Forget the evidence or negligence, do you want him guilty? - Alec Baldwin Discussion

[–] bozo_500 (13105) 2 years ago

No, in fact I was a fan of AB the movie actor in roles like Red October, The Edge, The Phantom. But with what happened and the way he acted afterward (I dont feel any guilt, I didnt pull the trigger etc) he clearly needs the maximum sentence

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

No to OP but I agree with^, he hasn’t expressed an ounce of contrition concerning his role in Ms. Hutchins’ death, at the very least, I hope he’s convicted, doesn’t matter what the penalty is, community service for all I care, whatever, he needs to be held accountable, I hope our justice system prevails in this case.

reply

[–] davodikum (6197) 2 years ago

I think you mean the shadow

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13105) 2 years ago

Yes

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Um no. What happened in Rust is horrific. He should have checked the weapon prior to using it for a scene. Same goes for the Gun Wrangler. As the last person to handle the weapon, he takes responsibility for the outcome. It looks like a tremendous accident. But, he is responsible for safely handling it. Regardless of how you feel about him personally, he's required to go through an investigation and possible sentencing. The family of the victims deserve that much.

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 years ago

No, the armorer takes responsibility. That's their job. If the actors have to check the safety, why even hire an armorer?

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

Actors need to check because of human error, brain surgeons make mistakes, astronauts make mistakes, armorers most certainly make mistakes, all of us make mistakes, sometimes good/decent parents leave their kids in cars because they’re in a fog and their kids die from heat exhaustion…., how hard is it to clear a gun, it takes seconds and if Alec had taken those seconds, Halyna would still be alive. That being said, Alec is entitled to his day in court.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 2 years ago

Those are false equivalence.

There are already cases of actors dying from defective prop guns and no one was prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter (i.e. - Michael Massee shooting and killing Brandon Lee).

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

Your retort is a dubious rationalization at best BourbonKing, the past is not an accurate reflection of how things ought to be, in most cases, far from it, especially when it comes to taking a minimal effort to protecting the sanctity of human life. We can always do better, and if you feel differently about that, what more is there to be said.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 2 years ago

Spoken like a true armchair warrior.

Court cases always cite real world examples, particularly examples using the same scenario from the exact same industry.

Meanwhile, you equate this accident to medical surgery and parents leaving their kids in cars to die.

Who's the DUMBASS NOW?

reply

[–] liscarkat (18372) 2 years ago

One of the basic rules of firearms safety is that no matter who hands you a gun and tells you it's empty, or "cold", or whatever, you always, always check it yourself to see if it's loaded, and if so, what it's loaded with. Movie sets are no exception, and if that's the way they're run, they need to change. No matter who had the gun before him, and what he or she told him about it, if he had checked it himself nobody would have got shot.

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 years ago

So an armorer has to do a half-assed job. He just phones it in. Perfect.

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

Why does the armorer HAVE to do a "half-assed job" simply because there are checks up and down the line? The armorer does her job and Baldwin does his. Instead, everyone did a half-assed job and a child grows up without a mother.

One of the things that has me shaking my head is often the same people who think guns are so dangerous that they need to be outlawed think it's unreasonable to require an actor to do a two second check to see if a revolver is loaded with blanks so no one gets killed or maimed.

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

One of the basic rules of firearms safety is ..

Doesn't matter what comes after that when we're talking about movies, which break safety rules in EVERY thing they do, not just firearms. One of my college roomy's dad knew and flew with Paul Mantz, the stunt flyer who was killed filming the Flight of the Phoenix. All sorts of safety rules were broken in that, but that's why they hired Paul Mantz, and not a local pilot to fly that abortion they threw together. He knew the risks.

The rules on a movie set regarding guns is that the armorer is the last person to check the weapon. If I'm the armorer and I hand over a gun, the actor will NOT open it after I hand it over or I will take the gun back and recertify it so some nut actor doesn't slip in a live round. If my ass is on the line, NO ONE will open that weapon after I do.

You want a law that requires the actor to check the weapon? Fine, but you would have to make the law transfer the responsibility over to the actor and relieve the armorer of that. Do you think actors would accept personal responsibility?

The best option is to give everyone popsicle stick guns and CGI the rest in post. That's the ONLY way you can prevent an accident.

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

That's interesting.

I know someone in the business who's been in Westerns and had to handle guns. She'd never take someone's word for it that the gun was loaded with blanks, especially when it takes almost no time to check it to prevent a tragedy. You see, it's not the armorer who's going to pull the trigger. It's the actor.

And apparently my friend isn't the only one who works that way. George Clooney said he also worked that way. To which Baldwin snidely said, "Well, good for him!" And good for anyone in front of Clooney's gun.

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

You see, it's not the armorer who's going to pull the trigger.

Fine, but you can't have it both ways. *Someone* has to be responsible for the weapon, and that's either the armorer (who is a professional and whose job it is) or the actor if that's what you want, but it still comes down to the last person to open the weapon must be responsible for it.

If I'm the armorer, then *no one* opens the weapon after I certify and close it. How do I know that the AD or looney actor doesn't slip in a live round? If they want the untrained actor or AD to open the weapon after I close it, then it goes in my contract that I'm no responsible for anything that happens if someone opens the weapon after me. I am also on the set during the shoot, not certifying the weapons in my trailer that are then put on a tray and brought to the shoot. I wouldn't know what happened after the weapon left my sight.

Will actors agree to take responsibility? Maybe, maybe not.

There is only one way to absolutely guarantee this doesn't happen again, and that is to ban all firearms from movie studios. Give the actors popsicle stick weapons and then do CGI in post production.

Humans make mistakes, and nothing will ever change that.

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

They're all responsible to a certain extent, everyone who had charge of the gun. But the ultimate responsibility goes to the one holding the gun when it goes off.

If you're the armorer on a set where my friend works, I can guarantee you, you're going to have the argument of your life if you hand her a gun and say, "I say it's loaded with blanks, and I don't want you to check to see if I made a mistake!" As you say, humans make mistakes, and the person firing the weapon would have to be about 18 different kinds of stupid to just take someone's word for it that they -- that other person -- is the one infallible human being walking.

My husband agrees with you. Well, up to a point. He thinks no ammunition of any sort should be allowed on a set. All guns should be empty, and CGI should be responsible for the flash effect that comes out of the gun. If it was cost-effective and more realistic-looking than the broken glass effect they're using to death, then I don't see why directors aren't insisting on it.

Of course, that doesn't help, here. Speaking of trying to have it both ways, Baldwin hates guns, thinks they're dangerous, but didn't take enough training on how to use a gun to know to keep his stupid finger off the trigger. Unbelievable!

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

But the ultimate responsibility goes to the one holding the gun when it goes off.

If we weren't talking about a movie stunt, then yes I would agree wholeheartedly. For now anyway - I'm sure this accident will change rules and regulations when it comes to movie making.

In a movie stunt, the rules of safety for *anything* are broken, but that's why they hire professionals to oversee the stunts.

Now, if you want to make a law that the actor must be trained in firearms and responsible for checking the weapon and any unintended injury, that's fine. I'm on board with that. Maybe it's the best thing as it will mostly eliminate guns from sets. I'm sure there are a few actors who would agree to accept responsibility of a gun accident using live guns, but I suspect most won't.

The big question though is how the union would respond to placing responsibility of a stunt injury/death on the actor.

But since this is about Baldwin, and there were no rules or laws in place requiring the actor to check a gun for a stunt a professional already did check, he doesn't get a guilty vote from me, at least not to the actual shooting.

He has some serious responsibility from being involved in production, and the trial will show how much he knew about the armorer or if he had any forehand knowledge of live rounds being within 10 miles of the set before the accident happened.

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

How about custom and common sense? As I said, my friend and George Clooney both said it was custom for the actor to be the last person in the line of safety checks to make sure no accidents happened. Obviously, since the armorer didn't do her job properly, there's reason why it's a custom on some sets. If he had checked the gun, no one would have been shot that day.

But you disagree. I don't find your arguments compelling.

We will agree to disagree.

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

Certainly, but "customs" aren't rules of law, something that must be addressed to prevent another senseless tragedy. For every Clooney and your friend, there will be just as many who will opine in the contrary. All I'm saying is that if I'm the armorer, no one opens the weapon after me because I will share the responsibility if someone else handles and mishandles the weapon and ammunition and a tragedy occurs. If the producers don't agree, that's fine - someone else will do that job I'm sure, but I won't be that armorer who gets caught in a mistake by the AD or end user (actor).

As I said, *something* must be done because the custom that Clooney is on board with still didn't prevent a tragedy. The only way is to make sure there are no real guns on the set, and an armorer won't be needed and the actor won't need to be trained in gun and ammunition identification. By now, CGI can surely be implemented to replace all weapons.

We will agree to disagree.

No!! I demand you change your opinion and fall in line or anarchy will reign!!!!

Sorry, got a bit of the M Chatter's rules of debate going...

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

One of the good things to come of this will likely be either laws or union rules demanding basic firearm safety be practiced on every set. It won't prevent all tragedies, sadly, any more than strict gun laws prevent gun deaths on the street. But it will at least give proper guidelines, which apparently are missing now.

That's one of the most stunning things I learned in this tragedy. The basic rules for how to handle a gun were completely ignored and not mandated.

Great discussion, and thank you for your point of view. And sense of humor! 😉

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Morally and from a common-sense POV, yes, Baldwin should have checked the gun. I certainly would have done so in his shoes (but maybe that's one of the few good aspects of having OCD and Anxiety Disorder; I'm mentally prepared for the worst, and I make 100% everything is legit and safe before proceeding). But legally, no, it was not his job to check the gun, and it wasn't even unreasonable for him to believe the armourer had sufficiently done their job and ensured that the gun was 'cold'.

For me the more compelling issue concerning Baldwin's alleged 'guilt' is his role as one of the film's producers. Did he and other producers cut corners with respect to the props department (as has been suggested), and, if so, should he therefore have been *extra*-diligent in accounting for potential mistakes and risks on-set?

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

Agree on all points.

I believe that law might actually be written as a result of this latest movie gun injury (there have been others) that will put procedures in place to reduce the chances of this happening again.

Honestly, the only way of stopping this is to stop using real guns entirely. I think CGI is at the point where not only the flash of the gun can be replicated, but the gun itself can be. We've seen "deepfakes" where actors faces can be changed, why can't a gun be "shopped" in?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Agreed. There's no reason in this day and age for firing a *real* gun on-set, no matter how realistic you want your (movie) 'shot' to look.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

Almost 100% of his haters do. No matter what the evidence is.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

Quite right , when this incident first occured the board was awash with haters telling him hanging wasnt good enough and pos derserves to hang , all before any facts or evidence arrived .

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 2 years ago

Those same haters praise Kyle Rittenhouse

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

These are two entirely different incidents, involving very different circumstances. Why pit these two men against one another?

It's perfectly feasible for both these men to be innocent/not-guilty (as is my personal understanding in each case), or for them to both be guilty. Politics shouldn't come into it.

One case was an accident, potentially borne of negligence, and the other is an issue of self-defence. And whilst it's arguable that both men 'screwed-up' to say the least, I also believe that neither of them acted with malice.

reply

[–] Darren (1342) 2 years ago

I think Alec Baldwin is a sanctimonious leftist douchebag. That said, I don't want him guilty. I think he is guilty (though not solely -- others bear guilt in this incident as well) of negligence that cost a woman her life. It's appropriate he pay some penalty for that. Actions have consequences.

But I certainly don't wish what happened on him. He contributed to a woman losing her life, a husband losing his wife, and children losing their mother, and he has to live with the guilt of knowing that he's partly responsible for that. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, no matter how much I dislike him. And it also goes without saying, the chance to enjoy a little schadenfreude at Alec Baldwin's expense isn't even remotely worth a woman's life. Anyone feeling a sense of malicious glee at Baldwin's predicament should remember that a woman is needlessly dead, and no matter what one may think of Alec Baldwin, it's a horrible tragedy that Halyna Hutchins' life was cut short, and her family deprived of all the years they should have had with her.

reply

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 2 years ago

You do realize that this is moviechat.org, and thus mature, reasonable, well-articulated responses are not allowed here…right?

reply

[–] Destinata (3317) 2 years ago

Yes. It was an odd question. No one WANTS him guilty. That entails wanting a woman dead. He IS guilty. That is a rational conclusion based on the facts.

reply

[–] strntz (12225) 2 years ago

I can't stand Baldwin. He's a detestable piece of shit human being. His heart is full of hate.

But I can't lie to myself - if I'm on the jury, he doesn't get convicted of directly causing the director's death. I would be untrue to myself if I wanted him (or could wish him) guilty simply because of my dislike of him.

Any trouble he gets in or conviction he might endure as part of the production team that hired an armorer who shouldn't have been on the set, won't keep me up at night, no.

reply

[–] davebuffalo (3442) 2 years ago

Yes I'm guilty of wanting him convicted because I don't like him. Simple as that. I was totally indifferent to him until he started doing Trump on SNL. I have never seen so much hatred conveyed in any impersonation on TV. I can't stand Trump, but I voted against Hillary and against Biden, both of whom I detested even more. Terrible choices both elections.

The way SNL and late-night hosts bash Republicans is so insanely biased, I just cannot find any humor in it. I hope he goes to the big house and gets handed the slippery slope every day.

reply

[–] Puvwall (1366) 2 years ago

Love him in the movies.
Hated his trump impression, thought it was pretty weak.
Like him in a lot of 90s snl stuff
Wish this did not happen to him.
But it did .
Some one else brought up Rittenhouse.
That boy was 100% in the right to defend himself.

Who knows what evil lurks inside mens minds , the shadow knowsssss. God damn that was a great popcorn flick . before Orson wells shadow at least for me, there was Alec to introduce and lead me to the radio dramas

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

No, I don't want to see anything bad happen to anyone, no matter who they are. Even if I didn't like Alec Baldwin (and, fwiw, I do, even if he does admittedly come across as a bit of a blowhard at times), I still wouldn't want the death of an innocent individual on their conscience. That's a terrible burden to carry.

No, I only want Baldwin to be found guilty if he's actually found to be legally responsible for Hutchins' death.

This is truly one of those times where pure objective reasoning must take precedence (is there any time when it shouldn't?) Like I say, it wouldn't matter whether I liked or disliked Baldwin (and, once again, on balance, I do quite like the guy, and generally wish him well, especially after he was one of the first celebs to ever give my a 'Like' on Twitter, pre-Rust), but objectively, justice should take precedence, and if he's guilty he should be appropriately punished, and likewise, if he's innocent, he should be acquitted.

I feel the same way about politicians, including those I dislike. I detest Trump more than practically any human in the world, but accusing him of things he *hasn't* actually said or done is in no-one's interest. Likewise, on balance, I generally like Biden, but if he's been found to have acted illegally or displayed any other form of misconduct, it shouldn't be hushed-up simpy to serve the 'right narrative'. We should endeavour for truth, honesty, objectivity, impartiality, and fairness at all times, no matter who or what we are dealing with. Most people aren't stupid. They don't like to see facts manipulated.

reply