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

[fskimospy]

Just point out where you thought the case would be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct by concealing evidence. I won't wait, but i'll check back in a few weeks or months.

I thought it would lose on multiple other grounds but the case was so bad we never even got a chance for it to lose on them.

Lol. This was entirely obvious to people with a brain you’re just so partisan you tried to wish it to be otherwise. I tried to tell you but you’re too stupid and stubborn to listen.

 

[iRONic]

Trial underway ... finally.

Opening statements to give road map to involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin​

A jury is set to hear opening statements at the involuntary manslaughter trial of Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer in a trial that will delve into the confluence of gun safety, high-wattage celebrity and a low-budget Western film on a remote movie ranch.

Nothing to do with the trial, but they finished the movie! I didn't know that. Supposedly this is the first interview with the Director Joel Souza:

The director told Vanity Fair about creative disputes over the character with Baldwin, who also served as a producer on the film and helped secure its funding. Both men returned a year and a half after the accident to finish the movie, a decision Souza attributes to the desire to preserve and showcase Hutchins’s final work.

“Getting through it was tough,” Souza said of working with Baldwin to complete the film. “We got through it. I got the performance I wanted. We’re not friends. We’re not enemies. There’s no relationship.”

‘It ruined me’: Rust director speaks for first time about fatal on-set shooting | Rust film set shooting | The Guardian

 

[igor_kavinski]

Honestly, at least 50% of the movie's profits should go to Halyna's family. FOREVER.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Honestly, at least 50% of the movie's profits should go to Halyna's family. FOREVER.

And there will be zero point zero profits

 

[igor_kavinski]

And there will be zero point zero profits

Nah. Streaming services will trip over themselves to buy rights to this movie.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah. Streaming services will trip over themselves to buy rights to this movie.

It's Hollywood though so there will still be no profits.

Famously, due to Hollywood accounting the Return of the Jedi to this day is booked as a net loss.

 

[igor_kavinski]

It's Hollywood though so there will still be no profits.

Famously, due to Hollywood accounting the Return of the Jedi to this day is booked as a net loss.

WOW. Thanks for informing me!

How Hollywood gaslights WGA strikers, Uncle Sam and Darth Vader about its profits - Tax Justice Network

Hollywood expects WGA strikers, along with everyone else, to believe that some of the most successful movies in history made no profit.

taxjustice.net

 

[igor_kavinski]

 

[tcsenter]

No, it was dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutorial misconduct. The facts are that Alec Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins because of mistakes made on the set that he was responsible for. It's not as if we haven't been seeing a lot of prosecutorial misconduct lately.

Except he was not responsible for her death by any criminal statute or even principle. There was a professional, licensed LEGALLY bound safety officer on the set, who was responsible to ensure that the only way a firearm used on set could be a hazard to anyone was to smash them with it or drop it on their toes. THAT individual failed everyone down the line. And THAT individual was not Baldwin.The expectation is that an actor should be able to do whatever the script and creative vision calls for him to do with the firearm. Twirl it around, spin the chamber, stick the barrel in their nose, pull the trigger, whatever.

 

[sandorski]

Except he was not responsible for her death by any criminal statute or even principle. There was a professional, licensed LEGALLY bound safety officer on the set, who was responsible to ensure that the only way a firearm used on set could be a hazard to anyone was to smash them with it or drop it on their toes. THAT individual failed everyone down the line. And THAT individual was not Baldwin.The expectation is that an actor should be able to do whatever the script and creative vision calls for him to do with the firearm. Twirl it around, spin the chamber, stick the barrel in their nose, pull the trigger, whatever.

Throw dude a bone, he really doesn't like Baldwin. Let's ruin a dudes life to appease the righteous one...

 

[Jaskalas]

...

Nice video, still, if you're going to use that you'd best have some words to share to further the discussion and protect your post.
Something simple. You could tell us why you posted it.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Nice video, still, if you're going to use that you'd best have some words to share to further the discussion and protect your post.
Something simple. You could tell us why you posted it.

I just thought the thread needed closure.

 

[Sportsshooter]

It isn't relevant what anyone on this or other threads think are reasonable safety steps on a set for actors to follow. The industry requires their own regulations are followed and Baldwin broke all of them. The charges against Baldwin does not mean others are not at fault for not following the safety regulations they are required to follow. Three were charged and each has individual responsibilities and none are released of them after others perform their safety steps.

Below are some examples.

"State and federal workplace safety regulations apply to the industry just as they do to all other workplace'. This includes The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Required Insurance for the film production most certainly has regulations for gun safety and should have a separate retainer.

the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees union and every other Union associated with the Film and Movie Industry has documented gun safety regulations.

The Actors' Equity Association's guidelines state that, "Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired offstage, and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."


INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE - Its advice includes:

Blanks can kill. Treat all firearms as though they are loaded

Refrain from pointing a firearm at yourself or anyone else

NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger. Anyone involved in using a firearm must be thoroughly briefed at an on-set safety meeting

Only a qualified person should load a firearm

Protective shields, eye and hearing protection should be used by anyone in close proximity or the line of fire

Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms.

The regulations have redundancy built in by design. Everyone is equally and individually responsible. If others earlier in the chain do their job every person after them is still required to follow the safety regulations. The actor isn't absolved of their required safety steps just because they were told the gun was cold. Baldwin was still required to at a minimum observe a physical demonstration the gun was safe, never pull back and **** the hammer, never put his finger on the trigger, never point the gun at anyone, and never pull the trigger. If he had paid attention in the required safety meetings and follow his own industries required safety precautions he would not have shot and killed someone. It would have just taken a few seconds to do what his Industry requires and this tragic event wouldn't have happened. Each are responsible independent of the others, that is the purpose of redundant safety requirements.

 

[tcsenter]

Not a single link to those "advices" i.e. guidelines, not LAWS, not regulations. Most likely because we would know they are ripped out of context or don't exist at all as any official industry wide convention. e.g.

"NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger. Anyone involved in using a firearm must be thoroughly briefed at an on-set safety meeting"

This is for firing LIVE rounds, or blanks, when those are a possibility. They were not a possibility here. Those guns were supposed to be as hazardous as any other chunk of iron. Completely inert. And the underwriter who has all the legal and financial interest in liability mitigation, approved the safety plan, and the armorer. The End.

 

[igor_kavinski]

That video had one glaring mistake. Police/medics didn't arrive "soon". It took them long enough for the poor victim to bleed to death.

They probably didn't even plan or approve any course of action in case of emergency. The entire set was a joke in the way things were being done.

 

[Pens1566]

Charging Baldwin was always going to fail. It would be like charging the owner/driver of a vehicle if their brakes failed and caused a crash immediately after they left the dealer for having their brakes replaced.

Someone else is being paid for their expertise can be utilized instead of requiring everyone else involved to also learn said expertise.

 

[pmv]

Slightly surprised that they finished the movie. Can't imagine that the parts filmed after this are any good (even assuming any of it filmed before was). How the hell could you focus your mind on movie-making after this?

Still, I guess Landis's Twilight Zone movie got made, no? That event seemed even worse.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That video had one glaring mistake. Police/medics didn't arrive "soon". It took them long enough for the poor victim to bleed to death.

They probably didn't even plan or approve any course of action in case of emergency. The entire set was a joke in the way things were being done.

Not sure how familiar with guns, or the human body, but it doesnt take long to bleed out from a bullet hitting you, and theres a few places where its like less than 30 seconds

 

[tcsenter]

Charging Baldwin was always going to fail. It would be like charging the owner/driver of a vehicle if their brakes failed and caused a crash immediately after they left the dealer for having their brakes replaced.

Under the absurd logic that the owner of the vehicle then has some obligation to follow behind the trained professional, and carefully inspect/examine the brakes for proper installation and if they fail to do this, they are legally responsible. Even pilots and commercial truck drivers have limited obligation (legal and regulatory) to just do a basic check of their machines before piloting them, and it is what they do for a living. Actors are not and have no such obligation. All this stupidity and animus because Baldwin made fun of their Great Orange Messiah, Chester the Molesting Cheeto.

 

[tcsenter]

That video had one glaring mistake. Police/medics didn't arrive "soon". It took them long enough for the poor victim to bleed to death.

Looks like the EMT/Paramedics screwed up too, placing the ET tube into the esophagus instead of trachea. You can't resuscitate someone or keep the lungs working by pumping air in and out of their stomach. From the postmortem report....pdf

"An endotracheal tube is present, which demonstrates esophageal placement (see CT examination section)"

 

[ondma]

Under the absurd logic that the owner of the vehicle then has some obligation to follow behind the trained professional, and carefully inspect/examine the brakes for proper installation and if they fail to do this, they are legally responsible. Even pilots and commercial truck drivers have limited obligation (legal and regulatory) to just do a basic check of their machines before piloting them, and it is what they do for a living. Actors are not and have no such obligation. All this stupidity and animus because Baldwin made fun of their Great Orange Messiah, Chester the Molesting Cheeto.

While I personally dont think Baldwin should have been charged, this analogy is an oversimplification. A gun is not the same as a car. One is expected to exercise certain standards of safety with a firearm that is not expected when driving a car. It was legitimate for Baldwin to assume the gun was "cold", but I am not sure there was any reason to point it at the crew.

 

[you2]

I think this has been beaten to death; was Baldwin sloppy of course; was he a gun user from what i have read no which probably contributed to his sloppiness. Did the armourer screw up yes the gun should never have been loaded and in fact there should have been no live ammo allowed on the set. Did others screw up - yes of course - should Baldwin had been charged - from all i have read it was a political prosecution and there really wasn't legit grounds to prosecute him esp after the armourer was prosecuted (my understanding is her very conviction negated the chance of Baldwin being guilty).

Do i think the armourer should have been prosecuted - would like a better understanding why she couldn't keep live ammo off the set - was she a drunk/druggie who was just goofing off or was she under extreme pressure by others to allow the ammo on the set. I know not but it makes a difference and she being young and in experience she might not have had the spine to assert herself; though I get the feeling she willing allowed ammo on the set and if that is accurate then yes the fault lies with her (this ignores the fact that she should not have handed Baldwin a gun loaded with live bullets. After all if they were shooting a scene and the gun had live bullets what would happen ?

Vaguely i think i read that with more experience cast even when a scene is shot a gun is never discharged (with blanks) while pointed at an actual person but i could be mistaken.

 

[pmv]

Pretty sure I've said it more than once already, but with the law as it is I don't see that Baldwin should be convicted, and it's very suspect that he was even charged.

But at the same time, I could imagine a situation where the criminal law on workplace 'accidents' and the responsibility of the 'boss class' for unsafe work practices was much tougher - and in such a counter-factual situation perhaps Baldwin could have been convicted of a criminal offense, for ultimately having the responsibility for creating such an unsafe work environment.

However, in that world there would be prosecutions happening all over the place. Plus, such a world would, if being at all consistent, also hold drivers to much higher standards than this one does.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the actual outcome is the correct one.
1) Armourer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter due to her extreme negligence on set.
2) Baldwin was not convicted of anything for reasons I think are obvious. He should never have been indicted in the first place.
3) Baldwin and the production were held civilly liable for the death. (well they came to a settlement but same thing)

All that being said while the death was a trajedy, Taj's pants shitting in this thread was pretty funny.

 

[tcsenter]

The more I read over the medical report and deposition of the medical examiner, the more that erroneous ET placement seems to have been a major factor in failing to save her life.

Basically, it made both ventilation and resuscitation a hopeless endeavor, her becoming hypoxic to the point of acidosis and cardiac arrest. This would happen within several minutes after cessation of meaningful respiration.

She did NOT bleed to death. Her spinal transection was quite low T9. That would have left her MID-LOW paraplegic, unaffecting the respiratory and breathing apparatus, voluntary or autonomic.

Here is a problem: if she stopped breathing on her own OR they ELECTED to intubate her because of respiratory distress.

If she stopped breathing, she would have been unconscious, likely in cardiac arrest (though not necessarily). This would not require a heavy sedating or paralytic agent such as etomidate and/or succinylcholine be administered in order to facilitate intubation, . You needn't worry about the patient flailing around or trying to impede the intubation, they are unresponsive and unconscious. You get the tube IN and then a bit later give drugs to sedate or paralyze.

If they did so as an elective 'executive' decision (however warranted), they would have given her drugs that would interefer or inhibit her own ability to breath for herself. At that point, the respiratory inhibition or arrest is INDUCED by the drugs administered (i.e. caused by the EMTs), not by the injuries. If the proximate cause of death was respiratory arrest, that would mean first responder malpractice or negligence as a contributing factor, if not the proximate cause of death.