Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

Page 27 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,559
1,169
136
You are welcome to write to the prosecutors and find out why. It's not as if i was the one charging Alec Baldwin.
I believe one charge is related to the actual shooting with the gun, and the other is related to his role as a producer. Of course, there were several other producers involved, and none of them were charged. Seems like throwing crap at the wall in hopes some of it will stick, or a tactic to try to force a plea deal in order to reduce/eliminate some of the charges.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
Also I'm pretty indifferent to whether Baldwin in particular goes to jail or not. Inclined neither to defend him nor bay for his blood. I only vaguely know who he is (probably have seen him in some movie at some point, but if so, I don't remember it). What seems more important to me is to understand what structural or procedural failings led to this happening (to an innocent woman, who could have been any ordinary worker - doesn't sound as if she had any involvement with the string of failures that led to this) and what changes need to be made to the regulations and the law to prevent it ever happening again (though enforcing existing laws, so that people _know_ they will be enforced, is clearly part of that).

(I get that Taj seems to believe that because prohibition didn't work, there's no point having any laws at all about anything, but I don't find that a compelling argument)
Same for the regulations covering illegal immigration i guess, or drug use, or camping in public places or............
 

Artorias

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2014
1,960
1,242
136
He can make the same argument in his defense for either role (actor/producer). It was not his job to inspect or provide the weapons. It was up to the armorer/prop master as it's their direct job. The same 430 witnesses that will say it's not the actor's job will also say they've never seen a producer directly inspect a weapon on set. Hell, producers are often not even on set.
Was it his job to point the weapon at the director?

What if this happened when the cameras were rolling as a scene was playing out? Does that make him not guilty?

This really shouldn't be too hard to determine if there was negligence on the actors part, witnesses can easily tell us if there was too lax of an environment.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
He may well be acquitted, but it's not rational to conclude they have no case at all or else they wouldn't be charging him.
I agree that if they had no case at all they wouldn’t have brought it but it does seem pretty weak.

I read Popehat pretty regularly (current defense attorney and former federal prosecutor) and in relation to other cases he has said many times that while federal prosecutors are pretty risk averse and only bring cases they are very confident they will win it’s not uncommon for state level prosecutors to YOLO things.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
Baldwin personally shot and killed one person, wounded another, on his own movie set, after he took a gun from someone who wasn't the armourer he hired to control the guns.

"Oh, but I was in the middle of pretending to be a cowboy" doesn't really sound like a sufficient explanation nor excuse when there is a corpse not pretending to be dead.


Just because the righties are in their o-face doesn't compel me to weave some insane logic how Baldwin isn't in deep shit for the person who is dead because of him.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Same for the regulations covering illegal immigration i guess, or drug use, or camping in public places or............
So are you now saying you think there's no point having laws about those things either? That doesn't seem consistent with what you've previously said. So you're a full-on anarchist, then?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Baldwin personally shot and killed one person, wounded another, on his own movie set, after he took a gun from someone who wasn't the armourer he hired to control the guns.

"Oh, but I was in the middle of pretending to be a cowboy" doesn't really sound like a sufficient explanation nor excuse when there is a corpse not pretending to be dead.


Just because the righties are in their o-face doesn't compel me to weave some insane logic how Baldwin isn't in deep shit for the person who is dead because of him.

I agree there seems (to me with no legal-expertise at all), to be a strong argument there. Why did the assistant director hand him the gun and say it was "cold", and why did Baldwin take that guy's word for it (when he hired the armourer in the first place)?

And why did the armourer let that happen?

And that's without even getting into the question of why there were live rounds on set and why the crew was (apparently, just going from what's been said on here) using a 'prop' gun to fire those live rounds for recreational purposes?

Hopefully that's what the jury/court will make an objective decision about. I'm in no way qualified to do so, but it certainly seems that there's a case to answer.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
33,317
24,007
136
You'd be wrong yet again.
Yeah? Trouble getting a job in the slaughter house? You know what actually affects other people? Dipshits like you blocking affordable health care for everyone, and that's just one of 100 examples, but I don't really want to derail this thread any further.
 

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,738
4,124
106
The rightwinger fascists need this one desperately for two explicit reasons
I have had enough posting history here that I can say I am not a right wing fascist, quite the opposite. I bounce between heavily regulate guns and just ban them all.


You see they said that experts at the FBI have verified beyond all doubt that there was just no way for that gun to ever accidentally discharge without the trigger being pulled.
In my minimal firearms experience I have handled enough old single action revolvers to know that is just wrong.

Those old firearms are unsafe deathtraps.


The FBI pretty much has proven his statement at least partially false..
The problem with old firearms is that hammer pull is difficult and strong, and if your a noob like me it is real easy to accidentally discharge. It is also easy to touch that trigger during that hard hammer pull and not realize it. Especially if your doing it one handed and not paying very close attention because your distracted with acting.

Back in the day they used to keep an empty chamber under the hammer at all times because everyone knew they were unsafe deathtraps.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
You are welcome to write to the prosecutors and find out why. It's not as if i was the one charging Alec Baldwin.
Can't think for yourself? Have to wait for Fox news to tell you what your opinion is or what to think? Stop being a pussy, man up and make an attempt to think for yourself and tell us what YOU think! Or are you going to continue letting Fox news tell you what your opinion and thoughts are?
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
I believe one charge is related to the actual shooting with the gun, and the other is related to his role as a producer. Of course, there were several other producers involved, and none of them were charged. Seems like throwing crap at the wall in hopes some of it will stick, or a tactic to try to force a plea deal in order to reduce/eliminate some of the charges.
Then how can they also be charging armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with two counts of manslaughter, one as a person and one as the armor? Honestly that is some fucked up reasoning. I guess that means that someone with multiple personalities are charged for a crime multiple times, one for each personality.

I guess the way I look at it, is for them to charge 1 count for being the producer, and 1 count for being the actor that pulled the trigger, they would have to prove that he was in that roll/frame of mind at that specific time..

However, I just did some quick research after typing the above, and it appears that multiple counts are based on breaking down of the law (s). For example, in one case I came across from 1964 in Ohio, one count of 1st degree murder, was for "dealing with a murder while committing a felony", and the other was a charge for "murder with premeditation and malice." Two different counts of 1st degree murder under the same law, for killing the same person. So what that implies is each count is based on meeting different criteria's of the law(s), and counts are not determined by each incident/action, position or the number of victims. It's determined by how many times they can dissect the same law into different combinations.

So folks.. what we have learned today is that our laws are like combination locks.. they can have many combinations of ways to charge you multiple times under the same law. Still sounds like some fuckery (manipulation) of how our legal system was meant to work. To me, that would be the same as charging you multiple counts of speeding. 1 count for going over the posted speed limit, 1 count for intent to speed, one count for increased safety hazards due to the speed.. the list can go on and on as many times as the law can be manipulated into different criteria's within the law.. It's kind of how people manipulate the bible to mean one thing when it clearly means something else when it's all put into context. It could be argued that breaking down the laws into different "separate" criteria's, it's being taken out of context.. But that's just my opinion.

Anyhow, most of this was just me thinking out loud so to speak (why I didn't remove any of what I typed after I did a little research)... with a little of .. "so that is how they get multiple counts"..... It has nothing to do with being the Producer and the Actor.
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
So are you now saying you think there's no point having laws about those things either? That doesn't seem consistent with what you've previously said. So you're a full-on anarchist, then?
No, but some regulations that aren't enforced are pretty useless, for example illegal immigration laws, drug laws and illegal homeless encampments.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
I have had enough posting history here that I can say I am not a right wing fascist, quite the opposite. I bounce between heavily regulate guns and just ban them all.



In my minimal firearms experience I have handled enough old single action revolvers to know that is just wrong.

Those old firearms are unsafe deathtraps.



The problem with old firearms is that hammer pull is difficult and strong, and if your a noob like me it is real easy to accidentally discharge. It is also easy to touch that trigger during that hard hammer pull and not realize it. Especially if your doing it one handed and not paying very close attention because your distracted with acting.

Back in the day they used to keep an empty chamber under the hammer at all times because everyone knew they were unsafe deathtraps.
Except it was a newly manufactured firearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
Can't think for yourself? Have to wait for Fox news to tell you what your opinion is or what to think? Stop being a pussy, man up and make an attempt to think for yourself and tell us what YOU think! Or are you going to continue letting Fox news tell you what your opinion and thoughts are?
In my opinion he should have been charged with a negligent homicide. I'm more than happy to give my opinions, but the question that was asked didn't concern my opinion, it concerned what the prosecutors charged him with.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
Then how can they also be charging armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with two counts of manslaughter, one as a person and one as the armor? Honestly that is some fucked up reasoning. I guess that means that someone with multiple personalities are charged for a crime multiple times, one for each personality.

I guess the way I look at it, is for them to charge 1 count for being the producer, and 1 count for being the actor that pulled the trigger, they would have to prove that he was in that roll/frame of mind at that specific time..

However, I just did some quick research after typing the above, and it appears that multiple counts are based on breaking down of the law (s). For example, in one case I came across from 1964 in Ohio, one count of 1st degree murder, was for "dealing with a murder while committing a felony", and the other was a charge for "murder with premeditation and malice." Two different counts of 1st degree murder under the same law, for killing the same person. So what that implies is each count is based on meeting different criteria's of the law(s), and counts are not determined by each incident/action, position or the number of victims. It's determined by how many times they can dissect the same law into different combinations.

So folks.. what we have learned today is that our laws are like combination locks.. they can have many combinations of ways to charge you multiple times under the same law. Still sounds like some fuckery (manipulation) of how our legal system was meant to work. To me, that would be the same as charging you multiple counts of speeding. 1 count for going over the posted speed limit, 1 count for intent to speed, one count for increased safety hazards due to the speed.. the list can go on and on as many times as the law can be manipulated into different criteria's within the law.. It's kind of how people manipulate the bible to mean one thing when it clearly means something else when it's all put into context. It could be argued that breaking down the laws into different "separate" criteria's, it's being taken out of context.. But that's just my opinion.

Anyhow, most of this was just me thinking out loud so to speak (why I didn't remove any of what I typed after I did a little research)... with a little of .. "so that is how they get multiple counts"..... It has nothing to do with being the Producer and the Actor.
I guess you haven't been following the Jan. 6th trials then. LSNED.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,954
136
In my opinion he should have been charged with a negligent homicide. I'm more than happy to give my opinions, but the question that was asked didn't concern my opinion, it concerned what the prosecutors charged him with.
This is what I asked: can you explain how you can be charged for two counts of involuntary manslaughter when only 1 person was killed? You didn't even attempt to try and answer it. Not a single attempt to give your opinion or thoughts on how they could have two counts. I actually answered it for you in a later post.. (You even replied to it, see below) Not even man enough to say I don't know.. And now here you are giving me your opinion on something that wasn't even asked.. Completely oblivious of reality.

I guess you haven't been following the Jan. 6th trials then. LSNED.
You mean where they have ample evidence that those involved, violated the actual written law in full as it is written without having to manipulate it and break it up into different parts? Wait, you have spent the last two years ignoring what the law says about what happened Jan. 6, because you believe they didn't do anything wrong.

You know what's really sad, in choosing to be a complete dumbass in your response to me, you didn't even recognize that I actually answered the question I asked you. (Look directly above). And this what you took from it. Proof that your brain is broken. Talk about dumb as a fucking post!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,738
4,124
106
Except it was a newly manufactured firearm.
about that:

F.LLI Pietta 1873 SA Revolvers are faithful re-creations of the venerable 1873 Colt® Single-Action Army revolvers, also known as Peacemakers or simply Colt 45s.
What was considered safe enough in 1873 is not what we consider safe today.

second page:
FULLY LOADED UNCOCKED GUN CAN FIRE!
Well, it is a faithful reproduction.

Finger slips on that hammer before half cock or whatever? BANG!



oh, and page 29:
NEVER KEEP OR CARRY THE REVOLVER WITH THE HAMMER COCKED ... this way your gun cannot be unintentionally fired
also, page 29:
The half cock position only provides partial security from accidental discharges

This is not a modern firearm design.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY