MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > Why Alec Baldwin Might Get Convicted | L...

Why Alec Baldwin Might Get Convicted | LAWYER EXPLAINS

posted 2 years ago by TMC-4 (20123)
12 replies | jump to latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrlGDY5bPwI

On October 21, 2021, Alec Baldwin was rehearsing in New Mexico for a scene in the independent film, Rust, when the gun he was holding fired, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, and injuring director Joel Souza. Now, the Santa Fe County District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies has said she plans to charge Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed by the end of January for two counts each of involuntary manslaughter. Should Baldwin be charged for this firearm mishap? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

TIME STAMPS
0:00 Introduction
0:52 Background
8:22 The Charges
11:00 Charge No. 1
20:03 Charge No. 2
25:25 Some Potential Defenses
33:02 What Do YOU Think?

[–] Destinata (3315) 2 years ago

Yes. He was one of the producers, and he'd had several warnings about how dangerous the set was. He was also the fellow handling the gun. People mistakenly think all of the responsibility for whether a gun is loaded with real bullets rests entirely with the armorer. But in the chain of custody, everyone checks the gun. The last person to hold the gun, the actor, is the final one to check it. After all, they'll be the one holding it if it mistakenly or purposely goes off. They'll be the one who possibly maims or kills someone, so they would have the most reason to check the gun. With all that on the line, would you take someone else's word for whether the gun was loaded with blanks or bullets? It was his final responsibility.

But, the armorer bears some responsibility, too -- though, truth be told, she wasn't qualified, and the producers shouldn't have hired her. Once hired, she should have been fired when the other crew members were complaining about unsafe conditions on the set regarding firearms. Still, she didn't do her job.

And Baldwin didn't do his.

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 years ago

The armorer is solely responsible. They're the experts.

[–] Destinata (3315) 2 years ago

Blanks have a "dimple" in the tip. There's no mistaking it. A complete idiot could tell: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-recognize-blank-bullets?share=1

Look at those pictures. Now, you're the one handed the gun. If it's THAT easy to tell a blank from a live bullet, and you're the one pulling the trigger, you'd have to be totally irresponsible not to double-check. I don't care who told me it was a cold gun, I'd still look because I live in a world where mistakes happen.

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 years ago

Double checking absolves the armorer of their duty. It makes them more negligent.

[–] Destinata (3315) 2 years ago

Double-checking doesn't absolve anyone of their duty or make them "more negligent." (Interesting choice of words. If they're at all negligent, they need to be double-checked.) But no, it doesn't make them any less conscientious. It just builds more safeguards into the system. It IS loaded guns we're talking about, here. More safeguards are preferable to fewer. We can see what can happen when safety is lax and the safeguards are not followed.

The very least Baldwin should have done was checked to see the safety was on while he was waiving the gun around. Even then, he should have kept his finger off the trigger. This is basic gun safety.

[–] legnadibrom (6214) 2 years ago

we will never forget the willful taking of a woman's life that day

[–] bozo_500 (13105) 2 years ago

I think he'll get the full 5 years (not just what happened and him being a producer on the movie but due to the way he tried to absolve himself from any responsibility afterwards)

I also think that his wife will divorce him while he's inside.

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 years ago

Since when does the jury care about evidence? They convict on a whim. Miscarriage of justice is commonplace.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

he is only getting charged because he shot a women. the woketard feminist mobs online made this case political and forced hand and this is what happen.

you want proof what i say is true?

in 1993 brandon lee (bruce lee's only boy) was kill by fellow actor on set who was told not to aim gun direct at performer and fire but retard did anyway (far more negligant than baldwins), and he was not charged! he did not get any punishments for doing even worse thing than baldwins.

why? no woketard twitter mobs in 1993.

[–] almonigal (1283) 2 years ago

Baldwin is getting charged because that's the law. He used a gun to shoot someone. I am sure he did not mean it, but a gun held by his hand shot a bulet that killed someone. In what circumstances or if he is guilty, thats for a court to determine and decide. (court = level headed , impartial people). Someone is dead, and I can assume that someone didnt deserve to die.
The fact that Brandon Lee's killer didnt get punished, although wrong, should have no influence in this case. One injustice should not set a precedent for another injustice.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that people that deserve justice do not receive it unless their case is well known. Which means media has more influence on the justice system than it should have. That I agree with

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

open your eye.

from day one this case has been about what woketards always cry about: "privileged rich white man who always get away with everythings!". this is what the woketard mob have been pissing there pant suits about. it is political!

look at the case. most important person on movie set when it come to firepower is armorer who check gun before use! who is armorers in this case?! yes thats right!! she is woman who not even qualify to be janitor on set nevermind be such important job hahahahaha!! she should be main villain in case but is not!!

the woketards ignore this woman because she is prime reason of why having woketard policys (hiring unqualify armorer) ends with killling someone. that is issue of case - woketard diversity that has penaltys.

The fact that Brandon Lee's killer didnt get punished, although wrong, should have no influence in this case. One injustice should not set a precedent for another injustice.

no this is not like normal case that happen everyday. this is someone shot on movieset with blank gun - brandon lee's death set precedents. ask yourself - why no MASSIVE media pressures on brandon lee's killer to be tryed? why no HUGE campaign from mobs to get lee's killer charged? what is different between two case?! i tell you what - woketard politics!!!

alec baldwin kill someone by freak accidents and he have to live with guilt for rest of life. brandon lee's killer was not the same after incident and he died young - this was his punishments.

it was accident wokeards. let it go!!! go play with your cats.

[–] almonigal (1283) 2 years ago

"look at the case. most important person on movie set when it come to firepower is armorer who check gun before use!"

Is there a law that shifts responsibility to the armorer ? Because if there isn't, then this case must go to trial and it will be decided there who is or not guilty. It's how the justice system works.

"who is armorers in this case?! yes thats right!! she is woman who not even qualify to be janitor on set nevermind be such important job hahahahaha!! she should be main villain in case but is not!!" "

She shouldn't. If she is not qualified, the person who hired or assigned her to the role of armorer should be the main villain. She is guilty, but less than the person that made the decision to put her there.

"no this is not like normal case that happen everyday. this is someone shot on movieset with blank gun - brandon lee's death set precedents. ask yourself - why no MASSIVE media pressures on brandon lee's killer to be tryed? why no HUGE campaign from mobs to get lee's killer charged? what is different between two case?! i tell you what - woketard politics!!!"

The main difference is that back then people didnt have ways to post their opinions online like they do now.

"it was accident wokeards. let it go!!! go play with your cats."

Who says it wasn't ? But, could this accident be avoided ? If the answer is yes, then the case should go to trial.