Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to an internet article, (for what its worth) Jury selection is Tuesday, opening statements on Wednesday with the trial scheduled to end on Friday the week following.

Jury deliberation will take as long as it takes.

Apparently there is only one charge, Felony Manslaughter, and, again, according to the article, he could be found guilty either through his actions with the gun on the set, OR through his actions as producer disregarding safety standards and protocols, or a combination of both.
 
I have a feeling they'll get him on the producer negligence thing. And I also think the movie flops--if ever released, because no matter what they call the movie the public will see it as "The Man Who Shot Halyna Hutchins."
 
Thanks

44 amp described nicely and detailed exactly how Baldwin shot her. Will the jury get to see how he handles a single action revolver? More importantly can they be educated to understand that he was already pulling the trigger when he pointed the gun at her?
 
I have a feeling they'll get him on the producer negligence thing.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, it is the easier conviction in this case. First off, they've already convicted the armorer, who didn't point a gun at anyone, shot no one, and wasn't even on the set when the shooting happened, and ultimately, Baldwin was HER BOSS, the guy who hired her, and is therefore responsible. It will be up to the jury to decide if that responsibility meets the standard of the criminal code.

Next point, going after a conviction because of his responsibility as "Captain of the Ship" avoids, or minimizes the defense claims about him not being responsible as an actor for knowing the gun was loaded. (he is, and didn't do it) and it also defuses the defense claim that the gun was broken/defective at the time of the accident and now, thanks to the damage inflicted by FBI testing, they cannot determine that with certainty.

I'm a simple guy, and I know how Single Action revolvers and many other guns work. For me, pointing a gun at someone, and having it go off is enough evidence they are responsible for that happening.

To me, the how, and the why, while important, are not able to cancel the WHAT that actually happened.

The claim is made that as an actor Baldwin was not responsible for personally checking to see if the gun was loaded. TO ME, this is PARTLY true. He's not required to check the gun by his JOB. However, his JOB RULES require him to be there, and see the gun being loaded, and what it is loaded with.

HE DIDN"T DO THAT. Either! You don't get it both ways, you cannot claim immunity from responsibility because of your job rules when you do not follow those same job rules!

The entire issue about the gun being broken is, to me, a red herring. A possible legal, procedural matter, perhaps, that's something for the court to rule on, but the reality is, the gun was working properly when the FBI began testing and worked properly up until the point it broke, so, (again, to me) is a logical and valid assumption that the gun was working properly before the FBI testing, and there is a clear chain of custody on the gun from the time the Sherrif's deputies took possession of it on the movie set after the shooting.

As far as the movie "bombing" at the box office (if it ever gets that far) I would expect nothing less. I see any attempt to market the movie as a "tribute" and to raise money for the victim's family is a cynical ploy to appeal to our sympathy. Any money raised will be used to pay the legal bills (current and looming), and do remember that money owed the family as a result of the accident IS one of the legal bills that Baldwin (and his company) are responsible for paying, whether he is convicted, or not.
 
Will the jury get to see how he handles a single action revolver? More importantly can they be educated to understand that he was already pulling the trigger when he pointed the gun at her?
Click to expand...
There's some footage that's being shown that has Baldwin using the gun as a pointer, gesticulating with it. The implication is that footage will be shown as proof that he was not following proper gunhandling procedure on set. The problem, for the prosecution is that footage clearly shows that his finger is not in the triggerguard.
 
The problem, for the prosecution is that footage clearly shows that his finger is not in the triggerguard.
Click to expand...

SO, they just need to use other footage, it is out there, I saw some just the other day in an internet article, so it is out there. Baldwin, is shown in the costume of the Rust character he plays, and draws the gun from under his coat and points it NEARLY at the camera, but not directly at the camera. IT is clear and easily seen his finger is in the trigger guard and is ON the trigger.

The footage is shown from a couple of slightly different angles, all clearly showing where his finger is. The hammer is not cocked in the footage.

IF the prosecution wants to show footage illustrating his questionable gun handling, it is out there. IF they don't choose footage that makes the point they want to make, that's a failure on their part.
 
That filing I linked with the guy reading it Seems to indicate there is lots of footage of him, mishandling or actuating the firearm more than need be at multiple Times during production of the movie . I’m sure the prosecution has plenty to show .
 
The whole red herring over the trigger/trigger pull is a similar argument to the
gun ban idea that guns (inanimate objects)commit crime. Like SUVs.

Blame the thing and let the killer go. And pass another gun law.


Screen Actor Guild can have another code,maybe. If it works.

But when the code is not followed and someone gets killed, full accountability is necessary.

Lady Justice needs Her blindfold tuned up.

Baldwin needs to get served the same Justice I would be served if I were practicing for a really cool FaceBook or YouTube post with my .44 and killed someone.
 
Baldwin, is shown in the costume of the Rust character he plays, and draws the gun from under his coat and points it NEARLY at the camera, but not directly at the camera. IT is clear and easily seen his finger is in the trigger guard and is ON the trigger.
Click to expand...
I saw that footage. He's in character--that's part of a scene where it would be reasonable to assume it is required that his finger be on the trigger. You don't see a lot of westerns with cowboys demonstrating excellent trigger finger discipline.

The footage I'm talking about was between scenes where he wasn't in character.
Seems to indicate there is lots of footage of him, mishandling or actuating the firearm more than need be at multiple Times during production of the movie . I’m sure the prosecution has plenty to show .
Click to expand...
I would expect them to use whatever makes sense to try to make their case. But if it does show him using trigger finger discipline between scenes, like the footage I saw, it's going to make their case harder to prove.
 
I would expect them to use whatever makes sense to try to make their case. But if it does show him using trigger finger discipline between scenes, like the footage I saw, it's going to make their case harder to prove
Click to expand...
.

My guess would be that footage would be shown to prove how he recklessly points real firearms at people . That is an interesting point though . If there is no footage of him with his finger on the trigger when he’s not filming a scene. That would say something , not sure exactly what but it is something .
 
If there is no footage of him with his finger on the trigger when he’s not filming a scene. That would say something , not sure exactly what but it is something .
Click to expand...

All it proves is that there is no footage, nothing else.

Absence of evidence is NOT PROOF of evidence of absence. Not having footage of something doesn't mean anything other than you don't have footage of something, it may indicate, or imply, but it is not proof.

The footage I saw shows him drawing the gun from under his coat, at speed, and pointing it. In order to be able to do this (and repeatedly) you must have a firm grip on the gun. When the hammer is down (as it was in the footage I saw) there is NO risk if your finger is in the trigger guard or on the trigger or even mashing it all the way back, as it appears Baldwin is doing.

The issues comes in when this is a habit, because to safely operate the gun, you have to take your finger OFF the trigger when you cock the hammer. If you don't the hammer will not stay cocked and will fall and fire the gun as soon as you release it. Forget to take your finger off the trigger, even once, before cocking the hammer is an accident waiting to happen.

And, if you don't realize your finger is holding the trigger back to begin with, it is unlikely you'll remember to release the trigger before cocking the hammer.

Much has been said about an actor not being required to know guns, and while its not something required by rules, I simply cannot buy the idea he didn't know how that gun worked. I've seen him in other movies where his gun handling was essentially correct concerning trigger finger discipline.

I think it wasn't a matter of "he's just an actor and doesn't know", I think it was a matter of "familiarity breeds contempt".

I am reminded of an incident during the filming of the movie "The Green Berets". The base they were filming at came under VC mortar attack, and everyone but John Wayne dove for shelter.

Afterwards, someone asked Wayne, why he didn't dive in a hole like everyone around him, was he trying to prove something because he was John Wayne?"

His answer was ..enlightening, to say the least. Essentially he said "hell son, after all the war movies I've been in, it never occurred to me that it was real!"

I can't think of a single gun safety or movie industry safety rule that wasn't violated or outright ignored on that movie set, and ultimately, Baldwin, as the guy in charge is responsible for that.

Jury selection is on Tuesday, we're in for an interesting week!
 
44 AMP said:
And, if you don't realize your finger is holding the trigger back to begin with, it is unlikely you'll remember to release the trigger before cocking the hammer.

Much has been said about an actor not being required to know guns, and while its not something required by rules, I simply cannot buy the idea he didn't know how that gun worked. I've seen him in other movies where his gun handling was essentially correct concerning trigger finger discipline.

I think it wasn't a matter of "he's just an actor and doesn't know", I think it was a matter of "familiarity breeds contempt".
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain it was brought out in Guttierez-Reed's trial that Baldwin refused to attend "mandatory" firearms safety classes -- attendance at which is, I believe, required by the Screen Actors Guild safety rules (as they stood at the time -- they have been revised as a result on this incident). The SAG safety protocols also called for both the second assistant director and Baldwin to be physically present and watch while the armorer loaded the firearm. We know that didn't happen.
 
Absence of evidence is NOT PROOF of evidence of absence. Not having footage of something doesn't mean anything other than you don't have footage of something, it may indicate, or imply, but it is not proof.
Click to expand...
This is a profoundly disturbing statement in the context in which it is offered.

The foundational principle of the American justice system is that defendants are presumed to be innocent and the state has the burden of proof to show otherwise.

Therefore, the absence of evidence means that the state can not meet the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence prevails.
 
That’s funny because that’s my line, but I use it in the other context . Usually, when it comes to trying to prove the government has done something And people say there’s no evidence of such a thing . I often say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . I can’t imagine using it the other way around to a defendant .

I started a new thread for the trial They have live motions going on right now .
 
Therefore, the absence of evidence means that the state can not meet the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence prevails.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that in the least. Its our system, and I'm glad it is set up and works the way it does, but that's not quite what I'm talking about.

IF you do not have evidence of something, there can only be two reasons, one is that it does not exist, and the other is that is does exist, but you haven't found it. Or found it yet...

OF course, the court can only act on evidence presented to it. and, rightly so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top