ChiGoose Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Beast said: If I hand you a gun and tell you it’s empty, are you going to point it at a family member, or anyone else for that matter, and pull the trigger? It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. I agree. He shouldn't be convicted. However, you've got to admit though this would be the perfect way to get away with murder. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 10 hours ago, BillStime said: Did Killer Kyle know the history of the two guys he murdered? Oh, he didn’t, eh? So, he’s God then, right? I’m not defending the victims - I am attacking the murderer. Why am I not surprised you are defending a killer? He knew the two guys were trying to harm him at that moment, and he was defending himself. Nice comeback though, please show me where else I stand up for "killers"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 8 hours ago, Beast said: I’d check the freaking gun first like anyone that has a brain cell should. first rule. remember when they would actually teach that in schools. Always check, never point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot. 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. Not in the real world and not after Brandon Lee in Hollywood. 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. And the part where at no time did the script call for him to point it at her and pull the trigger? why was he doing that? anger? joking? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 6 minutes ago, Chris farley said: first rule. remember when they would actually teach that in schools. Always check, never point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot. Not in the real world and not after Brandon Lee in Hollywood. If reports are to be believed, the entire production sounded like it was chaotic. Live rounds intermixed with props, members on set using the weapons for target practice, people leaving the set due to safety concerns, and Alec Baldwin pointing the gun at two individuals and pulling the trigger. After the tragedy, he makes a series of odd statements and apparently misleads investigators on his actions. It seems to me the charges make sense once you get past the fact that people can be charged in scenarios where a series of unfortunate events lead to death. As for pushing forward with the movie, that’s pretty pathetic imo. Creepy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If reports are to be believed, the entire production sounded like it was chaotic. Live rounds intermixed with props, members on set using the weapons for target practice, people leaving the set due to safety concerns, and Alec Baldwin pointing the gun at two individuals and pulling the trigger. After the tragedy, he makes a series of odd statements and apparently misleads investigators on his actions. It seems to me the charges make sense once you get past the fact that people can be charged in scenarios where a series of unfortunate events lead to death. As for pushing forward with the movie, that’s pretty pathetic imo. Creepy. Good comment. dude has always been creepy. remember those voice mails to his daughter? he would have a very hard time with a jury 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. Baldwin still pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger. And from what I understand, as the/an executive producer, some responsibility for the gun not being loaded falls on him. Edited January 25, 2023 by Doc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Baldwin still pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger. And from what I understand, as the/an executive producer, some responsibility for the gun not being loaded falls on him. AT the very least seems like Baldwin and that safety person are looking at Negligent homicide/manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said: He knew the two guys were trying to harm him at that moment, and he was defending himself. Nice comeback though, please show me where else I stand up for "killers"? So you admit Killer Kyle had no idea who he was killing - thank you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, Chris farley said: AT the very least seems like Baldwin and that safety person are looking at Negligent homicide/manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is what Baldwin got. I doubt he does jail time because I don't/doubt anyone would believe he meant to kill her. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 9 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s a bit different here. If the armorer on a movie set says the gun is safe to use, I would think an actor should think it is safe to use. Goose, you are correct. It’s what’s called the Standard of Care. There’s a reasonable assumption that if a professional has checked it, that it has indeed been checked. People do it every day and never even think about it. Do you check your brakes, your seatbelt, your food, your stair railing? Of course not! You don’t because there’s a Standard of Care for the professional that handled those things before you. This is NOT some random brother in law handing you a gun. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Goose, you are correct. It’s what’s called the Standard of Care. There’s a reasonable assumption that if a professional has checked it, that it has indeed been checked. People do it every day and never even think about it. Do you check your brakes, your seatbelt, your food, your stair railing? Of course not! You don’t because there’s a Standard of Care for the professional that handled those things before you. This is NOT some random brother in law handing you a gun. I don’t think so, generally speaking. The question in my opinion is whether or not the duty to exercise care can be delegated to another individual, and whether or not his actions violated the standards expected. So, someone hands him a gun, he points it away from people in the area to test fire, something jams and shrapnel hits the person next to him. In that case, I see the application of your logic. In this case, knowing there was live ammunition on set, knowing there were safety concerns, and pointing the guy at two individuals, pulling the trigger and subsequently saying he didn’t…seems reasonable to charge. These rules are well established generally, and on a movie set, I would think the standard would be higher still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don’t think so, generally speaking. The question in my opinion is whether or not the duty to exercise care can be delegated to another individual, and whether or not his actions violated the standards expected. So, someone hands him a gun, he points it away from people in the area to test fire, something jams and shrapnel hits the person next to him. In that case, I see the application of your logic. In this case, knowing there was live ammunition on set, knowing there were safety concerns, and pointing the guy at two individuals, pulling the trigger and subsequently saying he didn’t…seems reasonable to charge. These rules are well established generally, and on a movie set, I would think the standard would be higher still. All good points. I’m certainly no expert on what goes on a movie set but I guarantee there’s a Standard of Care there as well. That’s what the case will come down to. It goes like this: “What would another actor have reasonably been expected to do in the same circumstances?” You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to exhibit the Standard of Care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, BillStime said: So you admit Killer Kyle had no idea who he was killing - thank you He knew the people he shot were trying to do him harm, why do you think anything supercedes that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said: He knew the people he shot were trying to do him harm, why do you think anything supercedes that? Apparently the new plan is you get a resume when someone is trying to bludgeon you with a blunt object, review it, and consider whether or not that person’s past is filled with decency and kindness before allowing them to continue on assaulting you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cle23 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don’t think so, generally speaking. The question in my opinion is whether or not the duty to exercise care can be delegated to another individual, and whether or not his actions violated the standards expected. So, someone hands him a gun, he points it away from people in the area to test fire, something jams and shrapnel hits the person next to him. In that case, I see the application of your logic. In this case, knowing there was live ammunition on set, knowing there were safety concerns, and pointing the guy at two individuals, pulling the trigger and subsequently saying he didn’t…seems reasonable to charge. These rules are well established generally, and on a movie set, I would think the standard would be higher still. I think the #1 thing here is, WHY was there any live ammunition on set? I think the investigation has to start there. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Looks like Baldwin may have incriminated himself when talking to police. I still think the charge for pulling the trigger is weaksauce but maybe prosecutors are using it as a bargaining chip for a plea deal. Alec Baldwin Didn’t Have to Talk to the Police. Neither Do You. Remember kids, don’t talk to the cops without an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Looks like Baldwin may have incriminated himself when talking to police. I still think the charge for pulling the trigger is weaksauce but maybe prosecutors are using it as a bargaining chip for a plea deal. Alec Baldwin Didn’t Have to Talk to the Police. Neither Do You. Remember kids, don’t talk to the cops without an attorney. Agree with the part about not talking to the police without an attorney. They're not there to help you. But (again) Baldwin, in his ill-advised interview, admitted to pulling the hammer back and letting it go, which is key to firing a bullet. A gun can't simply go off just by being held. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, cle23 said: I think the #1 thing here is, WHY was there any live ammunition on set? I think the investigation has to start there. I’ve asked the same thing many times. I have no idea what standards exist or are in practice. I thought they handled most of this stuff with post production special effects these days. (It’s actually a scene in Spielberg’s recent movie The Fabelmans). I’ve yet to hear any Hollywood types talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 26, 2023 Share Posted January 26, 2023 There was a really good discussion on this in the most recent Serious Trouble podcast Their takeaway is that Baldwin’s liability for pulling the trigger stems from his dumb media tour and talking to the cops without a lawyer. He is now on the record stating that he’s had firearms training, knows never to point a gun at someone unless you’re going to shoot it, and that he never pulled the trigger. If the government can show that the gun only fired because he did indeed pull the trigger (which seems likely) they can introduce his other statements to the jury to show that he knew what would happen if he pulled the trigger but pulled it anyway. They can also likely introduce evidence that there was no actual reason to pull the trigger either. Slam dunk conviction. Had Baldwin been smart by shutting up and lawyering up, his defense team could pin the negligence on the armorer, stating that Baldwin was following the rules and expected that the armorer had done their job. It wouldn’t guarantee acquittal on that charge but it would have made it far more likely than the reality he’s currently facing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts