. gun shops, gun ranges, or your back yard.

That doesn't matter, either. Do you think that you would succeed in using that for your defense?

Baldwin assumed that responsibility when he took the gun in his hand.

That would be true--could be true--while and only while the armorer was present, and in effective control of the weapon.

It's not his responsibility, it was the armorers job and responsibility to make sure the firearm was safe. Period. End of story. You can debate how you think and feel things should be, but that's not how it works in the industry and it's nor how it ever worked.

Next, there's a reason why the charges were downgraded and then dropped finding no wrong doing a year ago. They do not have a case, and it's going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

 

[Kleanbore]

The job of the armorer is to keep track of the firearms at all time, and to ensure proper safety procedures are being followed.

Quite obviously, that can only be done while the armorer has control of the firearms. That was noot the case here, and the breakdown was beyond the control of the armorer.

It'll boil down to whether they were following proper film production safety procedures on set,

When the actor pointed the gun at the cinematographer, he was not following the published guideline.

Plenty of what would be considered unsafe and/or illegal activities are undertaken in the production of movies and tv pretty much all the time

Where did you get that idea? Where in the law is that stated?

 

[Justin]

It's not his responsibility, it was the armorers job and responsibility to make sure the firearm was safe. Period. End of story. You can debate how you think and feel things should be, but that's not how it works in the industry and it's nor how it ever worked.

Next, there's a reason why the charges were downgraded and then dropped finding no wrong doing a year ago. They do not have a case, and it's going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Insofar as Baldwin is culpable, it would be from the standpoint of hiring an inexperienced armorer who ignored proper safety protocols.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's not his responsibility, it was the armorers job and responsibility to make sure the firearm was safe. Period. End of story. You can debate how you think and feel things should be, but that's not how it works in the industry and it's nor how it ever worked.

Please provide a legal basis for that assertion.

 

[Kleanbore]

Insofar as Baldwin is culpable, it would be from the standpoint of hiring an inexperienced armorer who ignored proper safety protocols.

Did Baldwin not ignore safety protocols?

 

[Justin]

Quite obviously, that can only be done while the armorer has control of the firearms. That was noot the case here, and the breakdown was beyond the control of the armorer.

The breakdown was in the fact the armorer allowed live ammunition on set. That the armorer left firearms unattended. That proper procedures for handing a gun from the armorer to the AD to conduct a safety check were not followed.

All of those things are under the control of the armorer. It's literally the entire reason you would pay an armorer to be on set.

When the actor pointed the gun at the cinematographer, he was not following the published guideline.

SAG can publish a guideline, but that doesn't mean it will be followed. Actors point guns at other actors. Actors point guns into the lenses of cameras at the behest of directors. Even if an actor is trying to point a gun slightly off from another actor, they are not going to care or try to avoid pointing a gun at the gaggle of crew members that are standing off camera on literally every set.

Where did you get that idea? Where in the law is that stated?

I'm not quoting law. I'm pointing out that film and tv productions do things quite regularly that in pretty much any other context would be illegal.