Charges against Alec Baldwin dismissed - ammunition evidence mishandled

[Suck My Glock]

No one even arguing whether Alec had any individual responsibility to verify anything or to have sufficient gun handling or safety skills.

I watched a lot of the hearing earlier today live as it was happening. It was a cluster f@#k all the way around.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/alec-baldwin-s-rust-shooting-trial-dismissed-after-lawyers-say-evidence-was-withheld/ar-BB1pThBg?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=752b2695a72d4ab7aed750c564e4144d&ei=15

 

[QuietM4]

I can argue both against and for the charges being filed...but I don't think Baldwin (personally) should be charged with anything. He was handed a firearm by a "professional" prop master, told it was "cold" by the same prop master; it was her responsibility to ensure safe weapons on the film set. As a firearms owner, I would have personally checked the firearm myself once it was handed to me, regardless of what someone told me about the firearm...but that is me (not a lay person), and nearly every person on this board would have done the same.

I love F1 cars. All F1 drivers rely on the mechanics to setup the car properly and to ensure the car is safe to drive. There is no reasonable person who would assume that Max Verstappen personally verifies that every nut and bolt was properly torqued, the tires are in a good condition, the track is safe, etc. F1 drivers rely on the mechanics, crew, etc to do all that. If Verstappen crashed that F1 car, resulting in someone's death, and it was found that the left rear tire was not properly secured, is Verstappen going to be held responsible? That is why Baldwin should not be held responsible, IMO.

 

[BigNate]

After reading a bit about it... I've taken the following view...
1) Alec Baldwin, the actor, practicing for a scene, should not be charged with a crime. On a movie shoot, with an armorer, I don't think it is unreasonable for an actor to presume that the props that they are using are safe. In his capacity as an actor - I'd have a hard time finding fault with Baldwin (no matter how much of a giant douche-bag he is).
2) Alec Baldwin, the executive producer, the person ultimately responsible for the operation including safety related concerns, may very well have been grossly negligent in his actions, in a manner that led to the death of a member of his team. In THAT capacity, as the person ultimately responsible for the safety of the working environment, it may make sense to charge him criminally - and I have zero doubt that once the criminal trial is over the family of the dead lady will sue him civilly. It sounds like he'll have a very hard time proving that he hired the best of the best armorers, or that they had industry leading (or even standard) safety measures in place.

If I were an actor - and were using guns - I'd be damn sure to clear them before I did anything... but I'm a "gun guy" who shoots guns and treats every gun like it's loaded... I actually think that were I an actor I'd have a REALLY hard time pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger... it's just so engrained. But from a LEGAL perspective - I have a hard time making everyone on the set responsible for clearing guns. The armorer is there for that exclusive purpose... and the executive producer(s) are responsible for ensuring that there is appropriate policy, protocol, and that competent safety personnel are in place. He failed in that...

My 2 cents...

 

[Razai]

The only issue I have is Balwin’s insistance that he didn’t pull the trigger. Yes. He. Did. S/A revolvers, blah, blah, blah. Own it, but lay the blame at the feet of the armorer, and save face by (honestly) being a bit of a victim in all of this…which is the truth.
“I did not pull the trigger” is what turned folks against him.

 

[thom]

New Mexico can have actors shoot movies there. There was a precedent set today. Was the armorer on set the day of the killing? I read she wasn't.

 

[blasternaz]

New Mexico can have actors shoot movies there. There was a precedent set today. Was the armorer on set the day of the killing? I read she wasn't.

That was stated way back in the beginning of this fiasco. The problem I have with all this, and it reflects on the armorer, is why any live ammunition was even near the set!!

I've been involved with several movie/TV productions involving live weapons and explosives, and at no time was a live gun/ammo combination ever declared "safe"! Camermen and directors were often down range, setting remotes, cameras sited behind shields, frames checked, lighting directed, taking light readings, etc. but never while live guns were loaded. Same with all the FX stuff done, whether with high or low explosives. She got 18 months in jail for not ensuring that basic safety rule. Deservedly.

"and the executive producer(s) are responsible for ensuring that there is appropriate policy, protocol, and that competent safety personnel are in place. He failed in that..."

Agreed. Going with non-standard craft people, lowest bidder, on a safety issue, should open him up to civil suits. Buck stops at the top.

 

[QuietM4]

The only issue I have is Balwin’s insistance that he didn’t pull the trigger. Yes. He. Did. S/A revolvers, blah, blah, blah. Own it, but lay the blame at the feet of the armorer, and save face by (honestly) being a bit of a victim in all of this…which is the truth.
“I did not pull the trigger” is what turned folks against him.

I can't imagine why is lawyers allowed him to give ANY interview, let a lone an interview that he would be 100% guaranteed to say something stupid that would later be allowed into a court record.

 

[QuietM4]

After reading a bit about it... I've taken the following view...
1) Alec Baldwin, the actor, practicing for a scene, should not be charged with a crime. On a movie shoot, with an armorer, I don't think it is unreasonable for an actor to presume that the props that they are using are safe. In his capacity as an actor - I'd have a hard time finding fault with Baldwin (no matter how much of a giant douche-bag he is).
2) Alec Baldwin, the executive producer, the person ultimately responsible for the operation including safety related concerns, may very well have been grossly negligent in his actions, in a manner that led to the death of a member of his team. In THAT capacity, as the person ultimately responsible for the safety of the working environment, it may make sense to charge him criminally - and I have zero doubt that once the criminal trial is over the family of the dead lady will sue him civilly. It sounds like he'll have a very hard time proving that he hired the best of the best armorers, or that they had industry leading (or even standard) safety measures in place.

If I were an actor - and were using guns - I'd be damn sure to clear them before I did anything... but I'm a "gun guy" who shoots guns and treats every gun like it's loaded... I actually think that were I an actor I'd have a REALLY hard time pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger... it's just so engrained. But from a LEGAL perspective - I have a hard time making everyone on the set responsible for clearing guns. The armorer is there for that exclusive purpose... and the executive producer(s) are responsible for ensuring that there is appropriate policy, protocol, and that competent safety personnel are in place. He failed in that...

My 2 cents...

100% agreed.

 

[Winmagbill]

Lots of discussion about guilty/innocent/blame/responsibility/ best practices etc but the bottom line is the charges were dismissed and can not be filed again because of the handling of evidence by the police. Any chance the family had at justice was lost. Any settlement in a civil suit is damaged. No one's talking about holding the police responsible for this.