Alec Baldwin will stand trial on manslaughter charges

[para bellum]

That sounds like a great case against the Armorer, but not against Baldwin.

Well the grand jury disagreed with you, and so did the judge who declined to dismiss the indictment.

 

[JoeB131]

Well the grand jury disagreed with you, and so did the judge who declined to dismiss the indictment.

You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

 

[para bellum]

You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Well the case isn't about lunch meats or fabricated NY "fraud" claims.

A person was killed because a bunch of people ignored basic gun safety rules. Baldwin was not just the triggerman- he had a duty to everyone on that set to run a safe production.

I ran accident-free machine shops for 40 years because I took workplace safety seriously. I always knew if I was negligent and someone was injured or killed, I could be held accountable. So I enforced the rules on my people, and I set the example myself. I was in charge, and everyone's safety was my responsibility.

No exceptions.

That film had 2 accidental discharges before the one that killed the cinematographer, and people had already walked for safety reasons. The N.M. OSHA gave them the maximum monetary penalty for safety violations. That's what you get when you have an ongoing and systemic disregard for workplace safety.

The first AD should have been the wake-up call. Everyone should have gone through a "start-over-from-scratch" of the safety protocols, and a new armorer should have been brought in. The second one was inexcusable, and the third (the death of Hutchins) was pure negligence.

 

[JoeB131]

Well the case isn't about lunch meats or fabricated NY "fraud" claims.

A person was killed because a bunch of people ignored basic gun safety rules. Baldwin was not just the triggerman- he had a duty to everyone on that set to run a safe production.

why? He was just an actor in the movie. Sure, they gave him a producer credit, but that doesn't mean he was making decisions.

I ran accident-free machine shops for 40 years because I took workplace safety seriously. I always knew if I was negligent and someone was injured or killed, I could be held accountable. So I enforced the rules on my people, and I set the example myself. I was in charge, and everyone's safety was my responsibility.

And if there was an accident, should you be held criminally responsible for what a negligent worker did? Not that a movie set is anything like a machine shop.

That film had 2 accidental discharges before the one that killed the cinematographer, and people had already walked for safety reasons. The N.M. OSHA gave them the maximum monetary penalty for safety violations. That's what you get when you have an ongoing and systemic disregard for workplace safety.

That sounds like a good reason to hold the Armorer to account, but not the actor.

The first AD should have been the wake-up call. Everyone should have done a start-over-from-scratch redo of the procedures, and a new armorer should have been brought in. The second one was inexcusable, and the killing of Hutchins was pure negligence.

The other two discharges apparently involved blanks, which is probably why no one considered it a big deal.

 

[para bellum]

why? He was just an actor in the movie. Sure, they gave him a producer credit, but that doesn't mean he was making decisions.

It was his production. Just because he had other investors in the film doesn't relieve him of the owner's responsibility.

And if there was an accident, should you be held criminally responsible for what a negligent worker did? Not that a movie set is anything like a machine shop.

If it was my negligence that allowed him to injure someone else, then yes I would be accountable. If I failed to provide the proper training or provide the proper safety equipment, or disabled the safeties on the machinery, or I had overlooked prior safety violations- all of those things were my responsibility and I would be negligent.

A movie set is no different than any other workplace. Workplace safety is the primary responsibility of every employer. It is first above everything else.

That sounds like a good reason to hold the Armorer to account, but not the actor.

The armorer is sitting in jail. She was held accountable. But it does not end with her.

The other two discharges apparently involved blanks, which is probably why no one considered it a big deal.

I don't know that that is true, and it is still not an excuse. There were crew members who said they were going out back and plinking at tin cans during breaks.

Apparently the dummy rounds were indistinguishable from live rounds, which is improper. They could easily have color-coded the case heads and removed the primers without sacrificing authenticity, and they would have been easily identifiable by viewing through the loading gate and rotating the cylinder. A very simple safety precaution.

 

[Rogue AI]

Can't see how.

I completely detest the guy.

But this is the same thing they are doing to Trump.

How do you figure?

 

[Rogue AI]

The whole point was that he was lead to believe it was a prop gun that wasn’t capable of firing live ammunition

Clearly he shouldn’t have been goofing around with it, my dad taught me never to point or play around even with an unloaded gun.

But the armorer is obviously the one who hears primary responsibility

The armorer didn't pull the trigger. It really is that simple.

 

[Failzero]

The armorer didn't pull the trigger. It really is that simple.

QFT

 

[braalian]

The armorer didn't pull the trigger. It really is that simple.

she didn’t do her job. Her job was to ensure the safety of the prop guns in set.

Her being shitty at her job resulted in someone’s death.

She deserves to be in prison

 

[JoeB131]

It was his production. Just because he had other investors in the film doesn't relieve him of the owner's responsibility.

Except he wasn't the one making the decisions on who to hire.

If it was my negligence that allowed him to injure someone else, then yes I would be accountable. If I failed to provide the proper training or provide the proper safety equipment, or disabled the safeties on the machinery, or I had overlooked prior safety violations- all of those things were my responsibility and I would be negligent.

None of which apply to an actor who was taking direction from a director and handed a prop weapon by an armorer.

The armorer is sitting in jail. She was held accountable. But it does not end with her.

Yeah, it pretty much does. She handles the weapons, she loads the weapons. She was higher than a fucking kite when she was doing her job.

I don't know that that is true, and it is still not an excuse. There were crew members who said they were going out back and plinking at tin cans during breaks.

So why aren't they on trial?

Apparently the dummy rounds were indistinguishable from live rounds, which is improper. They could easily have color-coded the case heads and removed the primers without sacrificing authenticity, and they would have been easily identifiable by viewing through the loading gate and rotating the cylinder. A very simple safety precaution.

So in your world, Baldwin should have personally checked what kinds of blanks they were buying, But Trump is totally innocent of signing half a million in payoffs to Daniels, Cohen and McDougal.

 

[Rogue AI]

she didn’t do her job. Her job was to ensure the safety of the prop guns in set.

Her being shitty at her job resulted in someone’s death.

She deserves to be in prison

You are ignoring the two most important factors. It was Baldwin who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. Had he pointed the gun anywhere else this woman would still be alive. Had he pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at the ground, this woman would still be alive. This has nothing to do with silly Hollywood rules, this about New Mexico law.

 

[braalian]

You are ignoring the two most important factors. It was Baldwin who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. Had he pointed the gun anywhere else this woman would still be alive. Had he pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at the ground, this woman would still be alive. This has nothing to do with silly Hollywood rules, this about New Mexico law.

So you really don’t think that armorer woman should have been convicted?

 

[marvin martian]

Actually, they can't even prove that. The gun was taken apart by the FBI, so you can't tell if it discharged accidently or not.

They've already convicted the armorer. I'm curious how you can convict two people of the same offense.

You're dumb as dogshit, man.

The armorer was not convicted of killing the woman.

But, along with your support for Hunter Biden's federal gun crimes, this is truly your total surrender of the "gun control" debate. LOL

 

[Rogue AI]

So you really don’t think that armorer woman should have been convicted?

She was convicted.

 

[braalian]

She was convicted.

Because she was guilty. By being shitty at her job, she got a woman killed

 

[marvin martian]

Because she was guilty. By being shitty at her job, she got a woman killed

Two people (at least) killed that woman. The other one is about to be tried for it.

 

[Rogue AI]

Because she was guilty. By being shitty at her job, she got a woman killed

Nope, she was only partially responsible. She didn't point the gun or pull the trigger. Those are the actions that got this woman killed.

 

[there4eyeM]

You are ignoring the two most important factors. It was Baldwin who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. Had he pointed the gun anywhere else this woman would still be alive. Had he pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at the ground, this woman would still be alive. This has nothing to do with silly Hollywood rules, this about New Mexico law.

The concept of reasonable doubt is something prejudiced posters are overlooking. A film set is a special category of reality, something these posters live in and should understand.
This did not happen in a bar or living room. There is absolutely no doubt as to motivation. There is no doubt of innocence of any malice. There is no doubt as to who was responsible for the verification of the prop. Even if some "confused" jurors could be found to convict, any appeal will turn such a farce around.

 

[Rogue AI]

The concept of reasonable doubt is something prejudiced posters are overlooking. A film set is a special category of reality, something these posters live in and should understand.
This did not happen in a bar or living room. There is absolutely no doubt as to motivation. There is no doubt of innocence of any malice. There is no doubt as to who was responsible for the verification of the prop. Even if some "confused" jurors could be found to convict, any appeal will turn such a farce around.

Nope, according to New Mexico law, negligent homicide only requires the pointing of the gun and pulling the trigger. Even I agree this was not intentional homicide. What happened to 'nobody is above the law'? This is the very definition of negligent homicide.

 

[JoeB131]

You're dumb as dogshit, man.

The armorer was not convicted of killing the woman.

But, along with your support for Hunter Biden's federal gun crimes, this is truly your total surrender of the "gun control" debate. LOL

Not at all. I have no problem with guns in movies and TV. They exist, they should be portrayed.

What I would like to see is the real cost of gun violence portrayed on TV and Movies, instead of the glorifying of them we do.

As for hunter, if someone made him piss in a bottle, we wouldn't have this debate.