Baldwin "The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger."

[Ingomike]

This was clearly a case of the armorer failing to do her job.

She was hired because he didn’t want to pay a qualified armorer…

 

[Butch627]

I have no love for AB either. Make no mistake, he is a douche-bag.

But let's be real here folks. He is not a "gun guy." He is not a firearms expert. He has probably never held a real gun except under the supervision of a set armorer. And that is the entire point. He as the producer hired a supposed firearms expert. He hired an armorer to do the job of keeping actors, crew, anyone on the set...SAFE! That was her #1 job.

She should been there at that moment saying: "Let's double-check that before you point it at anyone."
She should been there at that moment saying: "Trigger discipline!"
She should been there at that moment saying: "Don't drop the hammer!"
She should been there at that moment saying anything related to doing her job.
Instead she was off smoking weed. SHE FAILED. (Frankly, she was not qualified. She was in way over her head.)

Here is an example from the 1980s (I'm sure many of us older gents will remember):

Why director was blamed for death of star actor and two children

The tragedy occurred on July 23, 1982, at a popular film ranch in Valencia, Los Angeles, that had been repurposed into a wartime Vietnamese village.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Landis was acquitted.

"He framed the crash 'unforeseen' and 'unforeseeable,' while insisting the explosives were simply let off at the wrong time.
'Not one of these gentlemen intended to hurt anyone,' the burly jurist said.
'Not one of these gentlemen thought the scene as planned and rehearsed was dangerous. Not one of these gentlemen is guilty of criminal negligence.'
To make his case, he further claimed that if the helicopter crashed just a few feet away, it would have been Landis who had died that night."

Point being it could have been the other way around with Hutchins demonstrating to AB what she wanted for the shot.
IOW, AB could be dead and Hutchins on trial. Would you say the same thing then? I hope not.

This was clearly a case of the armorer failing to do her job.

A few posts up I kind of went into a bit of the murkiness of the term Producer as applied to the film biz. Do you have info to back up that Baldwin had the responsibilities you are attributing to him?

Most of your post contradicts all of my experiences and training and what I have contributed to this thread. Please read all of my posts in this thread before you explain to me what everyone should have been doing.

There is no way that for any reason that the DP Hutchions would ever hold a weapon and show an actor how to do a scene any more than Baldwin would tell her where to put a light or the camera.

Based on all the gun play Baldwin has done in previous movies I would be willing to bet that he had more film firearm and range training than anyone else on the crew. If he hated guns or not he would had range training to simulate his scenes with the armorer.

Where did you come up with all of this stuff?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I were a prosecutor that wanted to clear the accused, because I agree with his politics, how would I do it? Hmm...

I'd hold a grand jury, present only information that painted him a good light (remember grand jury is not a trial and case law strongly supports the ability to present only exculpatory or only accusatory information at the prosecutor's discretion), get a no indictment, and have my cake while eating it too. No damage to my career, did the 'right thing' but the jury of his peers didn't hold his feet to the fire, kept more of it confidential and out of the media circus, don't get involved in discovery or anything that will harm him in a civil suit, etc.

Simpler, cleaner, and something any prosecutor would know. No need to think ourselves in circles on this one.

 

[STFU]

A few posts up I kind of went into a bit of the murkiness of the term Producer as applied to the film biz. Do you have info to back up that Baldwin had the responsibilities you are attributing to him?

Most of your post contradicts all of my experiences and training and what I have contributed to this thread. Please read all of my posts in this thread before you explain to me what everyone should have been doing.

There is no way that for any reason that the DP Hutchions would ever hold a weapon and show an actor how to do a scene any more than Baldwin would tell her where to put a light or the camera.

Based on all the gun play Baldwin has done in previous movies I would be willing to bet that he had more film firearm and range training than anyone else on the crew. If he hated guns or not he would had range training to simulate his scenes with the armorer.

Where did you come up with all of this stuff?

"Do you have info to back up that Baldwin had the responsibilities you are attributing to him?" Back what up?
My assertion that he is not a firearms expert? He is not.
My assertion that he hired an armorer? He (or someone on the staff) did.
My assertion that she failed? She did.

"Based on all the gun play Baldwin has done in previous movies I would be willing to bet that he had more film firearm and range training than anyone else on the crew. If he hated guns or not he would had range training to simulate his scenes with the armorer."
I'll ask the same question of you: Do you have info to back up that Baldwin had the experience and training you are attributing to him?
No. All supposition. Just like most of the other comments in this thread.
None of us were on the set. None of us are involved in that trial. And none of us know for sure.

You don't like AB. I get it. I'm not a fan either.
But to place all blame on him alone is not realistic. It was an accident. A terrible accident...someone died.

All the judge did at this point was to point out the prosecution's cover-up and avoid giving AB a criminal conviction. AB is stilled screwed: The Hutchins family will go after him in civil court and he will probably end up filing for bankruptcy.
(The same way that OJ still ended up broke.)
Again, this is my opinion and I am not proposing this as fact only.

Also, there is no need to be so hard-core about all of this. It is a discussion. A friendly discussion.
You know, the reason we are all here...friendly discourse.

 

[manifest destiny]

There was a dispute as to whether there was evidence of live ammo on set? Odd debate given the mayhem and death that occured. Weird a prosecutor would not disclose evidence that doesn't appear to help the accused.

Anyone here think they can squeeze off a round, kill a women, claim you didn't pull the trigger and then be declared off-limits for further prosecution by the judge because evidence that doesn't help your defense was hidden by a prosecutor who chose to be a witness, against the judge's statement their testimony wasn't needed, only to declare their agreement with the accused's politics?

 

[Mgderf]

There was a dispute as to whether there was evidence of live ammo on set? Odd debate given the mayhem and death that occured. Weird a prosecutor would not disclose evidence that doesn't appear to help the accused.

Anyone here think they can squeeze off a round, kill a women, claim you didn't pull the trigger and then be declared off-limits for further prosecution by the judge because evidence that doesn't help your defense was hidden by a prosecutor who chose to be a witness, against the judge's statement their testimony wasn't needed, only to declare their agreement with the accused's politics?

"Strange days indeed. Most peculiar momma..."

 

[MinuteManMike]

You guys had to know this is how it was going to turn out. Guess what party this rooster lollipop donates millions to.

"ROOSTER LOLLIPOP"???

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There was a dispute as to whether there was evidence of live ammo on set? Odd debate given the mayhem and death that occured. Weird a prosecutor would not disclose evidence that doesn't appear to help the accused.

Anyone here think they can squeeze off a round, kill a women, claim you didn't pull the trigger and then be declared off-limits for further prosecution by the judge because evidence that doesn't help your defense was hidden by a prosecutor who chose to be a witness, against the judge's statement their testimony wasn't needed, only to declare their agreement with the accused's politics?

Would it help that a man killed his young son with a rifle in Indy a few years back claiming it "just went off" while working on it and no charges were filed? No grand jury. No criminal charges. Nothing. I'll leave further detail out, but I was not pleased with the decision based on many factors.

Or, a case I worked years before where bro-in-law is demonstrating safe pistol handling to sis-in-law and pulls the trigger to break the gun down to put it back in the box...shooting his own brother in the upper torso and barely missing the toddler he was playing with? That one survived. No charges.

Or, while I was still on the street, drunk guy screwing with a gun, fires through the apartment floor, hits downstairs neighbor.

Or, "uncle" leaves a Glock in reach of a toddler who proceeds to shoot himself, family covers it up, I figure it out, but because "uncle" has no duty to care for the child there's no neglect causing serious injury or death and prosecutor won't pursue crim reck or even false informing.

Yeah. The only reason we know this happened is because he's a celebrity and the only reason you think it's weird is your sample size. Again, no need to think yourself in circles. Happens all the time to non-celebrities and rarely cracks the back of the news unless it's a toddler and it's a slow news day. Parents may get charged, though there's a stunning lack of consistency on that front as well. Kill an adult, maybe it's a crim reck charge, maybe it's treated like running a redlight on your phone and killing a paramedic or two, just something that happens and isn't criminal.

Could it be some mastermind plan to throw the prosecution? I suppose, but it would be the stupidest way to accomplish the goal if that's the case.

 

[Ingomike]

Would it help that a man killed his young son with a rifle in Indy a few years back claiming it "just went off" while working on it and no charges were filed? No grand jury. No criminal charges. Nothing. I'll leave further detail out, but I was not pleased with the decision based on many factors.

Or, a case I worked years before where bro-in-law is demonstrating safe pistol handling to sis-in-law and pulls the trigger to break the gun down to put it back in the box...shooting his own brother in the upper torso and barely missing the toddler he was playing with? That one survived. No charges.

Or, while I was still on the street, drunk guy screwing with a gun, fires through the apartment floor, hits downstairs neighbor.

Or, "uncle" leaves a Glock in reach of a toddler who proceeds to shoot himself, family covers it up, I figure it out, but because "uncle" has no duty to care for the child there's no neglect causing serious injury or death and prosecutor won't pursue crim reck or even false informing.

Yeah. The only reason we know this happened is because he's a celebrity and the only reason you think it's weird is your sample size. Again, no need to think yourself in circles. Happens all the time to non-celebrities and rarely cracks the back of the news unless it's a toddler and it's a slow news day. Parents may get charged, though there's a stunning lack of consistency on that front as well. Kill an adult, maybe it's a crim reck charge, maybe it's treated like running a redlight on your phone and killing a paramedic or two, just something that happens and isn't criminal.

Could it be some mastermind plan to throw the prosecution? I suppose, but it would be the stupidest way to accomplish the goal if that's the case.

If we leave out incompetence, since this is a special prosecutor, how likely is it they intended to hide the evidence, to win, and justify their cost to taxpayers?

 

[jamil]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction whether they typically charge people who negligently shoot someone. I think if that jurisdiction would typically charge an ordinary person for something like that, then they should be consistent and charge a celebrity. But, it looks like either the prosecutor was corrupt or incompetent.

 

[Ingomike]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction whether they typically charge people who negligently shoot someone. I think if that jurisdiction would typically charge an ordinary person for something like that, then they should be consistent and charge a celebrity. But, it looks like either the prosecutor was corrupt or incompetent.

Who decided to charge him?

 

[jamil]

Who decided to charge him?

Which time?

We've seen different prosecution teams. We've seen different charges. We've seen grand juries recommend charges. In terms of charges, this case has been all over the place.

My only point was in response to BBI's. Not everyone who unintentionally shoots someone gets charged for it. I also think that tends to vary by jurisdiction. I'm saying let's be consistent and prosecute celebrities the way ordinary citizens would be prosecuted. Except. Alec Baldwin is weaselly *******, so it's hard to shed a tear if he gets ****ed.

 

[Ingomike]

Which time?

We've seen different prosecution teams. We've seen different charges. We've seen grand juries recommend charges. In terms of charges, this case has been all over the place.

My only point was in response to BBI's. Not everyone who unintentionally shoots someone gets charged for it. I also think that tends to vary by jurisdiction. I'm saying let's be consistent and prosecute celebrities the way ordinary citizens would be prosecuted. Except. Alec Baldwin is weaselly *******, so it's hard to shed a tear if he gets ****ed.

I hadn’t followed closely but the special prosecutor did not file so trying to figure out who did?

 

[BE Mike]

We, as a society, are getting further and further away from the concept of personal responsibility. I've already heard a celeb, this morning, turning the responsibility from the Trump shooter to the "assault rifle". When handling a gun, I take full responsibility for my actions. I must be a dinosaur.

 

[Ingomike]

Preface: cannot stand AB.

Is a movie set “real life“?

Do we believe they make all these scenes and a gun never is pointed and fired at another actor?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction whether they typically charge people who negligently shoot someone. I think if that jurisdiction would typically charge an ordinary person for something like that, then they should be consistent and charge a celebrity. But, it looks like either the prosecutor was corrupt or incompetent.

It would be nice to start with consistency within a jurisdiction.

 

[actaeon277]

Preface: cannot stand AB.

Is a movie set “real life“?

Do we believe they make all these scenes and a gun never is pointed and fired at another actor?

They have different props.
But no real ammo in a firing gun.

Close up, use this gun
Firing blank, use that fun
Blanks use that gun.
Etc

 

[drillsgt]

This picture came across my FB and I thought it was interesting. It's a picture from the set of the movie The Horse Soldiers and pictured are John Wayne, William Holden, and Constance Towers. According to the story they took Towers out to show her how to shoot a revolver and would often have impromptu shooting sessions during breaks in filming. As far as I know nobody was killed making this movie. One of the biggest differences is back in 1959 that wouldn't seem that unusual, definitely not the stigma that you have today. Also, that looks like a double action N frame so I wouldn't expect it to get mixed up as a loaded gun with the SAA's. Any guesses as to what they are shooting?