Alec Baldwin update

[JohnKSa]

The result was that instead of a minimum of three people listening for the rattling of BBs to indicate that the rounds in the gun were dummies -- NOBODY did.

Worse than that--the gun was handed to him as being cold--empty. Not loaded with dummies--completely empty. The gun was supposed to be empty per the person responsible for such things at the scene.

If they had told him it was loaded with dummies, maybe he would have asked to witness the loading maybe not, But since they told him it was empty, the point is moot.

[mehavey]

Wrong. There is a different set of rules on movie/TV sets.

Absolutely positively terminally incorrect.
Deadly stupidity has no excuse -- ever.

[HiBC]

I've never been on a movie set and I don't know what I am talking about.

I have heard movie production can be held up over the Union and "job descriptions"

I think the example I read recently was about needing a credentialed "driver" to
move the Dukes of Hazzard "General Lee" from the parking lot to the set.

It might take a certain "Gaffer" to apply duct tape.

Point is,if SAG requires an Armorer present to perform XYZ in order to use firearms on the set, then you must hold things up till the Armorer is present.

I can see Baldwin throwing a "Where is my Armorer?! " fit. Fine. Time and money wasted. Fine. But no one dies.
I can also see the Armorer responding " I was told to go do another job"

Producer Baldwin fails . No gun handling without the Armorer. Shut it down.

Get the Armorer, Fill her in . Give her 15 minutes (?) to clear her head,focus, prep, and have a huddle.

If Producer Baldwin wants to film a "Shoot Em Up" Western with no deaths,
Producer Baldwin must UTILIZE the Armorer.

The Armorer must be EMPOWERED to say Whoa! No! And to keep the guns locked up.

Producer Baldwin must back the Armorer up. And insist she keep the guns locked up . Maybe the ONLY guns on the cart should be non-firing replicas.

As a machinist I have worked in an environment that had a Tool Crib. I'd take my Work Order to the Tool Crib Attendant. I would be issued the specified tooling to do that job. Calbrated gauges. Sharp cutters,etc. Signed out,signed in. The tool crib was not "Help yourself"

Why would movie guns be any different? Producer Baldwin went around his Armorer. It remains to be seen if she was not a good Armorer, But Baldwin is ultimately responsible for prioritizing safety. He failed. If he sent the clear message through the chain of command "Safety is # 1" ! and gave EVERY Staff Member and Actor the power to say "Not safe! Shut it down" this may not have happened.

FWIW, I worked in a Manufacturing plant with about 1000 people. Each one of us was clearly given the power to stop production over an unsafe condition.
Our Management knew that NOTHING will kill profits faster than accidents/injuries. BIG numbers. Plus personal tragedy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by John KSa

Worse than that--the gun was handed to him as being cold--empty. Not loaded with dummies--completely empty. The gun was supposed to be empty per the person responsible for such things at the scene.

If they had told him it was loaded with dummies, maybe he would have asked to witness the loading maybe not, But since they told him it was empty, the point is moot.

I'm not clear whether a gun loaded with dummies is considered to be a "cold" gun, a "hot" gun, or a "warm" gun. Dummies aren't supposed to fire -- not even smoke and muzzle flash. Hollywood uses dummies for precisely the kind of shot that was being set up when the incident occurred -- a shot in which the gun is pointing at or near the camera, so that the front of a revolver's cylinder is clearly visible. They need to have bullets visible in the chambers. That's basically the only use for dummy rounds on a set -- other than to take up space in the loops of a gunbelt.

And this is exactly the kind of scene where the industry guidelines call for the armorer to shake each round in front of the actor and the AD so that everyone can hear the BBs and verify that the dummy rounds ARE dummies, before the armorer loads them into the gun. The AD was negligent for picking up a gun from the cart and calling it "cold" without verifying that the dummy rounds were dummies, and Baldwin was negligent for accepting the gun from the AD without insisting that the proper loading protocol be followed.

[JohnKSa]

I'm not clear whether a gun loaded with dummies is considered to be a "cold" gun, a "hot" gun, or a "warm" gun.

You didn't read the articles you provided as sources. One of them provided a clear definition.

Dummies aren't supposed to fire -- not even smoke and muzzle flash. Hollywood uses dummies for precisely the kind of shot that was being set up when the incident occurred -- a shot in which the gun is pointing at or near the camera, so that the front of a revolver's cylinder is clearly visible. They need to have bullets visible in the chambers. That's basically the only use for dummy rounds on a set -- other than to take up space in the loops of a gunbelt.

Right. According to the source you provided, a gun is not called "cold" unless it is completely unloaded. No blanks, no live ammo, and no dummies. Completely unloaded.

And this is exactly the kind of scene where the industry guidelines call for the armorer to shake each round in front of the actor

What rounds? According to your source, the actor was told the gun was cold. That means there were no rounds in the gun--no live rounds, no blanks, no dummies.

The AD was negligent for picking up a gun from the cart and calling it "cold" without verifying that the dummy rounds were dummies

Well, this is partially correct. They didn't verify that the rounds were dummies, but more importantly, according to your source, when they told him the gun was cold, they were telling him there were no rounds at all in the gun. No live rounds, no blanks and no dummies. But the responsibility definitely falls on the armorer/weapons master.

...Baldwin was negligent for accepting the gun from the AD without insisting that the proper loading protocol be followed.

Wrong. The gun was handed to the actor as a cold gun and according to your source that means it is not loaded. What is the "proper loading protocol" for a gun that is not loaded?

Absolutely positively terminally incorrect.

You can say this all you want but it will never be true. Aquila Blanca provided a number of sources just a few posts up the thread explaining how movie sets are run. But even without that, common sense makes it clear that in an environment where guns must be pointed at persons, the context is completely different from the norm.

The concept is very simple, attempting to reject it is meaningless. One might as well try to argue that black is white and white is black. No matter how dogged one's determination is or how dedicated they are to their premise, they can never be correct.

You can keep saying: "Is too!" until the cows come home, but there's no evidence at all to support your opinion--all of the evidence proves it is wrong. The normal rules of gun safety are routinely violated on movie sets and doing so is not considered negligence.

HiBC,

You're on the right track. Baldwin is in trouble, because he's ultimately responsible for making sure that the overall production was run properly and clearly there were big problems.

[mehavey]

Aquila Blanca provided a number of sources just a few
posts up the thread explaining how movie sets are run.

I (and I imagine the eventual jury) won't give one hoot in Hades as to "...that's how movies sets are run...."

- Attorney for the plaintiff: "Did you check the gun before pointing it at Miss Hutchins ?

- Baldwin "...I was told...."

- Attorney: Mr. Baldwin, Did you check the gund before pointing it at Miss Hutchins ?

- Baldwin: "...that's not how we..."

- Attorney: MR BALDWIN. DID YOU CHECK THE GUN BEFORE POINTING IT AT MISS HUTCHINS ?

- Baldwin: "... that's not how movie sets are...."

- Attorney: You Honor. Would you please instruct the defendant to answer the question?

- Mr Baldwin...?

Game over w/ the civil jury long before this point is reached....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to the possible criminal side of the house:

Involuntary manslaughter ...involves a killing that occurs while the
defendant is engaging in a lawful but dangerous act without exercising
“due caution and circumspection.” ...a fourth-degree felony...
https://newmexicocriminallaw.com/wha...anslaughter-2/

- Attorney for the People: "Mr Baldwin, did you check the gun before pointing it at Miss Hutchins ?

- Baldwin: "... the armorer is supposed to...."

- Attorney for the People: Did the armorer give you the gun?

- Baldwin: "... the armorer wasn't there..."

- Attorney for the People: Where was the armorer, Mr Baldwin?

- Baldwin: "... the armorer wasn't there..."

- Attorney for the People: So someone other than the armorer handed you the gun?

- Baldwin: Yes

- Attorney for the People: But not the armorer who was in fact hired by you to be responsible for the gun ?

- Baldwin: Yes

- Attorney for the People: "Mr Baldwin, did you check the gun before pointing it at Miss Hutchins ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[JohnKSa]

I (and I imagine the eventual jury) won't give one hoot in Hades as to "...that's how movies sets are run...."

Of course they will. Context, when it is important, as it is in this case, will be carefully explained to the jury so they understand its relevance.

Your made up courtroom scenarios are pure fiction. Nothing remotely like that will take place.

Look, if you really care about this topic, you should do some research on it and get the facts so you can discuss it properly instead of talking off the cuff and making up pretend scenarios to support your opinion.

[44 AMP]

I think mehavey has hit what could be the telling point for most people on a jury.

Especially if, as suggested, Baldwin doesn't give a direct answer but tries instead to "explain" how things are done on a movie set.

It could come down to something that simple. It's quite possible the jury won't care a fig about how things are done, or supposed to be done on a movie set. I can easily see a juror thinking, "well the way it was done on this set got a woman killed!" and not being terribly interested in what the proper procedure was supposed to be, and only focusing on the pointing and firing of a gun, resulting in a death, and not so much why or HOW that circumstance came about.

Yes, I'm sure they jury will have been versed in how movies are done, but isn't possible that won't carry as much weight with them as the simple and easily understood facts that he didn't check the gun, he did point it, and it did fire, killing a woman?? It's highly unlikely any jury will contain anyone expert in either firearms or the movie industry and its practices. SO its likely they would pay the most attention to as Mark Twain once put it, "the better liar".

I think if the prosecutor sticks to the simple "this is what the law states is required to sustain the charges" and "did Mr Baldwins actions meet those requirements?" he's got a strong case.

Information about how things are supposed to be done on a movie set are informational, but do they really apply, since by the available evidence, they were not done on that set, that day??

The best procedure in the world is worthless if you don't use it.

[JohnKSa]

It's highly unlikely any jury will contain anyone expert in either firearms or the movie industry and its practices.

Correct. The lawyers will do their best to insure that no one like that is chosen to be on the jury. What the jury knows about the topic will be provided by testimony by experts

Especially if, as suggested, Baldwin doesn't give a direct answer but tries instead to "explain" how things are done on a movie set.

Someone else will explain in detail. Not Baldwin. There will be an expert witness (or maybe several) to provide that information. That will all be established before Baldwin testifies--assuming he chooses to do so.

I think if the prosecutor sticks to the simple "this is what the law states is required to sustain the charges" and "did Mr Baldwins actions meet those requirements?" he's got a strong case.

The charge is going to be some kind of negligence. What is required to sustain the charge will be proof of negligence. If he didn't do anything that was negligent in the context of the incident then the charges won't be sustained. In a vacuum, the prosecutor might be able to push something like that through, but there will be lawyers on the other side too and they are paid to point out any issues with the prosecutor's strategy. That means, among other things, that they won't allow things to be oversimplified.

The best procedure in the world is worthless if you don't use it.

The problem is that the procedure is administrated by the armorer/weapons master, not the actor. Baldwin, the producer, maybe found negligent/liable for hiring and keeping someone that was not competent, but the negligence/liability for the actual incident itself is going to come back onto the armorer/weapons master, not Baldwin the actor. The actor only does what he is told. Blaming him for the armorer's error is like trying to hold a computer responsible for an error that the programmer made, or suing a car because the driver made a mistake and caused a crash.

[mehavey]

get the facts so you can discuss it properly

The jury determines the facts.
I have simply offered how the theories will be presented to same.
And unlike angels on the head of a pin that occupy the legal beagles...
juries tend to cut through the chattering noise to get the heart of the matter.

"Mr Baldwin, did you check the gun before pointing it at Miss Hutchins ?

Some on that jury might remember Tom Leher

"Once the rockets are up,
Who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,"
Says Wernher von Braun.

Bottom line:

...jury won't care a fig about how things are done, or supposed to be done on a movie set.

Gee I wish I'd said that.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walkaway Cocktails:
"Mr Baldwin, were things being done as they were supposed to have been done on that movie set?

"Mr Baldwin, if things were not being done as they were supposed to have been done on that movies set,
do the commonly-responsible actions expected of the even the most ordinary of men come into play?



.

[44 AMP]

Baldwin, the producer, maybe found negligent/liable for hiring and keeping someone that was not competent, but the negligence/liability for the actual incident itself is going to come back onto the armorer/weapons master, not Baldwin the actor.

I'm not sure. That the armorer/weapons master was either negligent or will be liable, because what happened was NOT the normal usual situation, and clearly not in compliance with their own industry rules & practices.

Because the armorer was not there.

And, they went ahead, anyway....

doesn't this make the matter somewhat similar to a jet airliner taking off without getting clearance from the tower to do so?? Because there was no air traffic controller in the tower to give clearance, and someone from baggage handling told them there were no other planes on the runway, so it was ok to go ahead??

OR is it more like the Captain (who in this case is also the ship owner) maintaining full speed ahead, despite ice warnings, because time (money) was the most important thing, and after all, there's always ice in the North Atlantic in April,...somewhere...
?

So, yes, if things had been done in accordance with industry rules, with an armorer present and performing their duties, and the accident happened anyway, THEN the competence of the Armorer would be a valid question.

But that's not what happened on the Rust set that day. SO, doesn't that toss that particular question of armorer competence into the red herring basket??

Which is not to say that a jury won't go chasing that red herring and rule however they rule because of it.

What the jury knows about the topic will be provided by testimony by experts

While this is one of the great strengths of our system, it is ALSO one of the greatest potential flaws.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

While this is one of the great strengths of our system, it is ALSO one of the greatest potential flaws.

Too true.

For example: I was an expert witness in a civil case a number of years ago. It was before a judge, not a jury, but both sides presented expert witnesses. The case involved a fire that destroyed roughly two-thirds of a condominium building. I was a witness for the defendant, which was a plumbing company whose worker started the fire while soldering a valve in a bathroom wall. The heart of the case was that the construction of the building was severely deficient, with firestopping missing in critical locations. That's what allowed the fire to escape the unit under repair and take out most of the building.

I'm an architect and a code expert. I introduced (through the written report I had done) plans showing that the bathroom in question backed up against the kitchen of an adjoining unit, and that the kitchen wall had a huge gap because of the way soffits above the kitchen cabinets were framed and constructed.

The other side's "expert" was a plumber, who testified that the bathroom where the fire started back up against a bathroom in an adjoining unit. That "expert" had never seen plans of the building, and had never been in any of the units other than the one in which the fire started. Nonetheless, he was certain that the bathroom backed up against another bathroom.

Despite having plans and photographs documenting that the bathroom did, in fact, abut a kitchen, the judge determined that the bathroom backed up against another bathroom, because plumbers know more about bathrooms than architects.

Yes, this is a true story. My great-grandfather was a professor of law. He quit private practice and went into teaching because (as related by my grandfather, his student) "There's no justice in the courts."

[HiBC]

When there is a wreck, very often its not due to only one driver/ one mistake.

Its a little bit rainy. Driver A is pulling out of a drive through restaurant with a breakfast burger and a hot coffee. Just as they are entering traffic,the car hits a pothole ,the i-phone ringtone goes off,and the coffee tips over. Driver A pulls out in front of driver B and gets Tee-boned.

Driver B is a little drunk, going 98 mph in a 35 mph speed zone on bald tires,which hydroplane on the wet road.

Or, 4th Grader Jimmy is fondling a girl at school ,Dad is an abusive drunk,and Jimmy has a "funny Uncle" who molests him, and Mom climbed on a Greyhound bus and left 2 weeks ago.

Jimmy just got arrested.

Who is at fault may not be black and white . It may be a tangle of threads in varying shades of grey.

I suspect the Armorer was inadequate in function. That may be a tangle in itself. Her systems and control may have been sloppy.
However, her chain of command may have stretched her too thin,or undermined and disempowered her.

The Armorer may have been told to take the truck,and go pick up lunch for the crew at Burger Billie's .
How responsible is the Armorer if Baldwin and crew got into the guns?
But then,why weren't they locked up and why was there live ammo available?

The crew had walked off the set. They were PO'd about "Misfire incidents" Cute term. "Misfire" It must be the gun's fault. Serious enough for management to address ,don't you think?

Why didn't Baldwin make a phone call " Hey, I need another Armorer right now.Do whatever it takes to get one. "

Cost? Halya is dead. The movie is dead. Big lawsuits are coming. How much does a good Armorer cost? And they may well have needed two armorers.

What part did Beancounters/budget play? Who makes those decisions?

Who is the "Decider"? A Leader says "I am the Decider. The buck stops here" A spineless,impotent ,ineffective worm plays "Cover My Anterior" with "Not my fault" stories

Whether Armorer, Producer, Actor,Director, Gaffer, Grip, Halya is dead because NO ONE has the stones to say "Hey,no! Thats unacceptable" Or "Baldwin gets to do whatever"

Now,let me ask, have you ever been on a pheasant hunt, bunch of guy standing around at break time, maybe a few with the old Browning A-5 in something resembling a sloppy "Right shoulder arms" but more horizontal...breech closed. Muzzle waving around. You are a guest.

Do you walk over to the guy and introduce yourself, and suggest a quiet conversation (clear the gun,lock the breech open, and do whatever necessary to keep the muzzle safe) Or do you ignore it and let the group be what it is?

If he was your Producer,would you confront Alec Baldwin?

[44 AMP]

I've got another one for you, I used to work at a nuclear facility which had a Tactical Response Team as part of the security force. Military class, camo, battle rattle, and at one time armed with Uzis, later switching to an M16 variant.

These weapons were typically carried slung, muzzle down, (bolt forward) across the back. Which meant that the muzzle would sweep anyone sitting down they walked past, such as at a table in the lunch room, etc.

Now, we were all "safe" because procedure required the chamber to be empty.... (and yes they had live ammo in the mag) I suggested chamber flags to SHOW us they were empty, or a muzzle up carry, but of course, it wasn't enough of a concern for management to bother with...

In the Rust shooting, we're told the armorer was off doing something else, and so we ask "why weren't the guns/ammo under lock and key while the armorer was away"... and I think, rightly so. It is possible the armorer was negligent not having them locked up. At this point, we don't yet know.

HOWEVER, another thing we don't yet know, is whether or not the armorer was the only person with the key. There are many places where sensitive/dangerous/hazardous materials are kept under lock and key when not in use and while there is a designated individual who has that key and is responsible for seeing things are done properly, often management has their own copy of the key, ostensibly for emergency response in that area if needed and the person assigned with the "use key" is not available.

Such a key MIGHT simply be kept in a key box where at least one, and possibly several managers have access to it at any given time. SO, it is possible (likelihood still to be determined) that IF that was the situation with the Rust production company, someone other than the armorer COULD have unlocked the storage and let others remove the guns to the set, in order to "save time". Absolutely bad practice, but until ruled out, it's a possibility.

[JohnKSa]

The jury determines the facts.

The jury determines the verdict. The facts are provided by testimony.

Because the armorer was not there. And, they went ahead, anyway...
...
But that's not what happened on the Rust set that day. SO, doesn't that toss that particular question of armorer competence into the red herring basket??

No.

1. Someone was acting as the armorer/weapons master. They are in trouble because they did not do their job properly and someone is now dead as a result.
2. It was the armorer's job to make sure that the weapons situation on set was safe, whether she was there or not. She should have made sure there was no live ammo on set. She should have been on set any time weapons were being handed or should have made sure someone competent was there in her place. She is in trouble because she did not do any of that and someone is dead as a result.
3. Someone was responsible for hiring competent staff for the movie and overseeing them properly. They are in trouble because they did not do that and someone is dead as a result.

When there is a wreck, very often its not due to only one driver/ one mistake.

This is one of my rules.

John's Rule of Distributed Blame: When all the blame is distributed amongst all the participants, there is always more than enough to go around.

[44 AMP]

1. Someone was acting as the armorer/weapons master. They are in trouble because they did not do their job properly and someone is now dead as a result.

Given that there are details we do not yet know (and may never know) it seems that way. I would only add that it took more than just the armorer's failure to allow the accident to happen.

2. It was the armorer's job to make sure that the weapons situation on set was safe, whether she was there or not. She should have made sure there was no live ammo on set. She should have been on set any time weapons were being handed or should have made sure someone competent was there in her place. She is in trouble because she did not do any of that and someone is dead as a result.

If I understand the rules we've been told, there should not have been ANY weapons (or ammo) on the set when the armorer is not present.

Again, there are many things we do not know that have a bearing on the matter. Did the armorer fail in their duty, (which is currently indicated but not yet proven) or did the weapons get put on the set by someone else, either with the armorer's knowledge and approval, or because the armorer failed to be the only one in secure control of them?? We don't know, yet.

3. Someone was responsible for hiring competent staff for the movie and overseeing them properly. They are in trouble because they did not do that and someone is dead as a result.

I agree, completely, managment failed massively, and a person died as a result.

What I'm having a hard time getting past is the fact that the armorer was sent to a different location, to do the other job (property management?) that management had her doing. And the implication that her not being on that set, (and therefore not being able to do the Armorer's job on that set) is somehow her personal failing. Perhaps it was, again, one more thing we don't know with certainty, yet.

I just have a hard time finding fault with someone not doing something at a specific location and time when it appears that management sent them somewhere else to do a different job at that time.

A key point in this particular subset of action (and again which we don't yet know) is if the armorer decided on their own to go to the other location and do their other job, or if it was something scheduled, or a spur of the moment decision by the boss ordering her there.

IF she did it entirely on her own, the responsibility would be all hers. But if she was ordered to do it by management, and then that same management decided to go ahead and use firearms on the set without her, I don't feel she is the only person responsible for contributing to the tragedy.

it appears to me that all roads lead to Baldwin, but he was not alone on the road...though it does seem like he was the one steering...

[mehavey]

The jury determines the verdict. The facts are provided by testimony.

No again.
Facts as well as verdict are determined by the jury.
All else is merely testimony/allegation/evidence until then.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury...ct%20and%20law.

I do so want to see an actual trial actually take place - and televised.
Get this all out in the table.

.

[HiBC]

No again.
Facts as well as verdict are determined by the jury.
All else is merely testimony/allegation/evidence until then.

Has it ever occurred that non-factual "evidence" or testimony has mislead a jury,?
Has it ever occurred that a biased jury has based the verdict on bias rather than fact?

Have innocent men been sentenced based on an incorrect verdict?
Or have guilty men gone free ?

Did OJ do it? What is the "fact"? Do you know?

Does 2+2 = 4? Thats a fact.

[mehavey]

Facts are what jury decides -- true or not.




* as to OJ... Slashing two people's throats --one after another where you can't
control the aspect angles once the action starts-- would have produced a literal
(and unconcealable) blood bath covering everybody.

As unpopular as it might be, i believe the jury on that one.

[Aguila Blanca]

Facts are what are presented to the court (whether it's a judge or a jury) as evidence. The role of the judge or jury with respect to facts is not to generate facts, but to judge the accuracy and veracity of whatever facts are presented to them.

[mehavey]

Facts are what are presented to the court

No, allegations as to what are believed to be facts are presented as evidence.
"The jury (then) determines the facts based on the evidence presented."
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...0civil%20trial.

.

[Aguila Blanca]

A piece of paper with words written on it is not an allegation. A bullet or a fired shell casing is not an allegation. A photograph or a video is not an allegation.

A witness's testimony -- legally -- is not an allegation. The legal supposition is that witnesses are telling the truth. That may or not be, but that's the supposition. Where witnesses disagree, that's where the jury gets to evaluate the facts with which they have been presented.

It's the statements of the plaintiff or the prosecution that are allegations.

[mehavey]

So you disagree with the bar ?

And evidence is never conflicting?
Forensics are never misleading?
And of course, all testimony is truth as to fact ?
Rashoman

Sorry, but "evidence" and testimony is but allegation until the jury sorts it out as to fact

[Sarge]

Juries arrive at a verdict (or don't) based on what they believe to be credible testimony and evidence. They do not always get it right. They are the arbiters of guilt or innocence and nothing more. They are not even the final arbiters, until appeals have been exhausted.

[44 AMP]

So you disagree with the bar ?

I'm not disagreeing with the bar, but I don't think a couple lines in a thumbnail outline aimed at general readers adequately covers all the nuances of law and terminology.

And evidence is never conflicting?
Forensics are never misleading?
And of course, all testimony is truth as to fact ?

I looked at the linked movie Wiki page, and I think, to illustrate your point a more modern and better known film would have been a better choice.

I suggest My Cousin Vinny (if you can get past the profanity) I think its an excellent (though fictional) illustration of how actual facts can be presented in court to give an impression supporting an allegation when the reality is something slightly different.

I am particularly fond of the scene where the FBI expert testifies about their lab results, and how samples from the scene were an identical match to samples taken from the tires of the defendants car.

At which point the prosecutor crows to the jury "IDENTICAL!!" implying that it must have been the defendant's car that made the marks.

On cross exam, Vinny demolishes that simply by asking a couple questions, making the point about how the tires on the defendant's car were the most common tire sold and how they would all have "identical" results when samples were analyzed.

There are numerous other times showing how the prosecutor presented facts, but without complete context, in order to create an opinion not strictly factual. It does happen.

Like the court of public opinion, control of the information shapes the results. And that can be misused, particularly under the sometimes byzantine seeming court rules of evidence about what is, and is not admissible.

Personally, I am more than a bit perplexed about what appears to be a double standard there. We are constantly told how we must consider the history of a person when considering them for a job, or gun ownership, or other potentially sensitive matter, and yet, in court jurors are frequently forbidden to consider a person's past actions in any way.

We're told that this ensures a fair and unbiased verdict, but does it, really? I have my doubts.

And doesn't this apply to the Rust matter? We're not in court, and so free to consider Baldwin's past public history, which does provide a possible reason for what he did, and didn't do, both as producer and actor on the set of Rust.