Decker

Either that, or they realized that they had an unwinnable case. I suspect it's the latter.

GoldenJCJ

Yep. Anyone without an agenda knew this was going to happen.

Decker

I knew that the charges wouldn't result in conviction, but that they'd be dropped before trial? No, I didn't expect that.
Did this case go before a Grand Jury? Can't believe it even rose to that level of scrutiny.

Decker

Apparently the gun used on the set had been modified and could potentially fire without a trigger pull.
https://www.abc12.com/news/entertain...0last%20August.

andicus

Which is exactly what I was concerned about with this post:

Unbelievable that they based a decision on examination of a weapon which was not THE actual weapon used.

FFS

jjcool

Wouldn't surprise me.

Decker

You two have to be kidding.
Where is the crime of involuntary manslaughter? An actor is assured that the prop gun is safe and unloaded and given to him by a gun wrangler. He is instructed as an actor to point that weapon towards the camera. The gun fires.
Should he be sued? Sure. But where is the crime here?
It's fine if you hate the guy, but be intellectually honest.

jjcool

Dude shot two people. One of them died. Of course he says he didn't pull the trigger and that the gun "just went off". Isn't that info that would be proven at a trial? This all could have been prevented by anyone on that set following basic safety rules. Anyone could have saved that woman. No one bothered to check that gun. Not the armorer, not the AD and certainly not Baldwin. They all should have and are all to blame. If you're going to use a tool in the course of your job, shouldn't you know how to use it in a safe manner?

And, no. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if some money changed hands here.

Count Dooku

If someone hands you an unloaded gun, pulling the trigger is not dangerous. Since he was told the gun was unloaded, there was no reason for him not to pull the trigger. You can go 20/20 hindsight on this until the cows come home, but given the situation, it was absolutely reasonable for him to believe he could point that gun and pull the trigger, and not have a bullet come out of it. His own Actors' Union backs up the standard that he was supposed to believe the person who told him the gun was not loaded, and actors are not responsible for doing safety checks of the firearms used on sets. The death was the result of someone not doing their job, and safety procedures not being followed, but Baldwin is not personally responsible for those things.

Decker

To me this is pretty similar to a doctor accidently writing a potentially deadly dose of a medicine for a child. If he does that, he is certainly liable, maybe even criminally negligent. Now it's the pharmacist's job to make sure the doctor didn't screw up. If he doesn't do his job and dispenses that medicine with the instructions provided that could kill the child, then he too could be criminally negligent. But if the parent gives that medicine, in the dose prescribed, as instructed, to their kid and that kid dies as a result, you can't charge the parent with any crime. The parent assumes that the safety protocols were followed, it's not their fault that the safety nets put in place failed them.
There's an armorer on set for the specific function of ensuring a safe set. There are mistakes that can be pointed to all around, but in his capacity as an actor, if he's handed a gun that he's told is cold, unloaded, safe -- I can't imagine anyone, let alone a jury of 12, coming to the conclusion that he's criminally negligent for believing them.
And if that gun was indeed modified in a way that could make it fire without pulling a trigger? There is no case there.

You don't need to imagine an elaborate conspiracy theory to see this case was a total loser, at least as it applied to Baldwin. The armorer? Go ahead and throw the book at her.

Count Dooku

Maybe someone in New Mexico realized that they give a lot of tax breaks to movie companies to film in NM, and they don't want to scare off potential projects to pursue a political agenda against one loud-mouth liberal.

jjcool

Big difference being that the parent doesn't really have a means to check that the doctor and the pharmacist did their jobs correctly. In this case, Baldwin definitely did have the ability to check that the armorer and the AD did their jobs correctly. He did not take the few seconds to actually check. If he is using a tool to do his job, he very well should be able to use it safely. He didn't. And someone died.

Decker

Spoken like someone who never had a parent with Google call and ask him if he's sure about the dose.

I agree that Baldwin certainly could have done more, maybe even should have done more. But he wasn't legally required to do more. And if he wasn't required to do it, it's not a crime if he didn't. (Though again, he probably shares civil liability)

jjcool

So the parents do what they can to check. Baldwin did absolutely nothing. Let the jury decide if he should have done the bare minimum.

Decker

Let's keep the analogy going : Since parents have the ability to check on the dosing via Google, should they be charged with a crime if they don't?

Runaway

That's not how the law works, not even in the US. There at least has to be a crime, if you want to decide wether someone is guilty of it or not. It's not the job of a jury to decide wether something should be considered a crime.

Count Dooku

Yes, let 12 dipshits off the street say if actors are supposed to check their firearms on the set. Why listen to an entire industry establishment and decades of workplace precedent that says he is not supposed to be doing that?

Nick Danger

From what I've read, if the actor opens the gun to check it, the armorer will take it away, chew out the actor, and then go through the whole safety checklist again. It's not like when a buddy hands you a gun at the shooting range.

That doesn't even get into movie revolvers that are loaded with dummy bullets that are supposed look live but actually have no powder. How is an actor supposed to know the difference? He has to trust the expert.

The DA was an idiot to start down that road.

Josh-da-man

Yeah, this line of reasoning is so stupid.

Do we really want actors constantly checking their guns on sets? Opening up, unloading, then reloading bullets into firearms they might not be particularly familiar with? That's going to lead to things like accidental discharges, blockages in the barrels, and other mishaps that may or may not be dangerous (such as a blank not being in the right place and spoiling a take).

It seems like it's best left to an expert, or a team of experts, to have the guns ready for actors, and properly loaded or unloaded, instead of relying on the actors to do it and letting them play around with their guns trying to check them themselves between takes.

Movies sets are chaotic. There are a lot of people there doing things like lighting, moving boom mics around, decorating the sets, getting shots ready, etc. The best course of action is to let a meticulous expert handle these things, even taking into account what happened on the set of Rust.

And, again, there NEVER should have been a real bullet in that gun when it was handed to Baldwin. There never should have been a real bullet anywhere on the set that could have found its way into that gun. It seems like a lot of the people who want Baldwin punished are under the impression that it would have been a normal occurrence to have a live bullet in a gun used as a film prop. I mean, JFC... that's just a fuck-up of colossal proportions. I can't even...

Dummy bullets have the gunpowder removed and are hollow. They put a BB in them so the armorer can shake the dummy bullet, hear the BB rattling around in it, and verify that it's not live. They also discharge the primer. The primer on a dummy round not being discharged prior to use is what set off the chain of events that led to Brandon Lee getting killed on the set of The Crow. Learned that from the episode of Cursed Films dedicated to The Crow. In that same episode, they also had a guy recreate the accident that killed Lee. He loaded a dummy with a live primer into the same kind of gun used in the movie, and pulled the trigger, discharging the primer with enough force to push the round up into the barrel. He then loaded a blank into the gun, and was able to fire the bullet through a two-inch board. Chilling stuff.

dex14

This was John Wick director Chad Stahelski's take on it having firearms on set.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...ms-1235343132/

TomOpus

Guy Ritchie Only Uses Airsoft Pellet Guns on Movie Sets After Rust Tragedy

Dr. DVD

I have no doubt that Baldwin thought the gun wasn't loaded and agree there was no way to get successful case against him. That being said, his rather questionable approach to handling everything left a bad impression on me. Also, the amount of corners being cut during this production was astounding.

Count Dooku

Baldwin has always been a volatile guy who likes to lash back. So now imagine accidentally killing some woman that he was likely fond of, and people calling you a murderer in public.

Everybody thinks he should have just shut himself down and closed himself off from the attacks. But I know that when I'm criticized for something I've done, and I think I'm in the right, I want to forcefully defend my actions. Some people are not "Teflon Don" or "just let it go" types.

We all know his lawyers were telling him to completely shut the fuck up, but he has a lifetime of showing that he isn't wired that way.

On L&O shows, they always say that the innocent people freak out when confronted about committing a terrible crime because the idea of them being accused shocks the hell out of them, but the guilty parties have already played out that they might get caught in their minds.

Runaway

This, and he just seems to be a dick. I still like him a lot as an actor.

jjcool

He certainly does. Especially with the way he acted after killing that woman.