Alec Baldwin shooting

[Tgo01]

I'm sure most everyone is familiar with Alec Baldwin shooting two people on a film set and immediately claiming to be the victim after initially seemingly accepting responsibility that he was the one who fired the gun.

Well now he's walking that back by claiming he never pulled the trigger, rather he "pulled the hammer of the gun back as far it would go and then released it" and when he released it the gun went off all by itself apparently.

Okay so I'm not that familiar with guns, especially guns that would have been used in the 1800's. Can someone more knowledgeable help me understand what distinction he is trying to make here?

Wouldn't pulling the hammer back and releasing it pretty much be the same thing as pulling the trigger? Is he trying to make this distinction to try and fool people into thinking he didn't really fire the gun and it somehow went off by itself? Or is what he's claiming legit and pulling the hammer back and releasing it wouldn't cause the gun to go off under normal circumstances?

[~Rocktar~]

He is full of shit. I doubt they use real period firearms on the set and new reproductions need the trigger pull to release.

[Tgo01]

He is full of shit. I doubt they use real period firearms on the set and new reproductions need the trigger pull to release.

Yeah from what I heard it was a recreation of a gun from that time period.

[Ardwen]

if you hold the trigger of some older revolvers and release the hammer that way they can fire, no idea if they were made that way intentionally or it's a wear or design issue, I own a colt revolver that this can happen on, so of course I don't, you know, do it. Even when I think it isn't loaded.

[Tgo01]

I own a colt revolver that this can happen on, so of course I don't, you know, do it. Even when I think it isn't loaded.

Well how dare you be a responsible gun owner.

[Parkbandit]

That interview was obviously set up by his lawyers and his answers were carefully crafted so he would have a decent defense if this ever goes to a trial.

[LOL BRIELUS]

He is an idiot and so are his lawyers if they permitted this. Every statement until charges come out clearly go through counsel, not the client...holy shiz

[Tgo01]

He is an idiot and so are his lawyers if they permitted this. Every statement until charges come out clearly go through counsel, not the client...holy shiz

Supposedly someone from the Santa Fe DA told him privately that he's in the clear. The DA's office refuted this statement but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it's true which is why he immediately ran to do an hour long interview the moment he knew he was in the clear.

I especially love his "I don't want to make this interview about myself" and he then proceeds to talk about himself and how this shooting has affected him for an hour.

[Ardwen]

It isn't the likely minimal jail time I'd be afraid of, it's the massive lawsuits he will face from everyone and their mother.

[Tgo01]

It isn't the likely minimal jail time I'd be afraid of, it's the massive lawsuits he will face from everyone and their mother.

That's probably why he has backtracked on seemingly taking responsibility to now saying he doesn't feel like he's guilty at all and claiming he didn't even pull the trigger, which I find absolute bullshit.

It's all on video though so it will all be used at trial I'm sure.

[Battlerager]

That's probably why he has backtracked on seemingly taking responsibility to now saying he doesn't feel like he's guilty at all and claiming he didn't even pull the trigger, which I find absolute bullshit.

It's all on video though so it will all be used at trial I'm sure.

He's the producer. He hired that incompetent 24 year old girl to be the armorer on the set. He's responsible for it all.

[Tgo01]

He's the producer. He hired that incompetent 24 year old girl to be the armorer on the set. He's responsible for it all.

Oh for sure, but he's claiming he has no responsibility. Which is funny because even though I think he's a piece of shit I at least gave him credit for kind of taking responsibility in the beginning, but once the lawsuits started pouring in he had a sudden change of heart.

I guess he figured if he played nice and did some sob story interviews it might make the lawsuits go away.

[Battlerager]

Oh for sure, but he's claiming he has no responsibility. Which is funny because even though I think he's a piece of shit I at least gave him credit for kind of taking responsibility in the beginning, but once the lawsuits started pouring in he had a sudden change of heart.

I guess he figured if he played nice and did some sob story interviews it might make the lawsuits go away.

nothing will stop these lawyers there is a whole lot of blood in the water and everyone will get a pound of flesh. I don't know if him talking about it on tv is going to hurt his insurance's defense/case. He really needs to just release a statement and shut up.

[Tgo01]

It's okay, guys. Alec Baldwin can't possibly be guilty because he said if he truly felt he were guilty he would kill himself, so since he hasn't killed himself it must mean he's not guilty.

The absolute nerve on this guy. I wonder how many poor black kids get the benefit of just saying "OOPS! It was an accident" and can walk around free for months after the shooting and receive glowing praise from Hollywood and even get an hour long friendly interview to cry victim on a national news program.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm as near to certain it was a terrible accident as I can be. Just because he's a douche doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. He and anyone with money to pay will all be sued and I'd guess end up settling.

[Arqueto]

You don't point a gun at anyone or anything unless you intend to shoot it, period. Firearms safety 101.

Edit: I'm not saying he intentionally shot someone (that's not a narrative people believe, is it?) but you can still be totally at fault for an accident.

[Gelston]

You don't point a gun at anyone or anything unless you intend to shoot it, period. Firearms safety 101.

Edit: I'm not saying he intentionally shot someone (that's not a narrative people believe, is it?) but you can still be totally at fault for an accident.

He was negligent due to complacency, which seems to be a common issue on his movie sets.

[Flap]

Yea he should go to jail lol.

Involuntary manslaughter at a bare minimum, maybe negligent homicide? I'm not a lawyer, but I am a gun owner and I think anyone that pulls the trigger(or snaps the hammer) on a real gun(which he knew it was) pointed at a person, regardless of the gun's status, should go to jail. I was shooting guns before I was 10 and I knew then that you never point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot. The ground, the sky and your target are the 3 things your gun points at. If 10 year old me can know that, Alec B goes to jail.

[Flap]

I'm as near to certain it was a terrible accident as I can be. Just because he's a douche doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. He and anyone with money to pay will all be sued and I'd guess end up settling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

My theory is that it was revenge for when The Joker killed him in that movie.

[Astray]

Never point a gun at someone you aren't willing to kill.

[Parkbandit]

Never point a gun at someone you aren't willing to kill.

100% this.

I believe Alec Baldwin is a terrible human being who is always, always, always looking out for himself... but I don't see charges being brought up against him. That interview highlights what a piece of garbage he really is.

He will be sued and hopefully lose a great deal of money over this... but I doubt he will see anything even remotely like jail.

[Gelston]

Honestly, I'm surprised they use real weapons.

[Archigeek]

Honestly, I'm surprised they use real weapons.

Why? Do you not go to the movies? I think you guys parroting your junior high gun safety rules like they apply to a movie set are ignoring reality because you hate Alec Baldwin. You'd be ridiculing action movies where no one points their guns at anyone just as much as you're hating on Alec Baldwin now if not pointing guns at anyone was a rule followed when making movies.

In before, "but CGI!"

[Tgo01]

Why? Do you not go to the movies? I think you guys parroting your junior high gun safety rules like they apply to a movie set are ignoring reality because you hate Alec Baldwin. You'd be ridiculing action movies where no one points their guns at anyone just as much as you're hating on Alec Baldwin now if not pointing guns at anyone was a rule followed when making movies.

In before, "but CGI!"

They weren't even filming a scene and apparently they said the scene they were rehearsing at the time might not even make it in the film. So why point the gun at someone and pull the trigger? My bad! Pull the hammer back as far as it will go and let go.

Also if you're just taking another person's word for it that the gun you are playing with isn't loaded without checking it out yourself then you should be held responsible. You think anyone else other than a Democrat Hollywood douchebag would be treated with kid gloves like this?

I can just see this defense being tried out in the inner city. "Yo it's not my fault! Someone handed me the gun and said it wasn't loaded before I shot three people dead!" Even you would probably laugh at the absurdity.

Oh but they were practicing for a movie? Oh well then! Totally not Alec Baldwin's fault!

[Astray]

Why? Do you not go to the movies? I think you guys parroting your junior high gun safety rules like they apply to a movie set are ignoring reality because you hate Alec Baldwin. You'd be ridiculing action movies where no one points their guns at anyone just as much as you're hating on Alec Baldwin now if not pointing guns at anyone was a rule followed when making movies.

In before, "but CGI!"

You're, for whatever reason, ignoring that he pointed a gun at someone that had no acting role. In fact, the person that was shot was in charge of the weapons in question. Now, yes, you can place the blame directly on that person as it was their job to secure, check and recheck those weapons. Did they deserve to die though? Because some Hollywood special boy decided he wanted to get edgy and point a gun, not knowing it was loaded (but used it prior to shoot at things) and pulling the trigger? No.

And it's really easy to go "it's a movie set, pointing the gun at people is normal" but it doesn't take more than .3 seconds to realize he was pointing a real weapon and squeezing the trigger at people who weren't involved in the actual scenes. As a gag. As a funny. Well, someone is dead now so... good joke?

I mean, to me it's negligent homicide.

[Archigeek]

You're, for whatever reason, ignoring that he pointed a gun at someone that had no acting role. In fact, the person that was shot was in charge of the weapons in question. Now, yes, you can place the blame directly on that person as it was their job to secure, check and recheck those weapons. Did they deserve to die though? Because some Hollywood special boy decided he wanted to get edgy and point a gun, not knowing it was loaded (but used it prior to shoot at things) and pulling the trigger? No.

And it's really easy to go "it's a movie set, pointing the gun at people is normal" but it doesn't take more than .3 seconds to realize he was pointing a real weapon and squeezing the trigger at people who weren't involved in the actual scenes. As a gag. As a funny. Well, someone is dead now so... good joke?

I mean, to me it's negligent homicide.

Wasn't the guy who died the cinematographer?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I agree with Kerl. Been thinking the same thing the whole time. Movies are make believe, and people point guns at each other all the time. Not involved in making movies obviously. I mean John Wick wouldn't be the same if all the scenes of him pointing a gun at someone where CGI'd or cut together.

Balwin is a douche and accidents happen. He and anyone with money will probably pay for this.

[Tgo01]

I agree with Kerl. Been thinking the same thing the whole time. Movies are make believe, and people point guns at each other all the time. Not involved in making movies obviously. I mean John Wick wouldn't be the same if all the scenes of him pointing a gun at someone where CGI'd or cut together.

Balwin is a douche and accidents happen. He and anyone with money will probably pay for this.

People go to jail all the time for accidentally shooting and killing a person. There is a police officer on trial right now who might go to jail for the rest of her life for doing exactly that.

I'll give Baldwin the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know the gun was loaded with a real bullet and didn't mean to murder the woman, but we have all kinds of laws on the books that deal with an accidental killing.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

People go to jail all the time for accidentally shooting and killing a person. There is a police officer on trial right now who might go to jail for the rest of her life for doing exactly that.

I'll give Baldwin the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know the gun was loaded with a real bullet and didn't mean to murder the woman, but we have all kinds of laws on the books that deal with an accidental killing.

Last I checked he can still be charged. It's not like he went out and intentionally shot someone. It's a work accident.

[Astray]

Wasn't the guy who died the cinematographer?

I haven't kept up on it and reading over, yes. When the story broke it was initially believed the person in question shot was in charge of the guns, hence why I said it. So I'm wrong on them being responsible, admittedly.

But does that validate pointing a gun at someone largely involved in the lighting as a 'joke'? Does the fact that she's a cinematographer absolve Alec, in your mind?

[Gelston]

Why? Do you not go to the movies? I think you guys parroting your junior high gun safety rules like they apply to a movie set are ignoring reality because you hate Alec Baldwin. You'd be ridiculing action movies where no one points their guns at anyone just as much as you're hating on Alec Baldwin now if not pointing guns at anyone was a rule followed when making movies.

In before, "but CGI!"

.....what? There are blank only weapons that look very real. I honestly thought they didn't use real weapons. I don't get what kind of BS gaslighting you're trying to pull here.

[Archigeek]

.....what? There are blank only weapons that look very real. I honestly thought they didn't use real weapons. I don't get what kind of BS gaslighting you're trying to pull here.

So you admittedly not knowing that they use real guns on movie sets means I'm gaslighting? I don't think you know what gaslighting means either.

Back to my original point: people using the adage "don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot at" as though it applies to movie sets, are making a poor connection.

Go ahead and hate Alec Baldwin all you want. I don't care.

[Tgo01]

Back to my original point: people using the adage "don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot at" as though it applies to movie sets, are making a poor connection.

Why wouldn't it apply to movie sets? In what world is it suddenly okay to point a gun at someone just because they are on a movie set? The cameras weren't even rolling, he was pointing a gun at someone who wasn't even going to be on screen and then he pulled the trigger/let go of the hammer, and most importantly of all he has admitted he didn't bother to check to see if the gun was loaded himself and instead relied on the word of whoever handed him the gun.

At the very least this is gross negligence on Baldwin's part and he deserves jail time.

[Astray]

Back to my original point: people using the adage "don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot at" as though it applies to movie sets, are making a poor connection.

Your point seems to be largely ignoring that he aimed a gun at someone uninvolved and wasn't an actor and had no involvement to the point that he would need to actively point a gun at them.

Why would you realistically need to aim a gun at anyone you aren't directed to by the director or choreographer? Give me a good reason.

[Astray]

.....what? There are blank only weapons that look very real. I honestly thought they didn't use real weapons. I don't get what kind of BS gaslighting you're trying to pull here.

A blank is basically a bullet. It just lacks a projectile.

[Flap]

So you admittedly not knowing that they use real guns on movie sets means I'm gaslighting? I don't think you know what gaslighting means either.

Back to my original point: people using the adage "don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot at" as though it applies to movie sets, are making a poor connection.

Go ahead and hate Alec Baldwin all you want. I don't care.

Oh, they're definitely butthurt over the Trump impression and whatever other liberal shenanigans Alec gets up to.

And I'd agree with you about the movie thing, if it was a prop gun. But from what I understand there were real bullets being used on set for recreational purposes, specifically in that gun, and Alec knew. Correct me if I'm misinformed, please.

As I always say, context matters. He knew what was in his hands and while he may not have known there was a real bullet he was still careless and someone died as a result of his actions. He should go to jail.

[Archigeek]

Why wouldn't it apply to movie sets? In what world is it suddenly okay to point a gun at someone just because they are on a movie set? The cameras weren't even rolling, he was pointing a gun at someone who wasn't even going to be on screen and then he pulled the trigger/let go of the hammer, and most importantly of all he has admitted he didn't bother to check to see if the gun was loaded himself and instead relied on the word of whoever handed him the gun.

At the very least this is gross negligence on Baldwin's part and he deserves jail time.

Because movies are make believe? They pretty much have to point guns at people for the make believe to be, you know... believable.
Do you know how many times they practice scenes before shooting them? In some cases they might practice it 30x before shooting a scene live.

There are a huge number of speculative statements floating around this story and a ton of unknowns. Comments like Flaps, that they were using that particular gun on set with live bullets for "recreational purposes" would be an unforgivable breach of protocol, but is there any evidence of that? Other people have died in the past because of people fucking around on movie sets with prop guns. I think it's safe to say that this should never happen, but I put the blame on the staff who are in charge of guns. The prop master and armorer should have absolute control over weaponry on a movie set. That's their job.

Here's an interesting article with a listing of other past movie accident fatalities, including some involving guns:

https://www.today.com/news/news/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-movie-shooting-reminder-fatal-accidents-film-set-rcna3568

[Tgo01]

Because movies are make believe? They pretty much have to point guns at people for the make believe to be, you know... believable.
Do you know how many times they practice scenes before shooting them? In some cases they might practice it 30x before shooting a scene live.

How is any of this an excuse for not checking the gun himself and pulling the trigger while the gun is pointed at someone? The movie productions that actually care about safety will have no one behind the camera if the shot calls for the gun to be pointed directly at the camera, but I guess in Alec Baldwin's world of movie making you just take the chance of killing someone for the sake of making a movie.

Something tells me if the scene called for Alec Baldwin to put the gun in his mouth and pull the trigger he would have demanded either a fake gun or to be shown it was completely safe before he continued with the scene, but since it was just someone else's life on the line he figured eh, why bother?

[Flap]

Because movies are make believe? They pretty much have to point guns at people for the make believe to be, you know... believable.
Do you know how many times they practice scenes before shooting them? In some cases they might practice it 30x before shooting a scene live.

There are a huge number of speculative statements floating around this story and a ton of unknowns. Comments like Flaps, that they were using that particular gun on set with live bullets for "recreational purposes" would be an unforgivable breach of protocol, but is there any evidence of that? Other people have died in the past because of people fucking around on movie sets with prop guns. I think it's safe to say that this should never happen, but I put the blame on the staff who are in charge of guns. The prop master and armorer should have absolute control over weaponry on a movie set. That's their job.

Here's an interesting article with a listing of other past movie accident fatalities, including some involving guns:

https://www.today.com/news/news/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-movie-shooting-reminder-fatal-accidents-film-set-rcna3568

Well, here's the thing: We know for certain that there was 1 live round on set and that it somehow got into the chamber of that gun. Why?

Reasons:

Recreational shooting: This is what I heard. Seems the most likely explanation. They had a real gun for the movie, why not pop off a shot or two between takes? Well, besides safety reasons of course!

Somehow got mixed in with blanks? Nope, a real bullet looks real different from a blank.

??????????????????
I'm really struggling to see any other reasons to have a live round there that are even close to reasonable. The other reasons would be, someone wanted someone to die, or someone wanted to get Alec in trouble.

[Gelston]

A blank is basically a bullet. It just lacks a projectile.

Except they make blank guns that don't have the ability to project a bullet out the front. The barrel is basically sealed except for a gas release. They've had them for the longest time and they look just as real as a real weapon.


So you admittedly not knowing that they use real guns on movie sets means I'm gaslighting? I don't think you know what gaslighting means either.

Back to my original point: people using the adage "don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot at" as though it applies to movie sets, are making a poor connection.

Go ahead and hate Alec Baldwin all you want. I don't care.

I never said anything about pointing guns, so I don't know why the fuck you came at me with your bullshit. All I said was I had no idea they still used real guns. So yes, you were gaslighting.

[Parkbandit]

Go ahead and hate Alec Baldwin all you want. I don't care.

For someone who claims he doesn't care.. you seem to really care.

Is Alec a cousin of yours or something? You are reminding me of the "Leave Brittney Alone" guy at this point.

[Tgo01]

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who think Alec Baldwin shouldn't be charged with a crime for pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger also think the Michigan school shooter's parents should be charged with manslaughter even though they were miles away from the school when the shooting happened.

Democrats are partly correct about one thing: the justice system in this country is broke, but it isn't due to race, it's because the rich get away with their crimes while the poor have politicized charges brought up against them.

[Tgo01]

Baldwin was holding a revolver on set during an Oct. 21 rehearsal when the gun discharged, killing Hutchins.

I can't tell you how many "news" articles I have read that phrase it like; Baldwin was "holding" the gun when it "discharged."

For fuck's sake. Have we gotten so politically correct that we can no longer say someone shot another human being? Or do just Hollywood jackasses get this kind of kid glove treatment?

And I don't wanna hear any of this shit that they are merely protecting themselves from a libel lawsuit or some shit. He shot her. Case closed. We can argue forever whether or not he should be charged with a crime (spoiler alert: he should be) but if we can't even agree that he shot her then we have gone way past being a sane and rational society. I wonder how many poor black teenagers get this kind of treatment. "He was holding a gun when it discharged 30 times and somehow shot 5 people."

Kim Potter should have tried this at her trial. "I didn't shoot him, I was holding the gun when it discharged."

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why should he be charged with a crime? And which crime, be specific.

[Tgo01]

Why should he be charged with a crime? And which crime, be specific.

Involuntary manslaughter.

I think if you're going to point a gun at another person and pull the trigger then you should check the gun yourself to make sure it isn't loaded. If you don't then it's negligence which is the threshold for involuntary manslaughter.

Just like if someone hands you a knife and says it's just a rubber knife and you go and plunge a real knife into someone's heart then you should be held liable if you didn't even check to make sure it wasn't a real knife first.

[ClydeR]

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons specialist will be charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a New Mexico movie set, prosecutors announced Thursday, citing a “criminal disregard for safety.”

More... (https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-rust-movie-shooting-charges-decision-8c76eddb8a6418419078903d24ec3813)


The charge is a fourth-degree felony, punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine under New Mexico law. The charges also include a provision that could result in a mandatory five years in prison because the offense was committed with a gun.


Baldwin’s attorney said the charges represented “a terrible miscarriage of justice.”

The actor “had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win,” Luke Nikas said in a statement.


Justice or injustice?

[Seran]

Justice or injustice?

Justice. Sufficient cause was found to charge him and now he'll go to court to determine his guilt or innocence.

[ClydeR]

If they ever finish this movie, it should have good box office sales.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think it's good it's going to court.

[Tgo01]

He deserved a murder charge 1.5 years ago. But at least it’s something.

[~Rocktar~]

He deserved a murder charge 1.5 years ago. But at least it’s something.

^^ This

[Parkbandit]

He deserved a murder charge 1.5 years ago. But at least it’s something.

What? No.

There is a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter and it has to do with motive.

There is no indication that Baldwin wanted to murder Halyna Hutchins.

The charges are appropriate.

[Tgo01]

What? No.

There is a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter and it has to do with motive.

There is no indication that Baldwin wanted to murder Halyna Hutchins.

The charges are appropriate.

Oh well. He’s an ass. Screw him.

With this fourth degree felony charge it will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor or he will be slapped with community service. I doubt he spends a day in jail.

[Parkbandit]

Oh well. He’s an ass. Screw him.

While I agree with you... he's a gigantic piece of shit as far as human beings go.. the way our justice department is supposed to work is that isn't taken into account.


With this fourth degree felony charge it will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor or he will be slapped with community service. I doubt he spends a day in jail.

Oh, he won't see a day in jail... but hopefully the family of Halyna Hutchins sues him and wins a gigantic settlement.

[Seran]

Oh well. He’s an ass. Screw him.

With this fourth degree felony charge it will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor or he will be slapped with community service. I doubt he spends a day in jail.

He failed to check a gun he had a reasonable expectation would be harmless, by a professional who should have confirmed it had hot ammunition. I'm sure he'll be found guilty of some sort of misdemeanor negligence, and pay miiillions in restitution to the family.

[Shaps]

What I want to know is how so many live rounds were spread all over the place. No one seems to have picked up on that, and that information (at least as far as I know) was released for the first time.

Apparently 1 was found in the weapon, 1 in his belt holster, 1 in another actors bandolier, 1 in another box of ammunition, and I think 1 other somewhere. That's at least 5 live rounds spread out over different locations on set.

I would think more clarification would be needed for that.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The armorer was charged as well, which is also good.

[Suppressed Poet]

It most certainly deserves a trial based on what I know.

I remember awhile after the incident Alec Baldwin claiming the gun just went off on its own. That made it immediately obvious to me he understood the legal implications and lied to try and cover his own ass. I say he lied because if you understand how a single action revolver operates, the gun doesn’t fire unless someone cocks the hammer & pulls the trigger.

[Parkbandit]

It most certainly deserves a trial based on what I know.

I remember awhile after the incident Alec Baldwin claiming the gun just went off on its own. That made it immediately obvious to me he understood the legal implications and lied to try and cover his own ass. I say he lied because if you understand how a single action revolver operates, the gun doesn’t fire unless someone cocks the hammer & pulls the trigger.

It's obvious he doesn't know how a single action revolver operates.

His interviews sickened me. "I don't know who's responsible for her death but I know it wasn't me!"

Fucking piece of shit.

[ClydeR]

I keep hearing people on teevee saying that all actors should know better than to point a gun at another person on a movie set, even if the gun is just an unloaded prop. I've seen westerns where the actors pointed guns at each other. I can't remember a single western where actors did not point guns at each other. Example from a popular recent western..




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNPCXKmF9LI

I strongly suspect that the jury in this trial will be treated to many clips from movies showing that for the last 80 years actors pointed guns at each other, that pointing guns at other actors was an expected and normal part of making western films, and that an actor who pointed a gun at another actor was not deviating from what was expected in the industry.

[Methais]

He failed to check a gun he had a reasonable expectation would be harmless, by a professional who should have confirmed it had hot ammunition. I'm sure he'll be found guilty of some sort of misdemeanor negligence, and pay miiillions in restitution to the family.

There's no such thing as reasonable expectation with this. First rule of gun safety is to always assume the gun is loaded until you check it yourself and verify that it isn't.

You'll white knight for him all day anyway because you're a simp to all things left, but it won't make you any less wrong.

[ClydeR]

First rule of gun safety is to always assume the gun is loaded until you check it yourself and verify that it isn't.


Is that a Methais rule, or it is the law? They're not always the same thing.

[Methais]

Is that a Methais rule, or it is the law? They're not always the same thing.

Read my post again, but this time pay attention to the words. Retard.

[ClydeR]

Read my post again, but this time pay attention to the words. Retard.


That's what I thought. You just made it up, and now you're acting offended that somebody called you out on it. The case in court will be tried on actual rules.

[Parkbandit]

That's what I thought. You just made it up, and now you're acting offended that somebody called you out on it. The case in court will be tried on actual rules.

The case in court will be tried on actual laws, not rules.

Retard.

[Methais]

That's what I thought. You just made it up, and now you're acting offended that somebody called you out on it. The case in court will be tried on actual rules.

That's fantastic. Now point out where I said anything about how it creates a legal issue, as opposed to just a Baldwin being a dumbass issue.

Dumb fuck.


Fun fact: If Baldwin would have heeded this very important rule, none of this would have happened. But he's a limp dick like you, so here we are.

[Neveragain]

He failed to check a gun he had a reasonable expectation would be harmless

There is never a reasonable expectation of a gun being harmless.

The jury should also be made aware of Baldwins past and his incapability to control his angry outbursts. I believe his previous outburst, before shooting a co-worker, was fighting with a man over a parking spot. Sounds very stable.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

There is never a reasonable expectation of a gun being harmless.

The jury should also be made aware of Baldwins past and his incapability to control his angry outbursts. I believe his previous outburst, before shooting a co-worker, was fighting with a man over a parking spot. Sounds very stable.

Wasn't he the one who called and left a nasty voicemail to his daughter also? And numerous examples of extreme TDS. I think he already settled the civil suite by paying off the family of the woman he shot, and I very much doubt he'll do any time at all for this, but it'll be fun to see him drug through the mud with all his violent outbursts put on trial in hopefully court tv. You know, like Kyle "Hero of Kenosha" Rittenhouse, slayer of two and a half hardened criminals.

[Methais]

Wasn't he the one who called and left a nasty voicemail to his daughter also? And numerous examples of extreme TDS. I think he already settled the civil suite by paying off the family of the woman he shot, and I very much doubt he'll do any time at all for this, but it'll be fun to see him drug through the mud with all his violent outbursts put on trial in hopefully court tv. You know, like Kyle "Hero of Kenosha" Rittenhouse, slayer of two and a half hardened criminals.

That was Mel Gibson.


In related news:

https://i.imgur.com/nGuxZXS.png

[Parkbandit]

It was Baldwin too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G45DOOm80c

[ClydeR]

The case in court will be tried on actual laws, not rules.


All laws are rules. Not all rules are laws. Rules that are not laws will be relevant to determine if Baldwin's conduct was so excessive as to constitute a crime. If, for example, the jury agrees with Methais that the first rule of gun safety is to assume that the gun is loaded unless you personally check it, then that will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial.

[Methais]

It was Baldwin too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G45DOOm80c

Haha, what a dickbag going off on a 12 year old.

Seran should be along shortly to defend it and blame Trump.

[Parkbandit]

All laws are rules. Not all rules are laws. Rules that are not laws will be relevant to determine if Baldwin's conduct was so excessive as to constitute a crime. If, for example, the jury agrees with Methais that the first rule of gun safety is to assume that the gun is loaded unless you personally check it, then that will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial.

So when you said "The case in court will be tried on actual rules." you were incorrect.

You could have just said "You are right PB.. I'm a cowardly little bitch" and just be done with it.

[ClydeR]

So when you said "The case in court will be tried on actual rules." you were incorrect.

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to determine if it is really a widely accepted rule or just his opinion. Since he has not cited a source, I assume it is just his opinion. Many states, not including New Mexico, have gun storage laws making it a crime to store a loaded gun. In those states, would you satisfy your obligation to be sure your gun is unloaded when stored if you relied on your spouse to check that for you? If the statute does not answer that question, then a best practices rule as determined by a jury, even though not written by the government, would determine whether or not relying on your spouse in that situation would be a crime.

[Parkbandit]

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to determine if it is really a widely accepted rule or just his opinion. Since he has not cited a source, I assume it is just his opinion. Many states, not including New Mexico, have gun storage laws making it a crime to store a loaded gun. In those states, would you satisfy your obligation to be sure your gun is unloaded when stored if you relied on your spouse to check that for you? If the statute does not answer that question, then a best practices rule as determined by a jury, even though not written by the government, would determine whether or not relying on your spouse in that situation would be a crime.

Weird way to say "You're right PB and I'm wrong".. but whatever.

[Methais]

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to let everyone know how retarded I am.

Fixed.

Since you're retarded and still struggling to keep up, if I was referring to actual laws, I would have said the word "law" instead of "rule." As far as I know, that's not a law, but it could demonstrate gross negligence for all I know, which I would assume, in my non-expert legal opinion, that that would be weighed into the manslaughter charge, similar to the "gross negligence" someone demonstrates when they drive drunk and then get someone else killed.

But go take any gun safety course anywhere or whatever, and let me know how many of them don't tell you about that rule. That number will be zero.


Hey ClydeR, do you believe that any of this would have happened to begin with if Baldwin had heeded this very important rule of gun safety?

[ClydeR]

Hey ClydeR, do you believe that any of this would have happened to begin with if Baldwin had heeded this very important rule of gun safety?

You would be a good prosecutor. The question you pose is exactly the question Baldwin's prosecutors will want the jury to ask themselves.

If Baldwin had checked the gun himself and if the prosecutors can show that it would have been possible for him to distinguish real bullets from blanks, then obviously the death would never have occurred.

You could ask a similar "but for" question about everybody in the chain of events. But for the person who bought the gun for use on a movie set, would the death have occurred. But for the person who brought live ammo to the set. But for the person who put the bullets in the gun. But for the armorer who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was not loaded. But for Baldwin who fired the gun, or at least cocked the hammer. And probably some more people I can't think of right now.

If the answer to the above question is what determines guilt, then Baldwin's position at the end of the list of potentially responsible people will make him a criminal.

I think the question the jury should ask if whether or not Baldwin had a duty to check the gun himself after a professional armorer told him it was not armed. The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame. I've not seen any reports about who that was.




But go take any gun safety course anywhere or whatever, and let me know how many of them don't tell you about that rule. That number will be zero.

Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

[Neveragain]

201Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

I'm not sure if this is a federal or state law, but, in Iowa to get a hunting license one must attend hunter safety courses. It's been this way for at least 40 years.

I first learned to check the receiver anytime you're handed a gun at 5 years old.


The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame.

I'm 95% positive that it's already been said that Baldwin had live rounds in his belt.

[Methais]

You would be a good prosecutor. The question you pose is exactly the question Baldwin's prosecutors will want the jury to ask themselves.

If Baldwin had checked the gun himself and if the prosecutors can show that it would have been possible for him to distinguish real bullets from blanks, then obviously the death would never have occurred.

You could ask a similar "but for" question about everybody in the chain of events. But for the person who bought the gun for use on a movie set, would the death have occurred. But for the person who brought live ammo to the set. But for the person who put the bullets in the gun. But for the armorer who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was not loaded. But for Baldwin who fired the gun, or at least cocked the hammer. And probably some more people I can't think of right now.

If the answer to the above question is what determines guilt, then Baldwin's position at the end of the list of potentially responsible people will make him a criminal.

I think the question the jury should ask if whether or not Baldwin had a duty to check the gun himself after a professional armorer told him it was not armed. The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame. I've not seen any reports about who that was.





Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

That's a lot of words just to avoid answering the question yourself.

Let's try again.

Hey ClydeR, in your opinion, as opposed to the opinion of a court/jury, and you can even pretend that nobody is being charged with anything if it helps you keep up with the conversation, do you believe that this situation would have been avoided if Baldwin followed the #1 rule in gun safety, which is to assume that the gun is loaded until you confirm for yourself that it isn't?


Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

But if they were, they would still check it before pointing it at another person, despite the fact that no real hunter is going to be pointing their gun at another person in the first place anyway.

[ClydeR]

Hey ClydeR, in your opinion, as opposed to the opinion of a court/jury, and you can even pretend that nobody is being charged with anything if it helps you keep up with the conversation, do you believe that this situation would have been avoided if Baldwin followed the #1 rule in gun safety, which is to assume that the gun is loaded until you confirm for yourself that it isn't?

I've already said that if Baldwin had checked the gun and if he was able to distinguish blanks from real bullets, then the accident would not have happened. I do not accept the premise of your question that the number one rule of gun safety is to assume that a gun is loaded. I think the number one rule of gun safety is not to point a gun at another person, but that rule would not work in Westerns, would it?




But if they were, they would still check it before pointing it at another person, despite the fact that no real hunter is going to be pointing their gun at another person in the first place anyway.

Dick Cheney.

[ClydeR]

Days after the shooting, which also wounded the director of “Rust,” Joel Souza, investigators interviewed one of the movie’s actors, Jensen Ackles, who told them that he does inspect his guns on set himself.

“I just always do my own personal checks because it’s a smart thing to do,” Mr. Ackles told the police, according to footage of the interview. But he noted that he did not expect his peers to do the same, telling the detectives that if actors were the final line of defense in the safety of a movie set then he “wouldn’t trust 99.9 percent of the people I work with.”

More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html)

I bet Mr. Ackles wishes he had kept his mouth shut. Now they'll surely call him as a witness at the trial.

[Methais]

I've already said that if Baldwin had checked the gun and if he was able to distinguish blanks from real bullets, then the accident would not have happened. I do not accept the premise of your question that the number one rule of gun safety is to assume that a gun is loaded. I think the number one rule of gun safety is not to point a gun at another person, but that rule would not work in Westerns, would it?

Let's spend 30 second and ask the internet:

https://i.imgur.com/Qdleju3.png

https://i.imgur.com/EO6IqwK.png

TLDR: It depends who you ask, but they go hand in hand. Though I can safely say that pointing a gun that you've already verified isn't loaded is usually going to be much "safer" than doing much of anything with a loaded gun.

Regardless of the order of rules 1 and 2, Baldwin also violated rule #3. He's just lying about it. He failed it up on 4 and 5 too.

https://i.imgur.com/XrfJk6L.png (https://www.quora.com/Can-you-fire-a-gun-by-moving-the-hammer-instead-of-the-trigger)



Dick Cheney.

I was almost going to put an asterisk for Cheney, but then I remembered that I said "real hunters." I apologize for giving you too much credit.



I think the number one rule of gun safety is not to point a gun at another person, but that rule would not work in Westerns

I agree with you that Baldwin is so stupid that he shouldn't be handling a weapon under any circumstances.

[Parkbandit]

I do not accept the premise of your question that the number one rule of gun safety is to assume that a gun is loaded.

The #1 rule on this forum is: you're a fucking retard.

[Suppressed Poet]

The 4 gun safety commandments I was taught and most widely accepted:

1) Treat every gun you come in contact with like it is loaded.
2) Never out your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.
3) Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t want to destroy.
4) Know your target and what is beyond it. (Positive ID)

There are other good rules that are more situational, but these are the basics. My 8 year old girls can recite you these rules.

So yes as an actor I do see how #3 has to be circumvented sometimes in a controlled environment to make movies. There should be multiple checks by both the armorer & actor during such times to make certain the firearm does not contain live lethal ammunition. I’m hazy on all the details of the shooting, but as I understand it they weren’t live filming at the moment the firearm was discharged. It seems there is sufficient evidence for a trial of involuntary manslaughter as all four safety rules were violated. Having an armorer on set doesn’t negate the personal responsibility of Mr. Baldwin to act in a reasonably responsible way. We’ll see how this case plays out.

[Neveragain]

The 4 gun safety commandments I was taught and most widely accepted:

1) Treat every gun you come in contact with like it is loaded.
2) Never out your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.
3) Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t want to destroy.
4) Know your target and what is beyond it. (Positive ID)

There are other good rules that are more situational, but these are the basics. My 8 year old girls can recite you these rules.

So yes as an actor I do see how #3 has to be circumvented sometimes in a controlled environment to make movies. There should be multiple checks by both the armorer & actor during such times to make certain the firearm does not contain live lethal ammunition. I’m hazy on all the details of the shooting, but as I understand it they weren’t live filming at the moment the firearm was discharged. It seems there is sufficient evidence for a trial of involuntary manslaughter as all four safety rules were violated. Having an armorer on set doesn’t negate the personal responsibility of Mr. Baldwin to act in a reasonably responsible way. We’ll see how this case plays out.

Here is my guess as to what happened.

Considering there was live ammo on the set and there should never be live ammo on the set. I'm guessing that they were shooting the guns during down time and the live rounds never got cleared. There was probably drugs and alcohol involved.

[Neveragain]

Interesting interview with Bob Dylan and Santana from 1993:

Interviewer: Do you think the availability of guns is a problem?

Dylan: I don't think there are enough guns.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAR7M5Zyra4

@ 11:40

Bob Dylan, the true anti-fascist.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Here is my guess as to what happened.

Considering there was live ammo on the set and there should never be live ammo on the set. I'm guessing that they were shooting the guns during down time and the live rounds never got cleared. There was probably drugs and alcohol involved.

interesting hypothesis. I think this fact pattern would bring this into the manslaughter realm. Outside of that, kinda a tough sell overall. wonder what will come out

[Shaps]

Here is my guess as to what happened.

Considering there was live ammo on the set and there should never be live ammo on the set. I'm guessing that they were shooting the guns during down time and the live rounds never got cleared. There was probably drugs and alcohol involved.

That's a good hypothesis.

I still want to know/hear more, about all the other live rounds found on set. For some reason that detail just gets overlooked by the media for some reason.

[Parkbandit]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCbSIZhUYAQUBuJ.jpg

Maybe don't hire set armorers like this who have gotten into trouble on other sets?

[Methais]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCbSIZhUYAQUBuJ.jpg

Maybe don't hire set armorers like this who have gotten into trouble on other sets?

Jesus Christ :rofl:

[ClydeR]

“The prosecutors in this case have committed an unconstitutional and elementary legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a statute that did not exist on the date of the accident,” Baldwin’s attorneys wrote in the motion.

At the time of the incident, New Mexico’s firearm-enhancement statute was applied to cases where a gun was “brandished” in the commission of a non-capital felony, defining brandished as displaying a firearm “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”

The statute was later amended by the New Mexico legislature to remove any mention that a gun must be brandished, the court filing states.

Baldwin’s attorneys argue the new version of the statute cannot apply to conduct that occurred before it was enacted and called retroactively applying the enhancement “flagrantly unconstitutional.”

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-possible-penalty.html)


Is the above an example of incompetence or, when considered with the below, an example of corruption?



“Another day, another motion from Alec Baldwin and his attorneys in an attempt to distract from the gross negligence and complete disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set that led to Halyna Hutchins’ death,” said the district attorney’s office in a statement. “In accordance with good legal practice, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor will review all motions–even those given to the media before being served to the DA. However, the DA’s and the special prosecutor’s focus will always remain on ensuring that justice is served and that everyone–even celebrities with fancy attorneys–is held accountable under the law. ”

More... (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/alec-baldwin-new-mexico-rust-gun-charge-1235322514/)

Does it take a fancy attorney to know that you can't charge somebody for something that wasn't a crime at the time of the incident? I learned the phrase "ex post facto" in the Fourth Grade when the teacher explained Constitutional protections. The prosecutor is calling it "fancy" lawyering and "an attempt to distract"! Does that give you confidence that this will be a fair proceeding?

You may remember that Dave Hall, who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was "cold," accepted a plea deal in this case and will surely be called to testify against Baldwin. It has now come to light that Mr. Hall's attorney donated to the political campaign of the prosecutor, who is also a state legislator in New Mexico. The New Mexico constitution, in case anybody is interested in such fancy things, specifically says that legislators may not serve in other government offices. The New Mexico legislature appropriated more than $300,000 to pay this prosecutor, who as I just said, is a member of the legislature.

[Tgo01]

Who is surprised that far leftists such as Clyder are rushing to the defense of a well known leftist maniac who murdered someone?

Now we just need dipshits time4fun, Bhaalizmo, and Seran to come in here and somehow claim that Baldwin's victim is at fault for her own murder. But remember, leftists just love it when men shoot unarmed women in the head. It's their bread and butter.

[Bhaalizmo]

Who is surprised that far leftists such as Clyder are rushing to the defense of a well known leftist maniac who murdered someone?

Now we just need dipshits time4fun, Bhaalizmo, and Seran to come in here and somehow claim that Baldwin's victim is at fault for her own murder. But remember, leftists just love it when men shoot unarmed women in the head. It's their bread and butter.

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

[Gelston]

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

It is a defense of Baldwin…

[ClydeR]

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

It's an example of readers drawing a conclusion based on their expectations, instead of based of reading comprehension. Baldwin did not cause the prosecutor to make this error. The fact that he got lucky is not praise of him.

In addition to being a legal error, the prosecutor's behavior was very bad. To demean Badlwin's attorneys, as the prosecutor did, because they asserted a reasonable argument on his behalf is petty. It makes me believe this prosecutor is inexperienced and not up to the job. And it raises questions about why this particular prosecutor was chosen for this particular prosecution. They should get a new prosecutor before their next public humiliation.

[Methais]

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

It is, you just can't read.

Anyway, do you believe Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter?

[ClydeR]

Anyway, do you believe Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter?


That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..


30-2-3. Manslaughter.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-2-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 2-3; 1994, ch. 23, § 2.

More... (https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4371/index.do#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc121821339)


Breaking it down..


"manslaughter committed" - Satisfied.
"in the commission of a lawful act" - Satisfied.
"which might produce death" - Unsure. There is a very small chance that a golf ball in a normal game of golf could hit someone in the head causing death. Would hitting a golf ball satisfy this element of the crime? If not, then this element of the crime must require that death be a foreseeable possibility flowing from the act. Was it foreseeable that death could be caused by a gun that a gun expert said was safe on a movie set? And if there is a foreseeability requirement for this element of the crime, should it be applied based on the actual knowledge and experience of the person who committed manslaughter or based on the knowledge and experience of an average member of the public or an average person who would be handling a gun on a movie set? And I'm not even going to address the unfortunate use of "which" instead of "that" in the statute.
"without due caution and circumspection" - This is the real question.


The following additional information is from the above link and is not part of the statute itself..


Criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter by lawful act. — A killing by lawful act, to be involuntary manslaughter, depends on whether the lawful act was done in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful. State v. Grubbs, 1973-NMCA-096, 85 N.M. 365, 512 P.2d 693, overruled on other grounds, Santillanes v. State, 1993-NMSC-012, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358; State v. Yarborough, 1995-NMCA-116, 120 N.M. 669, 905 P.2d 209.

Now I just need to know the meaning of each of the words "reckless," "wanton" and "willful."

[LOL BRIELUS]

I don't know, this seems like a losing case. The better case is against the armorer by mixing ammo.

I think for sure the lawsuit will be a huge settlement

[Methais]

That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..




Breaking it down..


"manslaughter committed" - Satisfied.
"in the commission of a lawful act" - Satisfied.
"which might produce death" - Unsure. There is a very small chance that a golf ball in a normal game of golf could hit someone in the head causing death. Would hitting a golf ball satisfy this element of the crime? If not, then this element of the crime must require that death be a foreseeable possibility flowing from the act. Was it foreseeable that death could be caused by a gun that a gun expert said was safe on a movie set? And if there is a foreseeability requirement for this element of the crime, should it be applied based on the actual knowledge and experience of the person who committed manslaughter or based on the knowledge and experience of an average member of the public or an average person who would be handling a gun on a movie set? And I'm not even going to address the unfortunate use of "which" instead of "that" in the statute.
"without due caution and circumspection" - This is the real question.


The following additional information is from the above link and is not part of the statute itself..



Now I just need to know the meaning of each of the words "reckless," "wanton" and "willful."

Shut the fuck up ClydeRetard nobody asked you to speak.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't know, this seems like a losing case. The better case is against the armorer by mixing ammo.

I think for sure the lawsuit will be a huge settlement

Baldwin already settled with the family I think. So really it's the armorer who's got trouble coming. I think Baldwin will at best get a very light slap on the hand, but most likely get nothing.

[Suppressed Poet]

Gun safety 101 is to verify the status of a firearm yourself. If Jerry Miculek handed me a revolver and said it’s unloaded or has blank rounds, I (and every other reasonable & responsible gun handler) would immediately open the cylinder and check myself. If you can’t do that you should not touch the firearm.

I won’t speculate on the legal outcome of this case, but Mr. Baldwin was most certainly negligent.

[Sile]

Gun safety 101 is to verify the status of a firearm yourself. If Jerry Miculek handed me a revolver and said it’s unloaded or has blank rounds, I (and every other reasonable & responsible gun handler) would immediately open the cylinder and check myself. If you can’t do that you should not touch the firearm.

I won’t speculate on the legal outcome of this case, but Mr. Baldwin was most certainly negligent.

It's funny the amount of people who try to defend him and absolve him of this simple rule because 'hes an actor'.

[Parkbandit]

It's funny the amount of people who try to defend him and absolve him of this simple rule because 'hes an actor'.

I'm not about to defend him, but he won't get any real punishment because he's a liberal actor.

[Methais]

I'm not about to defend him, but he won't get any real punishment because he's a liberal actor.

In all fairness, if he weren't a leftist, this wouldn't have happened to begin with.

It's because with a rare exception here an there, leftists are retarded and have no clue about anything.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's funny the amount of people who try to defend him and absolve him of this simple rule because 'hes an actor'.

I don't think I've defended him at all, but certainly not because he's an actor. Just stated I don't think he'll have any consequence other than financial which I think he already did.

I'm curious how they'll market the movie when it's done.

[Sile]

I don't think I've defended him at all, but certainly not because he's an actor. Just stated I don't think he'll have any consequence other than financial which I think he already did.

I'm curious how they'll market the movie when it's done.

Oh my comment wasn't directed at you, more just in general I see in discussions outside of here.

[Methais]

I don't think I've defended him at all, but certainly not because he's an actor. Just stated I don't think he'll have any consequence other than financial which I think he already did.

I'm curious how they'll market the movie when it's done.

THIS MOVIE IS TO DIE FOR

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

THIS MOVIE IS TO DIE FOR

SHOCKINGLY REALISTIC GUNFIGHTS

[ClydeR]

Prosecutors reduced the charges against actor and producer Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed in the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on a film set in New Mexico. Though the two are still charged with involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors dropped the firearm enhancement from the second charge, greatly lessening potential jail time.

More... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/02/20/baldwin-rust-charges-reduced/)


The amended charges were filed on Friday. Heather Brewer, a spokesperson for the district attorney, said in a statement on Monday that the reduction was made “to avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys. … The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.”

Luke Nikas, an attorney for Baldwin, did not respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment. Earlier this month, Baldwin’s attorneys said in a court filing the prosecutors “committed an unconstitutional and elementary legal error” in charging the actor with the firearm enhancement, arguing it did not exist in its current form when the fatal shooting occurred.

The DA's public statement is ridiculous. Doesn't the DA realize that the judge reads the newspaper and knows that the DA is lying? They'd better fire the prosecutor and appoint someone competent before the trial.

[ClydeR]

Can any of you who have a good understanding of the mechanical working of a single action revolver explain what Baldwin's attorney said below? It is from an interview the attorney gave in August.


The FBI is wrong about Alec Baldwin pulling the trigger on the set of 'Rust' -- so says the actor's attorney, who thinks the Bureau's report is flawed.

Luke Nikas, AB's lawyer, gave his take to Fox News Monday -- this as Halyna Hutchins' death was officially deemed an accident the same day -- saying the feds are incorrect to conclude Alec pulled the trigger ... because the testing they did doesn't show that.

Nikas says, "The FBI report is being misconstrued." He adds, "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. The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition."

Essentially, Nikas seems to be suggesting either the report's findings are misrepresented -- seeing how they've only been reviewed/reported on by ABC -- or the FBI simply misstated what they actually did in the lab to get to the bottom of this. Either way, he claims it's bunk.

You'll recall ... the FBI, per ABC, said there was no way the gun Alec used went off without him pulling the trigger, as they tried firing it by just manipulating the hammer -- which is what Alec said he did. They insisted ... when the gun's working properly, that's impossible.

More... (https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/16/alec-baldwin-rust-fatal-shooting-attorney-fbi-report-pull-trigger/)

[ClydeR]

More, this time from lawandcrime.com.


The questioning might go like this..


Q Did you conclude that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger?

A Yes, the gun could not be fired without pulling the trigger.

Q How many times did you fire the gun in testing?

A Just once.

Q And did you pull the trigger that time?

A Well, no. The gun was too damaged to pull the trigger.





FBI Reports

Several of the law enforcement documents prepared by the FBI were obtained Tuesday by Law&Crime after terse and conclusory sections from the materials were published by ABC News late Friday.

The tests performed on the gun Baldwin used in the since-scuttled film indicate as follows:


Accidental Discharge Testing

Hammer at rest (de-cocked on a loaded chamber)

With the hammer at rest on a loaded chamber, Item 2 detonated a primer without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly. With a revolver of this design, when the hammer is at rest on a loaded chamber, the firing pin sits directly on the primer of the cartridge. When force is applied to the hammer, such as striking or dropping, it can fire the cartridge without a pull of the trigger. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Hammer at 1/4 and 1/2 cock positions

With the hammer in the 1/4 and 1/2 cock positions, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger. When enough pressure was applied to the trigger, each of these safety positions were overcome and the hammer fell. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

With the hammer in the 1/4 cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the firing pin did not have enough force to detonate the primer and resulted in light firing pin strikes.

With the hammer in the 1/2 cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the cylinder could not be properly aligned to the bore, the firing pin struck the outer headstamp area and did not detonate the primer.

Hammer at full cock position

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

Those tests, however, came with significant caveats, as the report explains:


Accidental Discharge

An accidental discharge test is conducted in all modes of fire for a particular firearm, utilizing a primed cartridge case or shotshell case. The firearm is struck with a rawhide or similar styled mallet on its six planes: front of muzzle, butt plate, top of breech and chamber, bottom of trigger guard and frame and both sides of the receiver/frame. If necessary, tests can be undertaken in order to attempt to duplicate the conditions under which the firearm discharged.

“When an accidental discharge examination is performed, it may not be possible to recreate or duplicate all of the circumstances which led to the discharge of a firearm without a pull of the trigger,” the reports also indicate.

It is unclear whether any any test involving “fanning,” the technique described by Baldwin, was requested; however, the reports suggest such a technique was not directly performed.

The FBI reports also say nothing of the weight necessary to “pull” the trigger. So-called “light” guns — with hair triggers — require as little as two pounds or fewer for a successful trigger pull; “heavy” guns require approximately eight pounds of force. Guns used for self-defense purposes tend to be heavier because the purpose of discharging the weapon is a deliberate act of protection; sport shooters sometimes prefer lighter guns because they can be more accurate. The latter, however, carry a greater capacity for accidental discharge.

More... (https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/alec-baldwin-suggests-he-was-fanning-revolver-during-film-set-shooting-only-question-is-who-put-a-live-round-in-the-gun/)

[Suppressed Poet]

Can any of you who have a good understanding of the mechanical working of a single action revolver explain what Baldwin's attorney said below? It is from an interview the attorney gave in August.

So the way a single action revolver works you have to pull the hammer on the back of the gun back each time you want to fire it. Single action means the trigger does just one function, which is releasing the sear for the hammer to fall thus striking the cartridge. (As opposed to double action which means the trigger does two functions which is cocking the hammer back + releasing the sear for the hammer to fall once cocked).

The reason I have said before that Mr. Baldwin was lying when he said he never pulled the trigger is if the hammer was down, the revolver can’t fire. You can pull the trigger all day long but it won’t do anything if the hammer isn’t fully cocked. You have to both cock the hammer and pull the trigger to fire the gun which are two deliberate actions. It is unsafe to carry a single action revolver with the hammer cocked, because the trigger only needs very light pressure & a short travel distance to discharge. When carried correctly in a holster with the hammer down, the only way that thing would accidental discharge is maybe possibly if you bashed the back of the revolver really effn’ hard with a mallet to make the firing pin strike the primer (meaning virtually impossible).

It sounds like his attorney are making the argument that something with the hammer was broken in such a way that when you cocked the hammer, it didn’t catch to hold it in place and dropped without pulling the trigger as soon as he let the hammer go. I suppose that is possible…never seen that happen before. I own a Colt Single Action Army made in the 18th century in not the best shooting condition, have done my fair share of cowboy shooting, and never heard or seen anything like that happen. Again, I suppose it’s possible though.

[ClydeR]

The reason I have said before that Mr. Baldwin was lying when he said he never pulled the trigger is if the hammer was down, the revolver can’t fire.

Baldwin did not say the hammer was down. He said he was fanning the hammer. As I understand it, fanning means to hold the gun with one hand, probably the right hand, and then repeatedly cock and release the hammer with the other hand for quick firing. You see it a lot in Westerns, mainly when an actor is running across an exposed space and wants covering fire.




It sounds like his attorney are making the argument that something with the hammer was broken in such a way that when you cocked the hammer, it didn’t catch to hold it in place and dropped without pulling the trigger as soon as he let the hammer go. I suppose that is possible…never seen that happen before. I own a Colt Single Action Army made in the 18th century in not the best shooting condition, have done my fair share of cowboy shooting, and never heard or seen anything like that happen. Again, I suppose it’s possible though.

It is definitely possible. The FBI said in their written report that it happened during their tests with this weapon.

The FBI report says that the FBI fired the gun by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger. They said that would not have work except that the gun was broken. They said that the gun broke during their tests, implying that it was not broken at the time Baldwin fired it. Because of the damage, they did not get to test it by fully cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger.

To summarize, the FBI concluded that Baldwin must have pulled the trigger because he claimed that the gun fired for him under the same circumstances that it fired for the FBI -- by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger.


Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.

[Suppressed Poet]

Baldwin did not say the hammer was down. He said he was fanning the hammer. As I understand it, fanning means to hold the gun with one hand, probably the right hand, and then repeatedly cock and release the hammer with the other hand for quick firing. You see it a lot in Westerns, mainly when an actor is running across an exposed space and wants covering fire.





It is definitely possible. The FBI said in their written report that it happened during their tests with this weapon.

The FBI report says that the FBI fired the gun by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger. They said that would not have work except that the gun was broken. They said that the gun broke during their tests, implying that it was not broken at the time Baldwin fired it. Because of the damage, they did not get to test it by fully cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger.

To summarize, the FBI concluded that Baldwin must have pulled the trigger because he claimed that the gun fired for him under the same circumstances that it fired for the FBI -- by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger.


Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.

Yeah we’ll see after more people look at the gun and how this case plays out. Typically a single action revolver has quarter and half cocked positions that are safety mechanisms that block the hammer from falling unless the trigger is pulled. Colt SAAs have the 4 clicks as you cock the hammer. I find it unlikely (possible but not probable) those hammer safeties would all be broken. It would take less than 30 seconds for any experienced gunsmith or gun handler to function check the firearm.

[ClydeR]

I like this opinion piece from Fox News, because it agrees with my earlier post about the prosecutor's behavior..


The proper thing, moreover, is simply to drop the charge and move on. If a prosecutor says anything at all, it should be to fall on her sword. But far from admitting error, this prosecutor pretends that she is dismissing a charge because it would be too much of a bother to answer the defense motion – which would certainly make me angry if I were a member of the Hutchins family. And then she takes a gratuitous shot at Baldwin’s high-price "big-city attorneys" – which would certainly make me angry if I were the judge.

More... (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alec-baldwin-charge-dropped-prosecutor-should-throw-whole-thing-out)

[ClydeR]

OSHA has delivered a measure of vindication for Baldwin..


“We believe Baldwin, as a producer, knows everything that goes on, on the set,” prosecutor Andrea Reeb said on Fox News’ “The Five” last month. “There were a lot of safety concerns that were brought to the attention of management, and he did nothing about it.”

But in a parallel proceeding, the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that Baldwin was not in charge and was not the one culpable for lax oversight.

“He didn’t actually have employees on-site that he or his delegated persons would manage or oversee,” said Lorenzo Montoya, OSHA’s lead investigator, in a deposition last month. Aside from his personal assistant, Montoya said, “He has no employee presence. He’s just him.”

The divergent conclusions could complicate efforts to hold Baldwin criminally responsible. They also raise questions about why, if the prosecutors wanted to pursue management failures, they did not charge others in the production’s hierarchy.

More... (https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-producer-da-osha-1235531157/)

[Methais]

OSHA has delivered a measure of vindication for Baldwin..

Sounds to me like gun safety classes should be mandatory in Hollywood. Mainly because most of the people there are retarded like Baldwin.

[ClydeR]

Too much Alec Baldwin news today.


Two days after Baldwin’s defense filed the Feb. 10 motion, special prosecutor Andrea Reeb wrote in an email: “We are a tad confused on your motion on the firearm enhancement.” A spokesperson for the prosecution had also spoken to CNBC, saying that the motion to reduce the charges was only an attempt to distract from the criminal case. Prosecutors have referred to Baldwin’s lawyers as “fancy attorneys.”

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/22/alec-baldwin-rust-prosecutor-gun-enhancement.html)


If the events described below are accurate, I will be very surprised is the prosecutor does not face disciplinary charges before the New Mexico Bar. As a government agent, a prosecutor has a duty to see that the defendant's rights are protected. This prosecutor seems more interested in promoting her political career.

Below is the text of a document filed with the court by Baldwin's attorneys on Monday..


2. Given that the Motion set forth substantial—indeed, clearly correct—legal arguments showing that Mr. Baldwin is legally innocent of the portion of the Original Information carrying the greatest penalty, it demanded careful consideration by the government. Instead, a spokesperson for the government immediately issued an extraordinary statement to the media characterizing the Motion as an “attempt to distract” from the case by Mr. Baldwin’s “fancy lawyers.” [citations omitted]

Two days later, on Sunday, February 16, Andrea Reeb, the putative special prosecutor,1 sent a lengthy email to Mr. Baldwin’s counsel in which she accused Mr. Baldwin’s counsel of failing to follow proper procedure, demanded Mr. Baldwin withdraw the Motion, and even threatened counsel with sanctions if they refused to do so. [citations omitted] Approximately twenty minutes later, before Mr. Baldwin’s counsel had responded to the initial missive, Ms. Reeb sent another email, noting that she would “look at the specific numbers and sections to make sure [they had] it correct”—apparently indicating that up to that point, the government had never undertaken to examine the statutes charged in the Original Information. [citations omitted]

Less than two hours later, Ms. Reeb emailed Mr. Baldwin’s counsel a third time, now noting that she had been “busy in session all week” due to her simultaneous service in the New Mexico Legislature, but that she had finally taken the time to examine the enhancement statute and now “100 percent agree[d]” with Mr. Baldwin’s “assessment of the issue.”2 [citations omitted] She promised that the government would “amend the criminal information to take off the firearm enhancement.” Id. And she requested that Mr. Baldwin withdraw the Motion in light of the government’s change in position.

3. After waiting more than a week, on February 20, 2023, the government filed a First Amended Criminal Information (the “Amended Information”), which omits the unconstitutional enhancement. The government has nevertheless continued to issue statements to the media criticizing Mr. Baldwin and his counsel for filing a meritorious motion, stating that the government’s withdrawal of the enhancement is intended to “avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys” and that the prosecution’s priority is “securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.” [citations omitted]

More... (https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2023/02/22/Baldwin_Notice_of_Withdrawal.pdf)


The judge should remove this prosecutor. That's what the judge should do. Baldwin should hope that the judge doesn't, because it's very unlikely that her replacement would be so bad at the job.

[ClydeR]

Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.


The person who wrote the above was spot-on, as usual, as proven by today's development in the case..


“The court, I don’t think is aware of this point, but I think I should tell the court that the firearm in this case ... was destroyed by the state,” Alex Spiro, one of Baldwin’s lawyers, said during a hearing Thursday. “That’s obviously an issue and we’re going to need to see that firearm, or what’s left of it.”

Prosecutors didn’t respond to Spiro’s assertion during the hearing, but in a statement to CNBC said that Spiro’s claim is false.

“The gun Alec Baldwin used in the shooting that killed Halyna Hutchins has not been destroyed by the state. The gun is in evidence and is available for the defense to review,” said Heather Brewer, spokesperson for New Mexico’s First Judicial District Attorney’s office.

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/alec-baldwin-rust-gun-destroyed.html)



To protect Baldwin's right to defend himself, the court should not allow the government to introduce its test results into evidence in the court case.

[Gelston]

The person who wrote the above was spot-on, as usual, as proven by today's development in the case..





To protect Baldwin's right to defend himself, the court should not allow the government to introduce its test results into evidence in the court case.

Nah. The state will show the FBI wasn't acting maliciously and in good faith. Evidence will be fine.

[ClydeR]

Just as I said should happen, the prosecutor has resigned in the Baldwin case. The below article says that it is a "major setback" for the case against Baldwin. I disagree. Baldwin got his wish for her to resign. He may regret it, because whoever they get to replace the resigning prosecutor will likely be better.


It’s a major setback in the state’s case against Baldwin and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-Reed for the accidental fatal shooting in October 2021 of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the “Rust” movie.

“After much reflection, I have made the difficult decision to step down as special prosecutor in the ‘Rust’ case,” said Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor, in her surprise statement. “My priority in this case — and in every case I’ve prosecuted in my 25-year career — has been justice for the victim.”

“However, it has become clear that the best way I can ensure justice is served in this case is to step down so that the prosecution can focus on the evidence and the facts, which clearly show a complete disregard for basic safety protocols led to the death of Halyna Hutchins,” she said.

Reeb’s decision to recuse herself came after weeks of resistance to that idea by her and First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, who appointed her.

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/14/alec-baldwin-rust-prosecutor-steps-down-after-challenge-by-defense-reports-say.html)

[ClydeR]

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge said Santa Fe’s district attorney shouldn’t serve as co-counsel in the manslaughter case against actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons supervisor in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer during a 2021 movie rehearsal. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer on Monday said the district attorney should either lead the case on her own or turn it over entirely to another prosecutor.

More... (https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-shooting-special-prosecutor-5b708f60281b86229ceff441fcbb64e9)


Carmack-Altwies has been preparing to appoint a new special prosecutor and also guide the complex case as co-counsel. But a defense attorney for Gutierrez-Reed objected to the arrangement, arguing it would be illegal under New Mexico law and fundamentally unfair to a 25-year-old defendant with limited financial resources.

Marlowe Sommer, the judge, said Monday during a court hearing by videoconference that the district attorney had misread key provisions of state law in assembling a team to prosecute the case.


Baldwin’s attorneys did not intervene in Monday’s arguments. A weekslong preliminary hearing in May will decide whether evidence against Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed is sufficient to proceed to trial.




That’s four for four setbacks for the New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney in her prosecution of Alec Baldwin for the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchings in October 2021.

More... (https://deadline.com/2023/03/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-da-setback-halyna-hutchins-hannah-gutierrez-reed-1235310833/)


Already the D.A. lost a February 24 attempt to block Reed’s request to possess a gun in her home for self-defense. Then coming off having to drop a firearm enhancement charge from the on-going case in last month, and the sudden and stinging loss of the besieged Andrea Reeb as special prosecutor earlier this month, the D.A. really needed a win today.



I think the judge has about had it with the prosecutor's poor behavior.

[Tgo01]

The fucker is getting away with murder. (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-criminal-charges-fatal-rust-shooting-dropped-lawyers)

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

[Bhaalizmo]

The fucker is getting away with murder. (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-criminal-charges-fatal-rust-shooting-dropped-lawyers)

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

Eat the corn outta my shit, TGO1, you fucking halfwit.

[Gelston]

The fucker is getting away with murder. (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-criminal-charges-fatal-rust-shooting-dropped-lawyers)

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

Prosecution didn’t have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I guess.

[Tgo01]

Prosecution didn’t have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I guess.

He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger which resulted in someone's death. How much more proof do they need to bring to trial?

Let's get real, this is because he's a Hollywood liberal douchebag. No way a poor black kid is going to be able to get away using this lame excuse of "I didn't know it was loaded!"

[Parkbandit]

Eat the corn outta my shit, TGO1, you fucking halfwit.

Let's keep your bedroom talk in Ashliana's bedroom.

Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger which resulted in someone's death. How much more proof do they need to bring to trial?

Let's get real, this is because he's a Hollywood liberal douchebag. No way a poor black kid is going to be able to get away using this lame excuse of "I didn't know it was loaded!"

Does this poor black kid star in a movie where he's pointing a gun at someone that he believes is filled with blanks?

Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Hopefully Baldwin will be sued and lose. He's a piece of garbage.

[Tgo01]

Does this poor black kid star in a movie where he's pointing a gun at someone that he believes is filled with blanks?

Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Hopefully Baldwin will be sued and lose. He's a piece of garbage.

Just because you’re filming a movie doesn’t mean you’re suddenly not responsible for manslaughter.

[BLZrizz]

I enjoy a class conspiracy-laden rant as much as the next guy, but this was a bad case to bring and a likely loser at (criminal) trial.

I'll focus on involuntary manslaughter since NM voluntary is a heat of passion killing. (A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.)

2021 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 2 - Homicide
Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Notes: A killing by lawful act, to be involuntary manslaughter, depends on whether the lawful act was done in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful. State v. Grubbs, 1973-NMCA-096, 85 N.M. 365, 512 P.2d 693, overruled on other grounds, Santillanes v. State, 1993-NMSC-012, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358; State v. Yarborough, 1995-NMCA-116, 120 N.M. 669, 905 P.2d 209.

Let's focus on "reckless, wanton, or willful" since that's the key element here.

Here are the reasons for: he pointed a weapon at someone and pulled the trigger
Reasons against: there is someone else directly and solely responsible for ensuring the weapon is safe; that person represented the weapon was safe; movie stars are told to 100% rely on those people because they are experts and not rely on their own judgment whatsoever because they are not experts.

Even if the reasons above are "tied", it's a criminal case, which means reckless, wanton, or willful conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The factors against likely and will easily imo constitute reasonable doubt as to due caution and circumspection. Even if he did pull the trigger and point it at someone, he was told over and over it was a safe gun by an expert. He was going to have to point the gun at someone else and pull the trigger when the scene began, which would have resulted in some other person being shot. The whole point of the armorer is so this can be done safely. The application of the "rules of firearm safety" are completely misplaced here. It's a movie set with different rules than the outside world, where you outsource expertise to experts in a bubble and pay them for the privilege.

Armorer's horrible ineptitude is an intervening cause which will also likely contribute to reasonable doubt. The more interesting case is whether the armorer failed to exercise due caution and circumspection, a closer call in my book. But some will no doubt use it as a means to claim oh noes unequal treatment!!!11

The above said, he (or more likely his insurance company) paid a fat settlement already. There was absolutely civil liability here, and this is probably where it should have remained all along.

[ClydeR]

The development came after prosecutors received new information in the case — that Baldwin's prop gun had been modified before being delivered to the low-budget western in October 2021, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.

The replica of the vintage weapon — a Colt .45 revolver — had been fitted with a new trigger, increasing the odds that the gun might have misfired, as Baldwin has said, according to the sources.

More... (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-04-20/rust-prosecutors-drop-charges-against-alec-baldwin)


I knew, and said, there was something fishy about that ridiculous FBI report where the gun fired without the trigger being pulled and then the FBI said that, although that's the only time it fired in their tests, it would be impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled.

[ClydeR]

The prosecutors are reserving the right to refile..


“Over the last few days and in preparation for the May 3, 2023, preliminary hearing, new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case against Alexander “Alec” Rae Baldwin, III. Consequently, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. We therefore will be dismissing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Mr. Baldwin to conduct further investigation. This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled. Our follow-up investigation will remain active and on-going.”

Despite reports earlier in the day that former Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed would also see her charges dropped, her status has not changed. “Charges against Hannah Gutierrez-Reed remain unchanged,” the prosecutors said tonight.

More... (https://deadline.com/2023/04/alec-baldwin-charges-dropped-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-1235329568/)

[Tgo01]

Reasons against: there is someone else directly and solely responsible for ensuring the weapon is safe; that person represented the weapon was safe; movie stars are told to 100% rely on those people because they are experts and not rely on their own judgment whatsoever because they are not experts.


That is absolute bullshit that you can delegate your personal responsibility to a third party like that. In what other scenario can you kill a person then just say "Well it's not MY fault! I'm just an idiot! That person told me it was safe!"

Exactly no other scenario affords such a blanket "get out of jail free" card. Everyone keeps harping on the fact that it was a movie set. So? But perhaps I am indeed ignorant about this and there is some sort of law written stating that movie stars are special and above the rest of us mere mortals where they can point a loaded gun at another human being, willingly pull the trigger and kill said person, then just sit back and say "Yeah not my fault. That person over there who had absolutely nothing to do with handing be the gun and telling me it was safe is the real guilty party."

Because if such a law does indeed exist then please cite it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Baldwin addressing the court:

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/2/83/533389038-501-Glengarry-Glen-Ross-quotes.gif

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/16/29/2134968337-503-Glengarry-Glen-Ross-quotes.gif

https://y.yarn.co/7169542e-fcb4-449c-a8cb-bcf86c9b661f_text.gif

https://y.yarn.co/3255a77a-43db-4fd0-a810-b7652699987b_text.gif

[Tgo01]

Baldwin addressing the court:

The most infuriating part (from what I have read anyways) is that Alec Baldwin never once had to step foot in a court or a prison over this.

[BLZrizz]

That is absolute bullshit that you can delegate your personal responsibility to a third party like that. In what other scenario can you kill a person then just say "Well it's not MY fault! I'm just an idiot! That person told me it was safe!"

Exactly no other scenario affords such a blanket "get out of jail free" card. Everyone keeps harping on the fact that it was a movie set. So? But perhaps I am indeed ignorant about this and there is some sort of law written stating that movie stars are special and above the rest of us mere mortals where they can point a loaded gun at another human being, willingly pull the trigger and kill said person, then just sit back and say "Yeah not my fault. That person over there who had absolutely nothing to do with handing be the gun and telling me it was safe is the real guilty party."

Because if such a law does indeed exist then please cite it.

Ok, I'll give it a try. Generally criminal liability is only established when two things are present: an "actus reus" (the criminal act) and a "mens rea" which is the "criminal" state of mind as outlined by the law. This is more of a legal principle that applies writ large than a specific law. Looking at the NM invol man statute, the state of mind required is to be reckless, wanton, and so on.

You're right that a movie set is a unique place, mostly because it's a place that by its existence is supposed to mimic or demonstrate acts, many of which are inherently dangerous, for purposes of art/entertainment. So it really is a place that is a bit outside reality. There is a burden of due care (i.e. what the "resonable person" would do) in the real world, but this is different on a movie set, where you are purposefully engaging in dangerous or harmful activities for show. This due care burden of a movie performer is to rely on the set experts 100%. So that burden then shifts to professionals whose responsibility and expertise it is to assume this due care for the performers on set. This doens't really exist anywhere else, which is why this is an odd/interesting case, legally speaking.

So going back to AB. If we look in his mind, can we establish a wanton, reckless mindset? One example of a such a mindset is if an individual takes a loaded weapon and shoots it into a crowd thinking, I wonder if this will hit or kill someone. It may reflect a lack of specific intent to kill an individual, but evinces a mindset that wantonly disregards the probable consequences of his actions. If I had to jump into AB's mind, he was probably rehearsing his lines, getting into character thinking about what kind of poses he was going to do. He was then handed a gun by a professional armorer who said "cold gun" and in his mind he though "ok, good to go, back to my lines. I'll pull the trigger here and here because I'm fidgety or nervous or bored but it's a cold gun so no issues..." and then it went off.

As a prosecutor, the actus reus is there, but the reckless mens rea is not something I would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt given the facts above.

[Gelston]

He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger which resulted in someone's death. How much more proof do they need to bring to trial?

Let's get real, this is because he's a Hollywood liberal douchebag. No way a poor black kid is going to be able to get away using this lame excuse of "I didn't know it was loaded!"

They have to prove that he was knowingly and willfully acting in a reckless manner. They don't feel they have enough evidence to prove he was beyond a reasonable doubt.

This looks like a great civil lawsuit against him and the production though.

[Seran]

The charge of involuntary manslaughter has been officially dropped. The investigation continues, but unless there are further developments looks like he's off the hook.

[Methais]

The charge of involuntary manslaughter has been officially dropped. The investigation continues, but unless there are further developments looks like he's off the hook.

Thanks for the breaking news update (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?131979-Alec-Baldwin-shooting/page13&p=2283858#post2283858)

[Tgo01]

the state of mind required is to be reckless, wanton, and so on.

Sounds good. He pointed a real firearm at another human being and pulled the trigger. Sounds pretty gosh darn reckless and wanton to me.

I would be giving Alec Killer all the benefit of the doubt if he personally looked at the chambers to make sure there are no bullets in them and maybe fired at the ground/in the air a few times first to make sure it didn't have any bullets in it. Then maybe I'd say okay sure, he did all he could to ensure there were no real bullets in the gun. But even he admits he didn't do that. He admits all he did was have someone hand him a real gun and say it was safe and that's good enough for him! Apparently when you're a rich Hollywood douchebag you can delegate your gross negligence to a third party.

[Tgo01]

They have to prove that he was knowingly and willfully acting in a reckless manner.

He pointed a loaded gun at another human being and pulled the trigger without doing the minimum amount of work to ensure the firearm wasn't loaded.

How much more reckless can you get? Imagine if anyone other than a liberal Hollywood douchebag can start getting away with murder based on such flimsy logic?

"Oh yeah, I just found a gun on the ground and my friend said it was safe so I pointed it at someone and fired it! Blame my friend who may or may not exist!"

[Gelston]

He pointed a loaded gun at another human being and pulled the trigger without doing the minimum amount of work to ensure the firearm wasn't loaded.

How much more reckless can you get? Imagine if anyone other than a liberal Hollywood douchebag can start getting away with murder based on such flimsy logic?

"Oh yeah, I just found a gun on the ground and my friend said it was safe so I pointed it at someone and fired it! Blame my friend who may or may not exist!"

He claims to not be aware it was loaded. It is a movie set with guns in it. I bet he has pointed a lot of firearms at other people and pulled the trigger while filming. Infact, I bet just about every actor that has acted has at one time or another. If he knew it was loaded and you could prove it, that is one thing. They obviously feel they cannot prove that.

[Tgo01]

He claims to not be aware it was loaded. It is a movie set with guns in it. I bet he has pointed a lot of firearms at other people and pulled the trigger while filming. Infact, I bet just about every actor that has acted has at one time or another. If he knew it was loaded and you could prove it, that is one thing. They obviously feel they cannot prove that.

You don't have to prove that he knew it was loaded to prove manslaughter, if he knew the gun was loaded he would be charged with murder.

Also from what I have read decent human beings who are actors are very careful when it comes to handling real firearms on set, they aren't just pointing guns at people for no reason and pulling the trigger. I've even read stories where if the shot calls for the actor to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger that they won't have someone behind the camera for the shot just in case.

But Alec Killer can just ignore all safety standards and point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and pin the entire blame on some idiot who just grabbed a gun and gave it to him.

If people working on movie sets are smart from this day forward they won't hand an actor a gun ever again because apparently that person is going to jail while the actual killer walks away without even having to appear in court.

[Seran]

You don't have to prove that he knew it was loaded to prove manslaughter, if he knew the gun was loaded he would be charged with murder.

Also from what I have read decent human beings who are actors are very careful when it comes to handling real firearms on set, they aren't just pointing guns at people for no reason and pulling the trigger. I've even read stories where if the shot calls for the actor to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger that they won't have someone behind the camera for the shot just in case.

But Alec Killer can just ignore all safety standards and point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and pin the entire blame on some idiot who just grabbed a gun and gave it to him.

If people working on movie sets are smart from this day forward they won't hand an actor a gun ever again because apparently that person is going to jail while the actual killer walks away without even having to appear in court.

Prosecutors woke up and realized they couldn't establish negligence or failure to exercise due care when the set hired a train expert and had documented safety protocols in place.

[Gelston]

You don't have to prove that he knew it was loaded to prove manslaughter, if he knew the gun was loaded he would be charged with murder.

Also from what I have read decent human beings who are actors are very careful when it comes to handling real firearms on set, they aren't just pointing guns at people for no reason and pulling the trigger. I've even read stories where if the shot calls for the actor to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger that they won't have someone behind the camera for the shot just in case.

But Alec Killer can just ignore all safety standards and point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and pin the entire blame on some idiot who just grabbed a gun and gave it to him.

If people working on movie sets are smart from this day forward they won't hand an actor a gun ever again because apparently that person is going to jail while the actual killer walks away without even having to appear in court.

You can think up all you want. You obviously don't have any kind of education on the judicial system nore do you know the facts the prosecution knows. They have determined they cannot prove he is culpable BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I bolded and underlined it for you, because that is the standard you have to get 12 people to agree on. While 12 TGOs might decide he is guilty without even a trial or evidence proceedings, 12 different people might not.

[Tgo01]

They have determined they cannot prove he is culpable BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Yeah I'm sure that's what actually happened here. It's just a huge coincidence that Alec Killer's defense thought that if they could get the lead prosecutor off the case that the person who took over would dismiss the case, and wouldn't you know it? That's exactly what happened. Almost as if justice isn't blind at all.

Let me ask you a simple question: would you, under any circumstance, point a real gun at another human being and pull the trigger just because another person told you it was safe to do so?

I already know your answer, your answer is "no."

So my other question is: why are you willing to give Alec Killer a pass here for ignoring even the most basic of gun safety rules? Because he was on a movie set? Lame cop out.

[Gelston]

The trigger was apparently malfunctioning and could fire with a very minimal amount of pressure. That is why it was dropped. They’d never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The armorer, however, would have been responsible for ensuring the weapon was safe. That person failed.

[Tgo01]

The trigger was apparently malfunctioning and could fire with a very minimal amount of pressure.

First I'm hearing of this. All I ever heard was that the FBI tested the gun and said that Alec Killer 100% lied when he said all he did was pull the hammer back and never pulled the trigger.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yeah I'm sure that's what actually happened here. It's just a huge coincidence that Alec Killer's defense thought that if they could get the lead prosecutor off the case that the person who took over would dismiss the case, and wouldn't you know it? That's exactly what happened. Almost as if justice isn't blind at all.

Let me ask you a simple question: would you, under any circumstance, point a real gun at another human being and pull the trigger just because another person told you it was safe to do so?

I already know your answer, your answer is "no."

So my other question is: why are you willing to give Alec Killer a pass here for ignoring even the most basic of gun safety rules? Because he was on a movie set? Lame cop out.

I don’t give him a pass, but our justice system isn’t perfect. I’d rather see a guilty man go free vs an innocent man be convicted. It’s undeniable money, fame, and power help when you are a defendant in a criminal trial in this country. Nothing should shock you after OJ.

[~Rocktar~]

So, I wonder if there could be a case of negligent homicide in there somewhere?

[Tgo01]

Well I guess we're about to see if the Alec Baldwin defense will work for a poor black person. (https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-woman-accused-killing-home-depot-employee-gun-accidentally-fired)

tl;dr: a black woman was shoplifting at a Home Depot. A loss prevention dude confronted her, she pulled out a gun and shot him in the chest, killing him. She is now claiming the gun went off by accident.

Do poor black people get to use the lame argument of "It was just an accident!" and get away with their crime? Or is that benefit afforded only to rich white liberals?

[Solkern]

Well I guess we're about to see if the Alec Baldwin defense will work for a poor black person. (https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-woman-accused-killing-home-depot-employee-gun-accidentally-fired)

tl;dr: a black woman was shoplifting at a Home Depot. A loss prevention dude confronted her, she pulled out a gun and shot him in the chest, killing him. She is now claiming the gun went off by accident.

Do poor black people get to use the lame argument of "It was just an accident!" and get away with their crime? Or is that benefit afforded only to rich white liberals?

I’m 100% sure a conservative, has never said it was an accident when they shot someone. It’s only liberals that do that.

[LOL BRIELUS]

I knew this would happen

[Seran]

I’m 100% sure a conservative, has never said it was an accident when they shot someone. It’s only liberals that do that.

Dick Cheney shot an attorney in the face and chest and called it an accident

[Bhaalizmo]

I’m 100% sure a conservative, has never said it was an accident when they shot someone. It’s only liberals that do that.

Conservatives most assuredly do it too. Broad generalization fail. There's no accounting for assholes on either side of the aisle.

This guy recently shot his girlfriend. Claims gun cleaning accident. Sherrif's office closes the case without an investigation, while the family of the victim is objecting and fund raising to get a PI. Trying to implore SBI to get involved.

https://wlos.com/news/local/polk-county-woman-believes-investigators-are-brushing-off-her-daughters-death-talia-petoia-julie-daniels-tyler-laugher-mill-creek

[Parkbandit]

Conservatives most assuredly do it too. Broad generalization fail. There's no accounting for assholes on either side of the aisle.

This guy recently shot his girlfriend. Claims gun cleaning accident. Sherrif's office closes the case without an investigation, while the family of the victim is objecting and fund raising to get a PI. Trying to implore SBI to get involved.

https://wlos.com/news/local/polk-county-woman-believes-investigators-are-brushing-off-her-daughters-death-talia-petoia-julie-daniels-tyler-laugher-mill-creek

https://media.tenor.com/ZFrF_lB6ZeAAAAAM/that-was-sarcasm-sarcastic.gif

[Gelston]

Well I guess we're about to see if the Alec Baldwin defense will work for a poor black person. (https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-woman-accused-killing-home-depot-employee-gun-accidentally-fired)

tl;dr: a black woman was shoplifting at a Home Depot. A loss prevention dude confronted her, she pulled out a gun and shot him in the chest, killing him. She is now claiming the gun went off by accident.

Do poor black people get to use the lame argument of "It was just an accident!" and get away with their crime? Or is that benefit afforded only to rich white liberals?

There is a difference between someone committing a theft and shooting someone and someone being unsafe on a movie set. She was committing a crime when someone died because of the actions of her crime. If she just pulled it and he had a heart attack and died it would still be 2nd Degree murder.

[ClydeR]

First I'm hearing of this. All I ever heard was that the FBI tested the gun and said that Alec Killer 100% lied when he said all he did was pull the hammer back and never pulled the trigger.

You don't know that he pulled the trigger.

Baldwin says that the did not pull the trigger.
The FBI says the gun could not fire without pulling the trigger when it is working properly.
The FBI says the gun fired during their tests without pulling the trigger.
The FBI destroyed the firing mechanism during their tests. Nobody will be able to double check their work.
Newly discovered evidence, which has been in the possession of prosecutors since they began their investigation, shows that the gun was modified before being brought onto the movie set in a way that might cause it to misfire.

If pulling the trigger is a necessary element of the prosecution's case, then they could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he pulled the trigger.

[Tgo01]

The FBI says the gun could not fire without pulling the trigger when it is working properly.
The FBI says the gun fired during their tests without pulling the trigger.

You're either being completely disingenuous or are lying. Or maybe both.

Here is a link from USA Today, I know a far right leaning tabloid so I understand your skepticism: (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/08/15/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-fbi-gun-report/10330160002/)


The report, released by Special Agent Jose Cortez, reveals the FBI did three accidental discharge tests of the firearm used by Baldwin to determine if it could have fired without a trigger being pulled.

Each test — with the hammer at rest, with the hammer in the quarter- and half-cock positions and with the hammer at full cock position — resulted in the same conclusion that the gun would not have fired "without a pull of the trigger."

During the testing of the gun by the FBI, authorities said portions of the gun's trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. That allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin to detonate the primer.

"This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms," the report stated.

And this is what ALL the media reported on. I haven't seen anything which contradicts this in regards to the FBI testing.

So it ONLY fired AFTER parts of the internal components were damaged DURING THEIR TESTS. Your dumb ass made it sound like the gun was already damaged while in Alec Killer's possession. The FBI is saying it was damaged during THEIR tests.

Feel free to call the FBI liars, which you know makes you an enemy of the state if you do, but at least don't be a lying sack of shit when you're quoting their findings, because like I said originally, the FBI tests prove that Alec Killer was 100% lying when he said he never pulled the trigger.

[Seran]

You're either being completely disingenuous or are lying. Or maybe both.

Here is a link from USA Today, I know a far right leaning tabloid so I understand your skepticism: (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/08/15/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-fbi-gun-report/10330160002/)



And this is what ALL the media reported on. I haven't seen anything which contradicts this in regards to the FBI testing.

So it ONLY fired AFTER parts of the internal components were damaged DURING THEIR TESTS. Your dumb ass made it sound like the gun was already damaged while in Alec Killer's possession. The FBI is saying it was damaged during THEIR tests.

Feel free to call the FBI liars, which you know makes you an enemy of the state if you do, but at least don't be a lying sack of shit when you're quoting their findings, because like I said originally, the FBI tests prove that Alec Killer was 100% lying when he said he never pulled the trigger.

Just why are you trying so desperately to make yet another conspiracy surrounding a political target you hate? Evidence supported the charge being dismissed, end of story. You can make up whatever narrative you want, but it doesn't change reality.

[Gelston]

You're either being completely disingenuous or are lying. Or maybe both.

Here is a link from USA Today, I know a far right leaning tabloid so I understand your skepticism: (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/08/15/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-fbi-gun-report/10330160002/)



And this is what ALL the media reported on. I haven't seen anything which contradicts this in regards to the FBI testing.

So it ONLY fired AFTER parts of the internal components were damaged DURING THEIR TESTS. Your dumb ass made it sound like the gun was already damaged while in Alec Killer's possession. The FBI is saying it was damaged during THEIR tests.

Feel free to call the FBI liars, which you know makes you an enemy of the state if you do, but at least don't be a lying sack of shit when you're quoting their findings, because like I said originally, the FBI tests prove that Alec Killer was 100% lying when he said he never pulled the trigger.

It isn't about what you think you know. It is about getting 12 people to believe you, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise it is a long trial and a waste of money when he gets off anyways.

[Tgo01]

It isn't about what you think you know. It is about getting 12 people to believe you, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise it is a long trial and a waste of money when he gets off anyways.

I'm just going by what the investigation has turned up, which shows that Alec Killer 100% lied about him not pulling the trigger. That alone would heavily sway a non-biased jury.

But we didn't even get that far because, like Alec Killer's lawyers knew would happen, the clearly biased prosecutors who took over decided to drop the charges.

If this were literally anyone else no one would be buying this lame excuse that he accidentally fired the gun and that someone else is responsible for his actions. You all are giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's a rich douchebag who literally bought his freedom via hiring expensive lawyers and corrupting the justice process.

[Solkern]

I'm just going by what the investigation has turned up, which shows that Alec Killer 100% lied about him not pulling the trigger. That alone would heavily sway a non-biased jury.

But we didn't even get that far because, like Alec Killer's lawyers knew would happen, the clearly biased prosecutors who took over decided to drop the charges.

If this were literally anyone else no one would be buying this lame excuse that he accidentally fired the gun and that someone else is responsible for his actions. You all are giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's a rich douchebag who literally bought his freedom via hiring expensive lawyers and corrupting the justice process.


I find it a little amusing, there is one consistent thing with you. You think everything is rigged, but at the same time, you always think it’s rigged against what you support politically(you’ve consistently mentioned race, democrat and being a liberal).

If it’s against a liberal or someone you don’t like or support(and of course you HAVE to bring up race, politics and/or who they support), the system is rigged and full of corruption for him! He’ll get away!

If it’s against someone who you support like Trump or another conservative, the system is rigged and full of corruption against him! This is political persecution!

Everything is rigged for you lol. You just love to have your cake and eat it too.

[Parkbandit]

Just why are you trying so desperately to make yet another conspiracy surrounding a political target you hate? Evidence supported the charge being dismissed, end of story. You can make up whatever narrative you want, but it doesn't change reality.

Bro.... it's like you are begging to be made fun of.

You're STILL holding out hope that Trump was colluding with Russia.. even though the evidenced didn't support charges.. should be the end of story.

[Gelston]

I'm just going by what the investigation has turned up, which shows that Alec Killer 100% lied about him not pulling the trigger. That alone would heavily sway a non-biased jury.

But we didn't even get that far because, like Alec Killer's lawyers knew would happen, the clearly biased prosecutors who took over decided to drop the charges.

If this were literally anyone else no one would be buying this lame excuse that he accidentally fired the gun and that someone else is responsible for his actions. You all are giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's a rich douchebag who literally bought his freedom via hiring expensive lawyers and corrupting the justice process.

Do I think he was negligent? Yes. Do I think he could be proven negligent in court? No.

[Seran]

Bro.... it's like you are begging to be made fun of.

You're STILL holding out hope that Trump was colluding with Russia.. even though the evidenced didn't support charges.. should be the end of story.

That's because he did. You've got a Republican led Senate Intelligence funding that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. You've got multiple Trump campaign personnel charged as a result of collusion by the DOJ that resulted in convictions for Flynn, Stone, Manafort. Lastly you have the Mueller report which detailed cooperation between Trump's campaign and Russia. You're not going to change of of that by pretending none of those conclusions were reached.

[Parkbandit]

That's because he did. You've got a Republican led Senate Intelligence funding that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. You've got multiple Trump campaign personnel charged as a result of collusion by the DOJ that resulted in convictions for Flynn, Stone, Manafort. Lastly you have the Mueller report which detailed cooperation between Trump's campaign and Russia. You're not going to change of of that by pretending none of those conclusions were reached.

LOLOL....

You got played.. and you are still getting played.

You know why? Because you are too stupid to know you are getting played.

The perfect Democrat.

[ClydeR]

Here we go again. What are the odds that Baldwin and Trump become roommates?


A grand jury in New Mexico has charged Alec Baldwin with a fresh count of involuntary manslaughter over a fatal movie set shooting in October 2021.

Previous charges against the Emmy award-winning actor were dropped last April, just two weeks before a criminal trial against him was due to begin.

More... (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68038106)


The actor has maintained he did not pull the trigger and only drew back the hammer of the pistol.

He has also argued he is not at fault for Ms Hutchins' death because he did not know the weapon contained live rounds and because no live ammunition was supposed to be on set.

But special prosecutors in New Mexico said in October that they had commissioned forensic experts to reconstruct the weapon, after it had been broken during FBI testing.

They said doing so revealed that the incident could only have taken place if the trigger had been pulled.

[Suppressed Poet]

Here we go again. What are the odds that Baldwin and Trump become roommates?

I’d say the odds are about the same as you convincing Peyton List to become your tradwife.

https://media.glamour.com/photos/6272e62b417bf191c4c1546e/1:1/w_960,c_limit/Screen%20Shot%202022-05-04%20at%204.45.57%20PM.png

[Parkbandit]

Here we go again. What are the odds that Baldwin and Trump become roommates?

The same odds of you growing a spine.. and your IQ.

Zero

[Methais]

I’d say the odds are about the same as you convincing Peyton List to become your tradwife.

https://media.glamour.com/photos/6272e62b417bf191c4c1546e/1:1/w_960,c_limit/Screen%20Shot%202022-05-04%20at%204.45.57%20PM.png

Joke's on you, ClydeR already has a waifu pillow with her on it.

[ClydeR]

Alec Baldwin, shown in the below recent photo, saw the first day of his trial today. How do you think it went?


In the defense’s opening statements, Spiro said the prosecution’s attempt to prove Baldwin pulled the trigger did not make him guilty of homicide. The key to the fatal shooting was that others had loaded the prop gun with a live bullet and had cleared it as safe before the gun reached Baldwin.

The prop gun was later damaged during unnecessary testing from the prosecution and investigators, hindering the evidence in the case, Spiro said.

Further, Spiro played a video from the scene in question, in which Baldwin pulls a gun with the camera up close. In the video, he is in continual discussion with people off-camera about how to position himself and how to “whip out” the gun.

More... (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/us/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-trial/index.html)



https://i.imgur.com/ouYlkdF.jpeg

[Parkbandit]

Alec Baldwin, shown in the below recent photo, saw the first day of his trial today. How do you think it went?





https://i.imgur.com/ouYlkdF.jpeg


Are you retarded? That picture is from 1988 when he was 30. He's now 66.

Dumbass.

[ClydeR]

SANTA FE, N.M. — Alec Baldwin‘s lawyers have filed a surprise motion asking that his manslaughter case be thrown out because the state failed to turn over a batch of bullets to the defense.

In a dramatic moment on Friday morning, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer donned a pair of blue gloves to open an envelope containing the bullets, and had them spread on a table. Though prosecutor Kari Morrissey had asserted that the bullets did not match the fatal round, at least some of them were Starline Brass rounds with silver primers — matching the characteristics of the live bullets found on the set of “Rust.”

More... (https://variety.com/2024/film/news/alec-baldwin-dismissal-manslaugher-case-bullets-1236068827/)


At a hearing on the motion on Friday morning, prosecutor Kari Morrissey argued that detectives had determined early in the case that Teske’s bullets were not a match.

“This is a wild goose chase,” Morrissey said. “This has no evidentiary value whatsoever.”

Marlowe Sommer then asked to see the bullets. After opening the envelope, she had Marissa Poppell, the crime scene technician, go through them one by one.

Some of them were Colt rounds, and others were Winchesters. But some did have the distinctive Starline Brass logo — two stars joined by a crescent. Without further analysis, Poppell said she could not be certain that the bullets were an exact match for the fatal bullet.


Drama! To summarize the above as I understand it, the defense somehow found out that the prosecutor has bullets collected in the investigation that it had not, as required, given to the defense to inspect. The prosecutor said it did not matter because the bullets did not match the bullets that caused the death. The judge then asked to see the bullets. When inspected, some of the bullets appeared to be a match. Then the prosecutor said she had never looked at the bullets before. How then, you may wonder, as I'm sure the judge wondered, was the prosecutor so certain a few minutes before that the bullets did not match?

[ClydeR]

As with Certain Other high profile recent cases, the outcome in this case proves that our justice system still works, at least at the level of state courts.

[Tgo01]

Baldwin got away with murder.

There certainly is privilege in this country: far leftist Hollywood shithead privilege.

[Methais]

Baldwin got away with murder.

There certainly is privilege in this country: far leftist Hollywood shithead privilege.

I haven't really kept up with any of this, but from the little bit I did read, it sounds like the prosecution botched the fuck out of the case.

[Tgo01]

I haven't really kept up with any of this, but from the little bit I did read, it sounds like the prosecution botched the fuck out of the case.

The prosecution didn’t share evidence with the defense but the prosecutors said they didn’t even know about the evidence.

I can understand a mistrial and starting all over with a new trial and ensuring the defense has access to all evidence this time.

I have a feeling the armorer isn’t going to be let out of jail even though presumably her defense didn’t have access to this evidence either.

[ClydeR]

Baldwin got away with murder.

He wasn't even charged with murder.

[ClydeR]

The prosecution didn’t share evidence with the defense but the prosecutors said they didn’t even know about the evidence.

There was evidence, which the judge appeared to believe, to the contrary..


A witness confirmed to the judge on Friday afternoon that a special prosecutor in the case, Kari Morrissey, was directly involved in the decision to file the evidence in an entirely different case file separate from the other Rust materials.

More... (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/alec-baldwin-s-rust-shooting-trial-dismissed-after-lawyers-say-evidence-was-withheld/ar-BB1pThBg)


And this morning two attorneys on the prosecution team, including a special prosecutor provided by the state, resigned without explaining why, after delivering opening statements to the jury earlier this week. You think they both suddenly realized in the middle of the trial that they wanted to spend more time with their families?

The initial case against Baldwin, which was dropped before trial, and the case that was dismissed today were both plagued by multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I believe any charges against Baldwin were rightly dismissed (and not for misconduct). I would not expect an actor handed a loaded gun to clear the gun for live bullets, especially when the blanks and live bullets are not easily distinguished for an amature.

The armorer is the one who I think will be having a hard time of things (or did that already happen, I forget).

[Furryrat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPE-Nt6LThE

[Suppressed Poet]

I believe any charges against Baldwin were rightly dismissed (and not for misconduct). I would not expect an actor handed a loaded gun to clear the gun for live bullets, especially when the blanks and live bullets are not easily distinguished for an amature.

The armorer is the one who I think will be having a hard time of things (or did that already happen, I forget).

I haven’t really followed the case but those are my thoughts as well. I don’t understand why any production company or armorer would ever allow live ammunition (not blanks but having actual bullets) on set. Actors are dumb as fuck and should be treated like children as it relates to prop guns on set. Unfortunately, I think Hollywood will overreact and it’s going to be nonfunctional replicas and airsoft guns in movies from now on.

[ClydeR]

In reading about the Alec Baldwin case, I stumbled on this video from what appears to be a reality show with Alec's brother, Stephen Baldwin. Stephen is the one wearing a cap in the video. The guy he's talking to gets sadder and sadder and sadder.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5V3uQagnpw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5V3uQagnpw

[ClydeR]

Due to the actions of the Santa Fe sheriff and prosecutor, who filed charges against Baldwin despite having knowledge of the “suppressed evidence,” the actor’s lawyers are now planning to sue both parties.

More... (https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/alec-baldwin-lawsuit-santa-fe-prosecutor-sheriff-rust-charge-dismissal-1235062210/)


Baldwin should thank his lucky stars that the prosecutor made a mistake. He should forget about suing and get on with his life.

It's not clear that the evidence in question would have swayed a jury one bit.

[ClydeR]

Two jurors in the Alec Baldwin trial gave interviews. If the other jurors shared their views, then it looks like Baldwin would have been acquitted. And the defense had not even begun its part of the trial when the case was dismissed.


"It was clearly an accident, and the idea that there’s anything purposeful, or the idea that there was this grave carelessness that caused this, didn’t seem realistic to me," Haag said.

Similarly, Picayo — a scientist who served as juror No. 9 — told the Times that as an actor, Baldwin should not have been expected to know a lot about gun safety, adding he instead should have trusted the experts on set.

“I think he would have trusted the people, you know, on the set to do their job," she said.

Picayo also reflected on finding out that Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was already convicted of involuntary manslaughter. “I’m still here, I’m still open to hearing and obviously trying to stay unbiased,” she said, “but I was starting to move towards the direction of thinking that this was very silly and he should not be on trial.”

More... (https://people.com/2-jurors-in-alec-baldwin-s-rust-case-speak-out-after-dismissal-8681200)

[Methais]

Two jurors in the Alec Baldwin trial gave interviews. If the other jurors shared their views, then it looks like Baldwin would have been acquitted. And the defense had not even begun its part of the trial when the case was dismissed.

No one gives a fuck about any of this. Shut the fuck up.

[ClydeR]

The judge in Alec Baldwin's Rust criminal trial denied a motion from the prosecution to revive the case.

On Sept. 6, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer responded after New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey's Aug. 30 request to reconsider the complete dismissal of the case against Baldwin, 66, that was made July 12.

In the ruling, Sommer noted that she was refusing to consider Morrissey's request because her recent motion exceeded a 10-page limit on briefs filed without obtaining permission to do so.

More... (https://www.aol.com/judge-alec-baldwins-rust-trial-210848000.html)

The Baldwin case should be taught in law schools as an example of how not to conduct a criminal prosecution. Let me count the ways..

The state legislature appropriated money to be used to prosecute the case, and a member of the legislature was appointed as a special prosecutor in violation of New Mexico separation of powers rules. The special prosecutor had to resign.
The prosecutor charged Baldwin with several different gun-related crimes, including one that the legislature passed in response to this event. When Baldwin's attorneys pointed it out to the court, the prosecutor issued a public statement, instead of a court filing, about "celebrities with fancy attorneys." The charge had to be dismissed because, as everybody should have known, the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecutions.
The FBI destroyed the gun while testing it. Because of that destruction, Baldwin's experts never got a chance to inspect or test the gun in its condition at the time of ths shooting.
Reports that the gun had been altered from its original condition prior to being brought onto the set prompted the prosecutor to dismiss the charges.
The prosecutor later changed her mind and charged Baldwin a second time.
After the trial began and the jury had already begun listening to evidence, the judge dismissed the case, with prejudice, because of prosecutor misbehavior in failing to disclose relevant evidence to the defendant.
Now, in a filing in violation of a page-limit rule. the prosecutor asked the judge to reinstate the case. No doubt, the prosecutor will file a new motion that fits within the required page limits.

What about double jeopardy, another rule of the Constitution that everybody should know?

Even if the prosecution had been handled perfectly, it would still be a weak case. The central claim of the prosecution is that a movie star, who was supposed to pretend to shoot someone with a gun on a movie set, should have known that some of the bullets in the gun were real, even though a gun expert inspected it minutes before and told him it was safe. It's long past time to close the book on this case.

[ClydeR]

Thursday of last week, the judge in the Alec Baldwin case rejected (https://nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Oct.-24-2024-Order-Denying-States-Amended-Motion-to-Reconsider-Dismissal-with-Prejudice-227p.pdf) the prosecutor's request to reinstate the charges against Baldwin. It was the correct decision.


SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge has upheld her decision to dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie.

More... (https://www.azfamily.com/2024/10/25/judge-upholds-dismissal-involuntary-manslaughter-charge-against-alec-baldwin-on-set-shooting/)


Baldwin’s trial was upended by revelations that ammunition was brought into the Santa Fe County sheriff’s office in March by a man who said it could be related to Hutchins’ killing. Prosecutors said they deemed the ammo unrelated and unimportant, while Baldwin’s lawyers say investigators “buried” the evidence in a separate case file and filed a successful motion to dismiss.


A judge in April sentenced movie weapons supervisor Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to the maximum of 1.5 years at a state penitentiary on an involuntary manslaughter conviction in Hutchins’ death.

Marlowe Sommer last month rejected Gutierrez-Reed’s request to dismiss her conviction or convene a new trial on allegations that prosecutors failed to share evidence that might have been exculpatory. She found that the armorer’s attorneys didn’t establish that there was a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been available to Gutierrez-Reed, who still has an appeal pending with a higher court.

[Tgo01]

It was the correct decision.

Something to keep in mind everyone: Clyder is the type of person who wants a person's life ruined and have them locked up in jail for years if they say mean things, but they are perfectly okay with a far leftist Hollywood douchebag getting away with murder ("manslaughter") while the armorer on the movie set gets sent to prison for said Hollywood douchebag's act of murder.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Something to keep in mind everyone: Clyder is the type of retard that drools and rubs shit in his hair and all that, 'cause I'm gonna have a hard time eatin' 'round that kind of thing now. Just like I am with antique furniture and midgets. You know that, I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget or a piece of antique furniture.

I ain't saying it's right, I'm just telling the damn truth. He'll make me sick. I know it.

[Neveragain]

Something to keep in mind everyone: Clyder is the type of person who wants a person's life ruined and have them locked up in jail for years if they say mean things, but they are perfectly okay with a far leftist Hollywood douchebag getting away with murder ("manslaughter") while the armorer on the movie set gets sent to prison for said Hollywood douchebag's act of murder.

Even Tarantino thinks Baldwin is responsible.

(short)

https://youtube.com/shorts/sSgBB8tJzDE?si=91uZR06ykRlG8jDK

Quinten smoking on Han's pipe is funny AF.

[ClydeR]

Something to keep in mind everyone: Clyder is the type of person who wants a person's life ruined and have them locked up in jail for years if they say mean things, but they are perfectly okay with a far leftist Hollywood douchebag getting away with murder ("manslaughter") while the armorer on the movie set gets sent to prison for said Hollywood douchebag's act of murder.

You may be smarter than jurors and judges, as you seem to believe. But how likely is it that you know the facts of the case better than they do after they have spent days studying nothing else?

[Neveragain]

Our justice system is blind and all lawyers are the same.

https://i.imgflip.com/231yj5.jpg