Alec Baldwin and weapons handler charged with involuntary manslaughter
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.
no one bullied her into having live rounds on the set. NO ONE wanted that.
I don't know about that. They folks working on the set shooting target practice in their down time. That's what I had heard anyway. So unless it was her and only her doing that shooting that means other people were involved who were using live rounds.
As for the gun discharging on it's own well that's certainly a remote possibility. But he can't get away from the fact that he decided to point a gun at people working on the set.
Making a bad hire isn't illegal, instructing staff to complete tasks in a speedy manner isn't either. The devil is in the details. They'll need to prove more specific instances of negligence on Baldwin's part to make those charges stick given he will most likely have some pretty competent representation.
I think once witnesses start testifying, such as the people who were walking off the set due to unsafe conditions, the picture will be pretty clear that Baldwin was operating an unsafe work situation. And he is responsible for that, including shooting the victims, as a result of that unsafe environment.
while I agree that having more than one task was distracting she was careless about gun safety. the vids of the 'behind the scenes' filming shows how she seemed to have no awareness of the safety violations that were occurring even right in front of her, even committed by her. she was standing in one pic with a rifle in front of her, rifle butt on the ground, muzzle pointed upwards towards her head. JFC
Which just shows that when it comes to being an armorer personality is every bit as important as training. She may have been trained by her father, but she clearly WASN'T her father. An armorer HAS to be absolutely anal-retentive about following proper safety procedures, because everyone else around him/her may know little or nothing about firearms (and some movies scenes may specifically require the actors to portray characters doing unsafe things with guns, like the Russian Roulette scene in The Deer Hunter). The armorer doesn't just need to keep the firearms and all the various types of rounds safely secured, he/she also needs to know how to set up a potentially dangerous scene in the safest matter possible (like having the actor angle the gun away from the other person he's pretending to shoot, but having the camera sited in a position that makes it look like he's pointing the gun directly at his target).
This young woman just wasn't up to the job, and it cost someone her life. And Baldwin should have SEEN she wasn't up to the job, and replaced her.
Making a bad hire isn't illegal, instructing staff to complete tasks in a speedy manner isn't either. The devil is in the details. They'll need to prove more specific instances of negligence on Baldwin's part to make those charges stick given he will most likely have some pretty competent representation.
Lets not forget that he was part of a production team. So why aren't the other producers being held to the same level of responsibility that he is?
Was he solely (or even partially) responsible for making the decisions regarding hiring of Gutierrez-Reed (or the rest of the crew)?
I have a hard time picturing Baldwin on the phone with agencies hiring gaffers, grips, caterers etc. I mean, its certainly possible, but there were several other producers involved in making this movie, so who actually handled the hiring of crew, and where are the calls for their heads?
I think once witnesses start testifying, such as the people who were walking off the set due to unsafe conditions, the picture will be pretty clear that Baldwin was operating an unsafe work situation. And he is responsible for that, including shooting the victims, as a result of that unsafe environment.
I agree that a lot will depend on witnesses, but I do not think I know what exactly they will testify. I wasn't there, I don't know the dynamics of the set.
The fact of the matter is that it was a low budget production and obviously such productions will not have top of the line people to work in all those roles. Obviously, there are a lot of low budget productions that don't end with a dead cinematographer, but there's also probably a lot of productions that hire young and inexperienced people for various roles because after all people aren't born old and experienced. Alec Baldwin was once a young and inexperienced actor, Spielberg was once a rookie director etc. and someone gave them a chance.
It will come down to specifics in what was said and what was done and who knew what when.
After the way he treated his daughter and another time I saw him on match game the look he gave a contestant who gave him a gift was a dead give away to me he is a real arrogant bastard and I put nothing past him. Of all the years actors have been using guns in movies and TV shows does it really surprise anyone he is the one who shot and murdered anyone on a set using a gun. I know it's happened before but in this day and age with gun safety classes he flat out considered himself to good to be bothered with he damn near asked for or just figured he is so high and damn mighty nothing can touch him. That is how I will always see him and it's because of how he is that makes me not trust him.
Well, I'm glad you aren't on the jury. I would hope that anyone who enters into any case with that degree of bias would tell the judge during jury selection that they are simply too biased to serve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
I think once witnesses start testifying, such as the people who were walking off the set due to unsafe conditions, the picture will be pretty clear that Baldwin was operating an unsafe work situation. And he is responsible for that, including shooting the victims, as a result of that unsafe environment.
Those acts might constitute ordinary negligence. Its very unlikely that they rise to a standard of criminal negligence that I've discussed in earlier posts. I hope you understand there are many unsafe work places all over this country and sadly deaths result from those too. Yet, seldom are corporate executives sent to prison over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
Which just shows that when it comes to being an armorer personality is every bit as important as training. She may have been trained by her father, but she clearly WASN'T her father. An armorer HAS to be absolutely anal-retentive about following proper safety procedures, because everyone else around him/her may know little or nothing about firearms (and some movies scenes may specifically require the actors to portray characters doing unsafe things with guns, like the Russian Roulette scene in The Deer Hunter). The armorer doesn't just need to keep the firearms and all the various types of rounds safely secured, he/she also needs to know how to set up a potentially dangerous scene in the safest matter possible (like having the actor angle the gun away from the other person he's pretending to shoot, but having the camera sited in a position that makes it look like he's pointing the gun directly at his target).
This young woman just wasn't up to the job, and it cost someone her life. And Baldwin should have SEEN she wasn't up to the job, and replaced her.
I think it's unclear exactly how much contact Baldwin had with her. Perhaps, a trial will spell that out. In hindsight, clearly this was the wrong job for her to be doing. Frankly, in all my years practicing law I've never heard of an employer being held criminally negligent because of a hiring decision he/she made. I think to get to that level you would have to show Baldwin knowingly hired someone who had been responsible for a prior death in another firearms accident.
I swear, it seems like some of you people just want to burn a witch! Okay, yeah let’s just sentence both Alec Baldwin and this lady to either the death penalty or LWOP. Then you guys can feel better about yourselves.
Or call it what the hell it obviously was, an accident and enforce only civil liability.
I think it's unclear exactly how much contact Baldwin had with her. Perhaps, a trial will spell that out. In hindsight, clearly this was the wrong job for her to be doing.
I think that is going to be key. He clearly knew she was inexperienced (and that alone is not a disqualification), but did he know about her sloppiness on the set? Baldwin has more liability if he knew about the prior negligent discharges and breeches in safety protocol (such as allowing off-duty crew to use the guns for target shooting) than if he did not.
Its no different than if an actor gets handed a set of keys to a car on a movie set with bad brakes. If someone gets hurt its the contractor who supplied the car's fault.
Those acts might constitute ordinary negligence. Its very unlikely that they rise to a standard of criminal negligence that I've discussed in earlier posts. I hope you understand there are many unsafe work places all over this country and sadly deaths result from those too. Yet, seldom are corporate executives sent to prison over it.
But those corporate executives did not point a gun at someone and shoot them dead. Alec not only created the unsafe environment that lead to a live round being in the gun he fired the shot that killed.
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.
