Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO--if the prosecution (or the court of internet jurors) tries to hang this on Baldwin's neck via "he did pull the trigger on a proper functioning gun"--Baldwin ultimately will walk because it can be reasonably be established that it was not his responsibility to double-check the condition of the firearm--that responsibility was specifically delegated to others. In the area of negligence as producer/director not showing proper concern and responses to management of firearm's--even ignoring warnings of lapses--that's where I think they will get him, in the end.
 
Stag I agree however If the prosecution asked this simple question To the jury on closing I think Baldwin is done . Q- If the scene called for him to raise the gun to his head and pull the trigger . Do you think Baldwin would have double checked the firearm to make sure it didn’t have live rounds in it ?
 
Baldwin ultimately will walk because it can be reasonably be established that it was not his responsibility to double-check the condition of the firearm--that responsibility was specifically delegated to others.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see what the jury says in a couple of weeks, or so.

One of the many things that bugs me is the claim that as an actor, he's not responsible for knowing the condition of the gun (loaded or not) the rules don't require him to.

It would bug me a lot less if Baldwin had done what the rules DO require him to do. He did not.
 
Baldwin was not only an actor.

He is a producer and is responsible for--not just his own--but all the rules violations and incompetence that were so rampant on the movie set.

An inexperienced armorer was hired (because they got her cheap) and she was not allowed to do her job correctly.

Baldwin is guilty.......time will tell if he's managed to evade justice.
 
^^^^That^^^^

If he is convicted, I believe that’s going to be the reason/s . I think the prosecution should touch on and maybe push a little about the gun and loaded and not loaded blah blah blah . However, I think the crooks of her their case should be Baldwin’s ultimate responsibility as a whole to the production . Showing how he failed every step To include his own Training with the Firarms .

In fact, that is one of the issues they want Hanna to testify about. Her opinion of how much he paid attention in her “” safety classes . It’s my understanding they have at least one other actor or Whomever That will corroborate how unengaged Baldwin was during those courses .

Here is some of the pretrial hearings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JG2TNnQYJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU7Gi8lOZS8
 
Last edited:
That’s disappointing. I hope they come back around to charging him….
Click to expand...

They did. The trial date is early July (heard the 10th). The thread was started back when they did drop the charges. Charges had been filed, and a trial date set, back then. Then the DA discovered "new evidence" and decided they could not fully evaluate the new evidence before the scheduled trial date, so the chargers were "withdrawn". This effectively equals "dropped" but is not the same as "dismissed".

The legal mechanism used, effectively put the case on hold, and canceled the scheduled trial, but allows the investigation to proceed and lets the DA refile charges if the investigation of the new evidence warrants it. IT did, they did, and Baldwin will be in court facing those charges soon.

The withdrawal of charges, before the start of the trial, and refiling them later was done in a legal manner that avoids actual double jeopardy status.

This thread had gone dormant because for months there was nothing new to discuss. Due to a recent motion by Baldwin's lawyers to dismiss the case, (again) and the nearness of the trial, the thread is active again, and new readers can catch up as we move forward.
 
I guess I need to understand this stuff better. Keeps them honest when we care enough to watch the folks like Biden and Baldwin get jailed.
 
A New Mexico judge on June 28 denied actor Alec Baldwin’s request to dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against him relating to the 2021 fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of his film “Rust.”

Previously, Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers requested that the court dismiss the charge, arguing that the firearm involved in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was damaged during FBI forensic testing before defense attorneys could examine it.
Click to expand...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ju...m_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

Hope this is an indication that this is a no nonsense Judge and is not going to be side tracked by b.s.
 
That argument is not BS in my humble opinion . I like to do the shoe on the other foot analysis . How would I feel if I claimed the gun went off on its own and when my defense team asked to examine the gun, the prosecution said sure you can take a look at it, but we broke it during examination . If I was on trial, I would find that completely unacceptable. Maybe if you guys are on trial, you don’t care to examine the gun as it was the day the incident happened. Maybe you’re OK with taking a look at it after somebody else looked at it and broke it. I would not be if I was on trial . IDK it seems like some and I’m not saying people here because I’m hearing the similar arguments everywhere. That their opinion and dislike for the anti-gun liberal Hollywood Playboy is clouding their judgment . I don’t like the guy either but if that was me, I’d be questioning the prosecution on tampering with evidence. There was no reason to break the gun. All they had to do was show that it was operating correctly. That was enough. There was zero reason to force a breakage.
 
And suppose the FBI hadn't broken the gun, it was turned over to the defense to allow their expert to test it, and that expert broke it? Now if there's any question about the FBI's testing and findings, the gun isn't in the same condition as when the FBI tested it, so the FBI technician can't hold the gun up in court and show what he found.

Should that result in an automatic conviction?

Sure, the defense can whine that they didn't get to test the unbroken firearm, but the circumstances of when, where, and why it was broken are well documented, and the broken remains are available to the defense for examination. Certainly the defense can attempt to use the broken gun as a smoke screen, but it certainly shouldn't be grounds to drop the charges or to call a dismissal or a mistrial.

Each member of the jury will have to decide how much weight they want to put on the defense's whining about not being allowed to test the gun themselves.

In reality, since the FBI's testing showed that the gun function properly up until the hammer blow that broke it, if the defense had been able to test it their testing would have shown the same thing. That would not help Baldwin's claim that he didn't pull the trigger, the gun just "went off" when he dropped the hammer. Introducing their own expert to testify to that would be a dumb move for the defense, so IMHO they are probably reciting all sort of prayers of thanksgiving that the FBI DID break the gun, giving them a hail Mary defense to try to hang their hat on.
 
IMO,the whole "I did not pull the trigger " thing is BS.

First,it doesn't matter. He unnecessarily pointed a gun,loaded or not ,at her.

Next,look through every picture from Rust where Baldwin has a wheel gun on his hand. Can you find one where he has his trigger finger outside the trigger guard? Me neither. Index finger through the guard,his standard grip is index finger across and resting on (pulling?)the trigger?

I guess you can pull a SAA trigger without your brain being involved but don't tell me you didn't pull it.

From the get-go,I never saw Baldwin with the remorse of esponsibility or compassion. It was always "How do I get myself out of this'
 
From the get-go,I never saw Baldwin with the remorse of esponsibility or compassion. It was always "How do I get myself out of this'
Click to expand...
Not even that--it was "the show must go on" and continued pushing the filming.
 
I’m curious….what is broke and how. The FBI should have had experts handling it. It isn’t made of thin glass or something..

I mean these guys probably handle donuts and ceramic coffee cups everyday without breaking them!:D
 
Next,look through every picture from Rust where Baldwin has a wheel gun on his hand. Can you find one where he has his trigger finger outside the trigger guard?
Click to expand...

One thing that is easy to do with a single action revolver is hold the gun with your finger ON the trigger, holding it all the way back (the position it is in when pulled) without realizing you are doing it.

There is very little tension on the trigger, until the hammer is cocked. If your habit is to have your finger in the trigger guard (and it can be shown Baldwin did this, often) it is easy to have that finger holding the trigger back without realizing it, and creating exactly the condition that exists when the trigger is pulled, without actually "pulling" the trigger.

Baldwin's first words after the fatal shot are reported to have been "I didn't pull the trigger!"

Not, Oh S..." or "what happened? or "get a doctor!" or "call 911" they were "I didn't pull the trigger!" Some people will make something of that, others will say we shouldn't make anything of that, because he was in obviously in a state of shock because the gun went off, unexpectedly.

I would point out that this wasn't Baldwin's "first rodeo" with the gun. He had been using it and practicing with it on the set before and on the day of the accident. He KNEW how it worked.

My personal theory is that Baldwin drew the gun, rapidly as the character he was rehearsing to portray would have done it. He cocked the hammer (which he admits to) he pointed it at a person, and then he released the hammer, expecting it to stay cocked until he intentionally pulled the trigger.

What I believe happened was that while he had done that several times before, without any issues, this time when he drew the gun, he gripped it so that his trigger finger was pressing the trigger back without him realizing it, so that when he cocked the hammer, and then released it, the hammer fell firing the gun, exactly as the gun was designed and built to work.

I think Baldwin is telling the truth as he knows it, he did not pull the trigger to fire the fatal shot, what he did was hold the trigger back (in the pulled position) without realizing it, and as per the design of the gun, when he released the hammer with the trigger held back, the hammer fell.

Just FYI, for those who don't know, IF the hammer/trigger engagement was broken, the gun would do exactly the same thing. The hammer would not stay cocked, it would fall when the shooter released it, firing a round if there was a round in place to be fired.

While I will concede that the defense has a valid point that they can not test the gun in the condition it was in at the time of the shooting, I think they are trying to get the focus on this one point, and not on the fact that even IF the gun had been defective before breaking in testing, if Baldwin had not pointed it at someone and cocked the hammer no one would have been shot.

This is not a pick and choose one single thing as the cause, despite how hard the lawyers are trying to make it seem.

It was multiple actions, with the final series, the ones that fired the gun and what it hit (a member of the film crew) were entirely done by Baldwin, and entirely of his own desire, and violated both basic gun safety AND movie set safety rules. He was, literally, playing with a gun he thought was unloaded, and while that makes a difference in his intent, it does nothing altering the outcome, and to my mind, he is responsible for that outcome.
 
And suppose the FBI hadn't broken the gun, it was turned over to the defense to allow their expert to test it, and that expert broke it? Now if there's any question about the FBI's testing and findings, the gun isn't in the same condition as when the FBI tested it, so the FBI technician can't hold the gun up in court and show what he found.

Should that result in an automatic conviction?
Click to expand...
No, but there would almost certainly be some kind of adverse consequences.

Also, remember, the state and the defendant don't have the same burden of proof. The state has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt while the defendant has no burden of proof and only has to create a reasonable doubt to gain acquittal. If the state does something that essentially provides the defendant with a reasonable doubt of innocence, then they've basically done all the work that the defendant is required to do.
In reality, since the FBI's testing showed that the gun function properly up until the hammer blow that broke it, if the defense had been able to test it their testing would have shown the same thing.
Click to expand...
Do you think that experts never disagree in court? Seriously. The defense has their experts, the prosecution has theirs if they were in agreement only one side would have to hire experts.

Your statement is incorrect. Here is the correct version of it.

"In reality, since the FBI's testing showed that the gun function properly up until the hammer blow that broke it, we assume that if the defense had been able to test it their testing would have shown the same thing."

The problem is that if there's any reasonable doubt to that assumption, then the defendant shouldn't be found guilty on the basis of that evidence.
 
I hope this isn't news to anyone here, but I feel like it really needs to be said, based on some of the posts I see on this thread.

People don't go to prison because we don't like what they did, because they did something we wouldn't have done ourselves, or because we don't like them as a person. It should be the fervent hope of everyone here that we never live in a country like that.

People go to prison because it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they broke an existing law that warrants a prison sentence.
 
Nathan said:
I’m curious….what is broke and how. The FBI should have had experts handling it. It isn’t made of thin glass or something..
Click to expand...
This has been discussed here, back when it happened, complete with links to articles.

The firearm in question was an Italian clone of a Colt 1873 Single Action Army revolver. The FBI laboratory was asked to test the gun to determine whether or not the hammer could have fallen without the trigger being pulled. The FBI performed many tests in an attempt to cause the hammer to fall, and they were unsuccessful in most of them. As the testing progressed, the FBI eventually tried whacking the hammer with a mallet. I don't recall how many times they whacked it, or if they recorded increasing force as the testing proceeded, but eventually one of the whacks on the hammer with the mallet caused the gun to break.

If I remember correctly, the tip broke off the sear, which obviously would have allowed the hammer to fall. Since the sear that was in the gun when Baldwin fired the fatal shot is now broken, the gun cannot now be tested in the configuration in which it existed on the date of the incident.

The fact that the gun could not be made to fire without subjecting the hammer to a destructive impact directly on the hammer should be fairly convincing evidence. But, juries are comprised of people, and you can't predict what or who people will believe.
 
JohnKSa said:
Do you think that experts never disagree in court? Seriously. The defense has their experts, the prosecution has theirs if they were in agreement only one side would have to hire experts.
Click to expand...
Experts often disagree, in court, regarding opinions. When experts disagree about facts, either one or both is/are mistaken or lying. It happens. I have served as an expert witness in multiple (non-firearms) cases, and I have caught the opposition's experts in blatant lies. And I was able to document exactly why, using their own facts, their opinions were [ahem] "incorrect and unsupported by the facts."

If the gun functioned properly when the FBI tested it and it required massive physical abuse to overcome the proper function of the sear, any other expert testing the gun would have found the same thing. What that exert might report, of course, is a matter of conjecture. If that expert had any ethics whatsoever, his report to the defense team would be, "The gun functions correctly. It could not have fired without pulling the trigger. You probably don't want to call me as a witness, but you need to know this to properly advise your client."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top