Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel bad for her. I don't blame her. This was her first job. She was hired for a job that IMO she wasn't experienced enough for, with no mentor or supervision, because Baldwin wanted the cheapest people possible. And she will pay a steep price for that, in addition to the victim. I don't see any reason to need to shame her.
It's a mystery more on Hannah Gutierrez-Reed than anyone else incl. Alec Baldwin.
I think it’s her, the assistant director and Baldwin. Baldwin as producer bearing most responsibility, especially given he had people quitting and sending him e-mails complaining about lack of safety on set prior to this accident, and he didn’t do anything about it.
I think it’s her, the assistant director and Baldwin. Baldwin as producer bearing most responsibility, especially given he had people quitting and sending him e-mails complaining about lack of safety on set prior to this accident, and he didn’t do anything about it.
Well, that doesn't necessarily mean he knew or could be expected to know what the armorer was up to at all times. And even if we say that person wasn't experienced and this was one of her first gigs, and even if there were industry rumors about her not being up to it, we may think it was a mistake to hire her but I'm not sure it's enough to say it's criminally negligent to hire her.
I'm not actually sure if the charge vs Baldwin is based on his role as one of the people in charge of the movie production or as the person pulling the trigger, which to me are somewhat separate questions.
I think if we can be sure of one thing though is that Baldwin should have no difficulty finding competent lawyers arguing his case.
It was Alec Baldwin, and yes he is to blame. He broke every rule of firearms safety.
Didn’t check the weapon.
Pointed at a person.
Pulled the trigger when there was zero reason to do so.
100%, Alec Baldwin is to blame. Not to say that the armorer is not also to blame, but Baldwin is the one who compounded misfortune by being an idiot.
Not only this but the gun had shot a live round previously plus being the producer that adds to his responsibility.
He knew about the previous hot round misfire. The hypocrisy is he's probably a very anti-gun person till it comes to making a paycheck. This is going to be a bad year for him. Odds are he will plead it down and maybe do 18 months.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,705 posts, read 58,031,425 times
Reputation: 46172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
Not only this but the gun had shot a live round previously plus being the producer that adds to his responsibility.
He knew about the previous hot round misfire. The hypocrisy is he's probably a very anti-gun person till it comes to making a paycheck. This is going to be a bad year for him. Odds are he will plead it down and maybe do 18 months.
Time and time again he says, "I didn't pull the trigger!". (But he did pull back and release the hammer.)
firearm use 101?
I trust there will be a lot more scrutiny of firearms on movie sets. Guns CAN actually kill real living people.
Perhaps fewer gun deaths on TV or movies might be a good start. USA should have considered that before the 1950's.
Not only this but the gun had shot a live round previously plus being the producer that adds to his responsibility.
He knew about the previous hot round misfire. The hypocrisy is he's probably a very anti-gun person till it comes to making a paycheck. This is going to be a bad year for him. Odds are he will plead it down and maybe do 18 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit
Time and time again he says, "I didn't pull the trigger!". (But he did pull back and release the hammer.)
firearm use 101?
I trust there will be a lot more scrutiny of firearms on movie sets.
Perhaps fewer gun deaths on TV or movies might be a good start. USA should have considered that before the 1950's
I'm.. Conflicted about this. First off.. He's guilty of SOMETHING here. I'm just not entirely sure what. And the fact he was a producer also adds more complexity to this.
Strictly as an actor.. Take the producer part out of it entirely. He's at a minimum guilty of negligence. How that translates in NM law I don't know.. But the fact that he had the gun in his hand makes him responsible for checking it. Regardless of the fact that other people should have also done it. The gun was in his hand when it fired, so he has SOME responsibility just based on that.
Adding to the complexity here.. He is repeatedly saying that he didn't pull the trigger. The gun has been tested over and over and that has been found to not be true. The gun would not fire without pulling the trigger. Perhaps.. And let's just say for the sake of argument.. He pulled the hammer back as far as it would go without locking, the cylinder was on a live round and he let it go and.. Bad ammo, whatever, it actually fired. Doesn't matter. He did something that caused the gun to fire. I'm not overly familiar with this gun, so, I can't speak to whether this is possible, but, according to people who have tested the gun.. It's not.. But.. Again.. It's totally irrelevant, other than the fact that he seems to be lying about it.
The person MOST responsible is the person who brought live ammo on the set. That's just nuts. That should NEVER happen.
As a producer, and to my understanding, he knew about the accidental firing a week or so before this that happened.. Now he's got more responsibility. I understand that many people walked off the set when this happened, or shortly afterwards. He, as a producer, should have shut down production at that time for a day or so.. Had the armorer go through every round of ammo on the site to make sure that there were no live rounds. Should have found out who brought the live round on set and removed them.
Anyway.. My opinion.. He's guilty of being negligent 100%. How that translates in NM law I don't quite know. That may be negligent homicide, it may be involuntary manslaughter.. It may just be criminal negligence.. I can't speak to NM law. It was New Mexico, right? If not, sub in the right state.
With him being a producer.. It's possible that it rises to a more reckless homicide situation, which often is more severe. He 100% is NOT guilty of murder or anything of that nature. Reckless homicide would be if he were willfully indifferent normally. It's possible it rises to this level, but.. I can't say for sure. That's for a prosecutor to prove and a jury to decide.
Does he deserve jail time? Not going to answer that completely right now. Taking just him as an actor who held the gun.. Probably not. The fact that he certainly SEEMS to be lying about pulling the trigger concerns me. I kinda wonder if that raises to an obstruction of justice level.. If it was just he didn't check the gun, relied on others to do it.. Said he pulled the trigger.. I'd say no. With the lying, or presumed lying, about pulling the trigger.. I'll go with Probably Not. Once the producer side comes in.. I just don't know. not enough info right now.
Is he civilly liable? Oh.. I've got little question about that. Both him personally and him as a producer. I'd say absolutely yes based on what I know right now.
Oh.. I really need to speak on the line from @StealthRabbit regarding more scrutiny in the future.. Absolutely. This should be a wake up call. Just as the Brandon Lee situation was. These are TOTALLY different situations. Brandon Lee.. I don't necessarily feel there was negligence there. That was a horrible, horrible accident. A 'dummy' bullet broke off and stuck in the barrel and then a live round propelled it out. That did change gun handling on sets to check the barrel. That's.. In my eyes.. "One of those things" which is horrible to say, but.. It was something that was a horrid accident that Hollywood learned from (Well, supposedly, at least)
This is more than an accident. This was live ammo. But.. Still.. It is a learning experience. The changes I can think of that need to come from this.. I'd say two things should happen. Maybe three.
1) When a gun is transferred between people, it should be pointed at the ground, or to a safe area, and the trigger should be pulled. If it's a revolver, pulled until all cylinders have been 'fired'. And.. Ground might be bad.. So.. Think of a better way than firing it at the ground.
2) EVERYONE who handles a gun should be required to complete a gun safety course on the type of firearms that will be used.
3) Criminal prosecution for anyone who brings live ammo on a set.
Last edited by Labonte18; 01-20-2023 at 10:44 AM..
Well, that doesn't necessarily mean he knew or could be expected to know what the armorer was up to at all times. And even if we say that person wasn't experienced and this was one of her first gigs, and even if there were industry rumors about her not being up to it, we may think it was a mistake to hire her but I'm not sure it's enough to say it's criminally negligent to hire her.
I'm not actually sure if the charge vs Baldwin is based on his role as one of the people in charge of the movie production or as the person pulling the trigger, which to me are somewhat separate questions.
I think if we can be sure of one thing though is that Baldwin should have no difficulty finding competent lawyers arguing his case.
He is the producer, so he is ultimately responsible for the entire set. Multiple crew members told him in the preceding weeks that they felt the set was unsafe and people were doing unsafe things (like target shooting in off time, possibly with real bullets?) and several crew members quit because of it. I don't know if the armorer was one of the people they had issues with, but if he was aware of unsafe conditions and dismissed them that's on him as producer.
But the charge is involutary manslaughter, and a second charge because a gun was involved. Most lawyers I saw discuss it think that one is bogus (my word) because that charge is intended for someone who commits a robbery or some other deliberate crime with a gun.
The defense lawyer I saw interviewed thinks his defense will be that he was following the directions of Hutchinson, who was telling him where to point the gun, etc.
Not only this but the gun had shot a live round previously plus being the producer that adds to his responsibility.
He knew about the previous hot round misfire. The hypocrisy is he's probably a very anti-gun person till it comes to making a paycheck. This is going to be a bad year for him. Odds are he will plead it down and maybe do 18 months.
I don't think that's hypocritical at all. I don't think he's anti-gun as in "guns shouldn't exist", I think he's pro- gun control, there's a difference. Belieiving 18 years olds shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s does not preclude him making a movie that has guns in it.
I don't think that's hypocritical at all. I don't think he's anti-gun as in "guns shouldn't exist", I think he's pro- gun control, there's a difference. Belieiving 18 years olds shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s does not preclude him making a movie that has guns in it.
As to the producer part of this, there were other producers also. Where is their responsibility in this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
