Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[Metal god]

Sorry couldn’t find the old thread on this .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/movie...rust-shooting/

Well I think we all have strong feelings about this . I’m still reading through a few articles. Just wanted to get this up , ill be back to complain about this in a bit

One thing stands out to me though . I’m assuming the Armorer is still charged ? Isn’t the case on her thinners then Baldwin because he is the producer responsible for the safety on set , and the one that actually fired the shot ? Should we be expecting the armorers charges to be dropped as well ?

[ghbucky]

Personally, I think a jury should have made this decision.

That's all I'll say here.

[rickyrick]

Some people receive more equal treatment than others.

[44 AMP]

I got as far as these key words "Baldwin's attorneys said..: before the link wanted me to create an account in order to continue reading, at which point, I left the page.

I did hear this on my car radio today, and a bit of discussion on a radio talk show with a guest who was or had been an actual DA.

One of the several things he pointed out was "Baldwin's lawyers said", and that right now, there has been no official word about the matter from the DA on the case.

Another point he made was that the DA handling the case now is the 3rd one to have the case. The first one handed the case off to another DA for "unspecified reasons". The second DA got elected to the legislature, and so could no longer function as a prosecutor. So now, someone else has it, and I have no idea what they intend to do with it.

I can see the logic to a DA dropping charges in a case where they do not believe it is possible to win a conviction. That's not justice, it is practicality.

What I cannot understand is the logic that allows keeping manslaughter charges against the armorer and dropping them on the guy who SHOT the woman causing her death.

Hopefully we'll know more as actual facts get released. IF they do...

[Tom Servo]

This is the criminal phase. As I pointed out in the last thread, he's still potentially on the hook in civil proceedings, and for a lot of reasons.

[HiBC]

And it was dismissed with the option to re-open the case if new evidence comes along.
Could you go back to that set and pick up acting in that church?

I hope it haunts him every day.

[s3779m]

According to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65343821

But the FBI checked the gun out and determined that it could not have fired without pulling the trigger. I do not have a high opinion of the FBI, but surely they can check out a gun to see if it can work. Something really stinks here.

As Rick said above,

Some people receive more equal treatment than others.

.

[JohnKSa]

Keep in mind that posts need to be related to firearms, law, or civil rights. Posts that don't contain any of that content are off topic.

[Metal god]

I can see the logic to a DA dropping charges in a case where they do not believe it is possible to win a conviction. That's not justice, it is practicality.

Agreed , not so much as judicial discretion but more the quality of Baldwins lawyers. They have shown there competence . I think they have shown the DA this is going to be a very hard win for them . My guess is the DA is of the mind set better to be thought of as a fool then having it proven in court .

The question I have , was it the DA only , that the made the decision or was it the recommendation of the special prosecutor?

[44 AMP]

I think they have shown the DA this is going to be a very hard win for them .

I don't see that. In fact, I don't see how the case can be anything but a "slam dunk".

I admit to not being formally trained in the law, and not versed in specific details of the state law being applied here, if you are, please make the points known.

Involuntary Manslaughter.

Involuntary, meaning it happens without conscious thought.

Manslaughter, meaning "the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder"
(general internet dictionary definition, but I think good enough for our use in discussion. IF there are specifics in the state law that change this definition significantly. I am not aware of them at this time)

Perhaps I am looking at this too simply, but as I see it, Baldwin did what he did and a woman died as a result of that. How does that NOT fit squarely under involuntary manslaughter??

I don't see how anything in the chain of events leading up to the shooting alters the basic fact that as a result of what he did, a woman died. And THAT fits the definition of manslaughter.

The events can be argued, and should have an effect on the degree he is legally responsible and what, if any punishment should be applied.

I just don't see how anyone can contest those facts.

THoughts?

[JohnKSa]

There was an extensive discussion about culpability on the original thread but mostly people were unwilling to hear it because they dislike Baldwin so much as a person.

He's going to have some civil liability for the way the whole armorer situation was handled, but as far as criminal responsibility, the armorer is the one responsible for gun safety on the set, not the actor unless the actor disobeys commands/instructions.

Holding him responsible is like accusing a parent of a crime for killing a child by giving it the wrong dosage when the pharmacist put the wrong dosage instructions on the bottle before selling it. Maybe there are things the parent could have done to have determined there was a problem, but that doesn't mean they are criminally responsible. The pharmacist is the one who was criminally negligent.

[Metal god]

I made the point in the other thread that yes we all know the 4 rules and think everyone should and if they don't it's on them . However on a movie set there are people responsible for all kinds of safety issues . Is it the actors fault if they did not double check the lighting rig before acting under it and it falls on them ? Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ? I'm sure there are tens of examples we can find so why is the gun any different ?

Is it because we are hyper sensitive to gun safety ? I say yes because I'd bet money several juror's will except the actor does not have final responsibility on set regardless of the reason someone was hurt or killed . Especially if there is someone on set that is there specifically for the safety of the said thing that caused the incident . I'm not saying I fully buy into all that but I can see a really good attorney making that argument not only to the jury but in the press every day before the jury is picked . I think the DA knew this and realized they will at best get a hung jury because some poor anti gun , tree hugging uber sensitive soccer mom will never think it was that poor nice mans fault . He was told it was safe by the safety person , you can't ask for anything more then that .

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

There was an extensive discussion about culpability on the original thread but mostly people were unwilling to hear it because they dislike Baldwin so much as a person.

He's going to have some civil liability for the way the whole armorer situation was handled, but as far as criminal responsibility, the armorer is the one responsible for gun safety on the set, not the actor unless the actor disobeys commands/instructions.

Holding him responsible is like accusing a parent of a crime for killing a child by giving it the wrong dosage when the pharmacist put the wrong dosage instructions on the bottle before selling it. Maybe there are things the parent could have done to have determined there was a problem, but that doesn't mean they are criminally responsible. The pharmacist is the one who was criminally negligent.

I have to ask, in a court of law, the person pulling the trigger is responsible, there are exceptions I know. I would not think "movie set rules" would be one of those exceptions and over ride the law. Am I missing something here? Nobody but Baldwin pointed the gun directly at someone. Nobody but Baldwin pulled the trigger. Two deliberate acts, neither of which was an accident.

And from what I have seen, the charges were dropped on Baldwin because the trigger was aftermarket. Once again, if that gun would have killed someone during a crime, I guessing charges would not have been dropped because of a trigger.

[JohnKSa]

I have to ask, in a court of law, the person pulling the trigger is responsible, there are exceptions I know. I would not think "movie set rules" would be one of those exceptions and over ride the law. Am I missing something here? Nobody but Baldwin pointed the gun directly at someone. Nobody but Baldwin pulled the trigger. Two deliberate acts, neither of which was an accident.

Cutting someone is against the law. It's assault with a deadly weapon. Yet surgeons do it with impunity on a regular basis in operating rooms. There are, of course, safeguards set up and there is no criminal intent. That doesn't mean there's no responsibility on the part of surgeons at all, but it's very different than if they went up to someone on the street and cut them.

Driving too fast is negligent and yet racecar drivers do it all the time and are not charged with a crime. There are, of course, safeguards set up and there is no criminal intent. That doesn't mean there's no responsibility at all on the part of racecar drivers, but it's not the same as if they were speeding under normal circumstances.

Giving a child a lethal overdose of prescription medication is illegal but if the parent followed the instructions that the pharmacist put on the bottle, the fault is the pharmacist's, not the parent's. It could be argued that the parent could have investigated and perhaps prevented the death, but that's not the same at all as if they intentionally gave the child too much medication, or even the same as if they accidentally overdosed the child through their own negligence.

Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is a crime (at least one, maybe more than one crime), absent certain legal justifications, and yet actors frequently do it on movie sets without being arrested and charged. There are safeguards in place and there is no criminal intent which makes it obviously very different from walking up to someone on the street, pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger.

[Tom Servo]

Sometimes it's about the actual law. Sometimes, it's about what the DA thinks they can get a conviction on. Sometimes, those are different things.

[s3779m]

Thanks.

[stagpanther]

I read some place that 2 key factors have come to play in the possibility of acquitting Baldwin of criminal charges; 1) The local law enabling him to be criminally charged in the first place was not in effect at the time of the incident and was found that it could not be used retroactively, and 2) the Screen union to handles these things in the movies has come out and more or less supported the notion that a typical actor cannot be expected to have the level of knowledge to know how to judge a weapon's true condition beyond what they are told by those assigned to handle safety on the set. That's pretty much it from what I can tell. Do I agree with that? not necessarily, but I think Baldwin isn't out of the woods yet, at least in terms of civil liabilities.

[44 AMP]

And if the surgeon kills the patient, or the race car driver runs down the flag guy or someone gets shot to death on a movie set it doesn't change the fact that it happened and the person who did it, did it.

Legal and moral responsibly are separate matters in my view.

USA Today is now reporting the charges against Baldwin have been dropped, The DA said they have received new evidence that they will be unable to fully investigate before the May3 date of the preliminary hearing. They are dismissing the charges without prejudice, which I understand means they could be brought again at another time.

My personal predictor is notoriously fallible but sometimes does get things spot on. Right now its saying the charges being reinstated is a very low order probability.

Guess time will tell...

[JohnKSa]

And if the surgeon kills the patient, or the race car driver runs down the flag guy or someone gets shot to death on a movie set it doesn't change the fact that it happened and the person who did it, did it.

As I said, it does not absolve them of total responsibility. If they do something that is, in the context, criminal or negligent they can certainly be charged. The point is that context is critical.

Legal and moral responsibly are separate matters in my view.

Did you know that there's a picture of a rabbit on the internet with what appears to be a pancake on its head? Actually, it's not a pancake, but it is a bakery product. Balanced right on the rabbit's head.

That is just as relevant to whether charges are brought/dropped against Baldwin. The law and the courts are about legality. Sometimes moral responsibility and legality align, sometimes not.

...Baldwin isn't out of the woods yet, at least in terms of civil liabilities.

Someone is definitely going to pay before this is over. There is absolutely going to be civil liability in this case and it's going to be significant. I don't see how Baldwin can possibly escape that.

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I made the point in the other thread that yes we all know the 4 rules and think everyone should and if they don't it's on them . However on a movie set there are people responsible for all kinds of safety issues . Is it the actors fault if they did not double check the lighting rig before acting under it and it falls on them ? Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ? I'm sure there are tens of examples we can find so why is the gun any different ?

On the other thread, I felt that Metal god and JohnKSa understood this, but not many others. The gun was pointed at the camera, it went off and hit the cinematographer and the director, who was directly behind the cinematographer. The actor is working at the direction of, get this, the "director". None of the three people involved expected the gun to be functional let alone loaded.

95% or more of the rest seemed like mostly just personal animus for Baldwin, possibly in large part due to his unflattering portrayal of a certain someone on SNL. And he's one of them there liberal Hollywood Elites.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WyMark

On the other thread, I felt that Metal god and JohnKSa understood this, but not many others. The gun was pointed at the camera, it went off and hit the cinematographer and the director, who was directly behind the cinematographer. The actor is working at the direction of, get this, the "director". None of the three people involved expected the gun to be functional let alone loaded.

However, of those three, the Screen Actors Guild safety guideline for firearms only required one of those three people to personally verify that the firearm was loaded with blanks -- by watching it be loaded in his presence, and seeing each cartridge be shaken so they could hear the BB rattling around inside. Guess which of the three it was.

[ghbucky]

The SAG safety bulletin for use of firearms on set is very good. And if it had been followed, this conversation would not be happening. But, it was not.

Apparently the law carves out exceptions for people performing in their profession that is not offered to us handling firearms outside of a professional setting.

I don't understand why an actor pointing a gun at someone and killing them isn't a criminal offense, but if I do it in a training scenario, it is.

I don't see that as 'blind justice'.

[44 AMP]

Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ?

Got to thinking about this, and I don't think its a good comparison. I think some thing more similar to fair would be putting an actor who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of an actual operating vehicle.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the actor isn't responsible for damages, I'm willing to listen. I can see the argument that it is the person who put the actor in that position who is actually responsible, and, there is logic in that.

OR you can argue that it is the actor's responsibility, because they took the job and didn't know how to do it.

In the Rust shooting, aren't both those roles filled by the same person? Baldwin....

[JohnKSa]

Got to thinking about this, and I don't think its a good comparison. I think some thing more similar to fair would be putting an actor who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of an actual operating vehicle.

Both are good comparisons. If the movie asks the actor to do something, they are responsible for making sure it can be done safely, for making sure that the equipment required is in good working order, is configured properly, is safe to operate, and for making sure that the actor is capable of doing what is required.

If the person responsible for maintaining the car, or for insuring that the actor knows what to do and is capable of doing it screws up, then they are responsible, not the actor.

The additional layer on top of that is that if someone who is known to be or should reasonably be expected to be incompetent is hired, or if someone who has demonstrated incompetence is kept on after they have demonstrated their incompetence and the incompetent person causes damages/injury/death, the person who did the hiring and/or retained the person may face some civil or criminal liability for that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ?

I don't believe the SAG safety protocols require an actor (or stuntman) to personally check the brake fluid, pull the wheels, and check the brake linings on a car before driving it in a film setting. Or to watch while a mechanic on the set does those things in front of him. So this is not an appropriate comparison.