• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 34 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jaskalas said:
If I was on a Jury for the case against Baldwin, I would need something MORE than him simply pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
I'll stick to my comments last year.
They at least have the correct charges, but I generally oppose them unless they can prove greater responsibility than simply being an actor on a set.
And if they have no additional and substantial proof, they should instead be sued for malicious prosecution.
 
Jaskalas said:
I'll stick to my comments last year.
They at least have the correct charges, but I generally oppose them unless they can prove greater responsibility than simply being an actor on a set.
And if they have no additional and substantial proof, they should instead be sued for malicious prosecution.
Click to expand...
still waiting for someone to explain why this isn't a standard workplace fatality issue.
 
Jaskalas said:
I'll stick to my comments last year.
They at least have the correct charges, but I generally oppose them unless they can prove greater responsibility than simply being an actor on a set.
And if they have no additional and substantial proof, they should instead be sued for malicious prosecution.
Click to expand...
When you have a deadly weapon in your hand, you have absolute, total and sole responsibility for what happens. You can't say 'they told me nobody would get hurt'.

I don't not expect a conviction.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
When you have a deadly weapon in your hand, you have absolute, total and sole responsibility for what happens. You can't say 'they told me nobody would get hurt'.

I don't not expect a conviction.
Click to expand...
I'd still argue otherwise for an actor. It was someone's else's job to guarantee that was not a deadly weapon, not his. His job is to waggle it around at a camera for our amusement, not be an armorer.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
When you have a deadly weapon in your hand, you have absolute, total and sole responsibility for what happens. You can't say 'they told me nobody would get hurt'.

I don't not expect a conviction.
Click to expand...
More magical thinking about guns.

That’s a fine thing for an individual gun owner to internalize about their responsibility for their weapon.

On the other hand an actor is hired to film a movie. If the director says, “The shot is for you take this prop weapon, point it at the camera, and pull the trigger”, and after asking if the gun is safe and the assistant director says, “Yes, the armorer safed the weapon”, if you don’t pull the trigger they fire you and find someone who will.

In other words the responsibility is now shared with and primarily on the armorer to make sure the gun is safe.

In this specific case Actor Baldwin is not responsible for the accident. Producer Baldwin may have some shared responsibility with the other producers, armorer and armorer staff if there were obvious unsafe practices occurring and he was willfully ignorant to them.

Requiring actors to be responsible for their prop weapons is a good way to have more shooting accidents. No production is going to train actors as armorers and your average gun owner will not be capable of telling a live round from a dummy round from a blank.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
When you have a deadly weapon in your hand, you have absolute, total and sole responsibility for what happens. You can't say 'they told me nobody would get hurt'.
Click to expand...

I don't see where you get that rule from. Seems a strange principle, to me.

"Hey, waiter, serve this meal to table 40" "oh, it had salmonella because the chef was incompetent and the managers were negligent and the food-inspectors budget had been slashed, so it's all your fault".

I have no idea what the verdict will be, I can't even remember anything specific I read about this case in the first place, but I remember the whole thing seemed clear-as-mud. Just the usual capitalist lack-of-care regarding the workforce, it seems to me.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
When you have a deadly weapon in your hand, you have absolute, total and sole responsibility for what happens. You can't say 'they told me nobody would get hurt'.

I don't not expect a conviction.
Click to expand...

That's why there are already regulations and laws in place for this situation in question, that makes your argument moot.
 
If people think they can convince a jury that Alec Baldwin accidentally shooting someone with a gun:

1) he was explicitly informed was safe and
2) you can’t even be sure he pulled the trigger on

Is either criminal negligence or reckless disregard for safety I would say good luck. That seems like a tough hill to climb.
 
Facts:

He had a deadly weapon
He pointed it at someone who died.

Nothing else matters. Somebody told me Santa Claus flew around on a sleigh and slid down chimneys. Didn't make it true.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
Facts:

He had a deadly weapon
He pointed it at someone who died.

Nothing else matters. Somebody told me Santa Claus flew around on a sleigh and slid down chimneys. Didn't make it true.
Click to expand...
You're going to be shocked when you learn how many people that applies to every year who are never indicted, much less convicted.

Can you explain this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
Context is everything, The questions should be asked, evaluated and then acted upon.
Considering the scrutiny this particular incident has garnered its been dissected enough that most feel legally charges are unwarranted.
You can go through the expense of a trial if it tickles your fancy however its your tax $ wasted if it is unprovable.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
I'd still argue otherwise for an actor. It was someone's else's job to guarantee that was not a deadly weapon, not his. His job is to waggle it around at a camera for our amusement, not be an armorer.
Click to expand...
This certainly seems logical to me. The actor operates on trust. They have to trust that the experts have set up action scenes in such a way that no one gets hurt. They trust that safety is paramount and that every reasonable precaution has been taken. I can't see why any actor would think his prop gun was loaded with live ammunition.

Full discloser. I think Baldwin is an asshole and I wouldn't be upset if he got herpes, but I don't see how that accident was his fault.
 
Greenman said:
This certainly seems logical to me. The actor operates on trust. They have to trust that the experts have set up action scenes in such a way that no one gets hurt. They trust that safety is paramount and that every reasonable precaution has been taken. I can't see why any actor would think his prop gun was loaded with live ammunition.

Full discloser. I think Baldwin is an asshole and I wouldn't be upset if he got herpes, but I don't see how that accident was his fault.
Click to expand...
I think they have a decent civil case against Baldwin for basically having some hazardous workplace that wasn't being effectively policed for live ammo, etc., but unless there's some additional evidence that hasn't come out this looks to be an embarrassing loss for the state.
 
Greenman said:
This certainly seems logical to me. The actor operates on trust. They have to trust that the experts have set up action scenes in such a way that no one gets hurt. They trust that safety is paramount and that every reasonable precaution has been taken. I can't see why any actor would think his prop gun was loaded with live ammunition.

Full discloser. I think Baldwin is an asshole and I wouldn't be upset if he got herpes, but I don't see how that accident was his fault.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A caveat being his role as a producer. If his incompetence led to an incompetent armorer being obviously bad at his job, and he failed to do anything about it until someone got corpse'd, then yeah all eyes are on him.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
It wasn't an accident any more than this one:

www.upi.com

Jury finds N.Y. man guilty in mistaken driveway slaying case - UPI.com

The New York man who shot and killed a 20-year-old woman in a friend's car when they drove down his driveway in April 2023 was found guilty Tuesday of second-degree murder.
www.upi.com www.upi.com

.
Click to expand...
lol no.

In that case the jury very clearly did not believe his sequence of events and thought he was lying when he said he tripped and it fired accidentally. That's why he was convicted of murder, as murder requires the specific intent to perform the act that led to their death. They are most certainly NOT making a judgment that events transpired in the way he claimed and that this was an accidental death.

Do you think a jury is going to buy that Alec Baldwin intended to kill that woman in front of numerous witnesses, with a weapon that he knew to be loaded? If not, please explain the relevance here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top