Decker

I wouldn't for a second argue that he wasn't a dick. He absolutely is. But I don't think he acted worse after killing the AD. He didn't dismiss it or blame it on her, he just professed his innocence. Said that he never pulled the trigger (which it turned out, might be true). He might not have seemed contrite enough, but I didn't get a take-away that he's more of a dick than normal.
What did you see to make you feel that way?

Runaway

What's making it more dickish than usual is the unusal outcome of the accident. A woman lost her life and not even than he can dial it down. He just could have released a statement and shut up, he didn't because his ego is too big, even in the aftermath of a deadly accident.

Draven

I'm just thinking about Jesse Ventura inspecting every round fired from his minigun in "Predator". That's what people apparently expect actors to do nowadays, and not the expert on the set who's literal job it is to inspect weapons before use.

I have no idea why this ever went further than right there.

jjcool

"That's the way it's always been done" is a bullshit reason to keep doing things the same old way. Especially when that leads to guys like Alec Baldwin killing a woman.
Clooney seems to think so as well. https://deadline.com/2021/11/george-...ty-1234874907/

Draven

Actors are not firearm experts. The idea that actors should inspect each bullet of the gun they've been handed is ridiculous.

This was a negligence. Same as someone not tightening the bolts of a scaffolding or flipping on the electricity while your light sits in a pool of water. All things that could happen on a film set.

Kurt D

I dunno, whenever I have a professional do something, I always double check they did it correctly. Like new brakes on my car. If they are installed improperly and I end up running into someone, I don't want to be liable, so I put the car up on my rack at home and give it a good look.

whotony

I doubt you would be liable for an accident shortly after you have your brakes worked on.

How would that work? I’d guess less then 10% of car owners can check or would check the brakes after having them worked on.
That’s why people hire someone to do it. Because they can’t or don’t know how.

andicus

whotony

Ok you took it as a joke. I didn’t. How could I?
It’s not all that preposterous that someone in here would go that.

Kurt D

I keep forgetting the wink emoji

majorjoe23

The “rack at home” was the big tip off. That’s a piece of equipment not a lot of people have in their private garages.

whotony

Sure. That’s true. I was thinking it was those little stilts that you can prop a car onto.

Also since someone changed his name to include Zyzzle just about anything said with that name attached can be taken as being meant as serious. 😗

andicus

Fair point.

Kurt D

That's a good point!

With my old user name, it was assumed that everything I said was a joke. At any rate, the point is that having an actor check a professional's work is a huge liability issue. Armorers are trained to make sure this stuff doesn't happen. Not actors.

The post prior about just going digital makes the best point about safety, but the idea that people who are not certified should check the work of professionals is, while well-intentioned, probably not a good idea.

jjcool

The fact that you think that is what we are saying is what's ridiculous. Does one need to be an expert to be able to handle something safely?
Agreed. it was negligence. On the part of the armorer, DP, and Baldwin.

GoldenJCJ

Baldwin got off, and rightfully so, but I’m thinking Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is even more fucked now.

I know Baldwin was the big name to “get” but Gutierrez-Reed seems more and more guilty every time something new is revealed - like the altered trigger on the gun.

Count Dooku

That is exactly what is being asserted: that Baldwin should have inspected the gun, even though he was told it was not loaded. What other interpretation is there?

If the gun was not loaded, which Baldwin was told was the case, he did handle it safely. It is not unsafe point an unloaded gun at someone and pull the trigger.

Decker

And we discovered, he may not have even pulled the trigger, as the prop gun was modified.
But regardless, you're right. It's not his job to inspect the already-inspected gun. It's his job to act and follow the instructions given by the director.

GoldenJCJ

This particular case wasn’t quite so cut and dry. I’m not suggesting Baldwin should have inspected the gun but the armorer isn’t the one who handed him the gun and told him it was not loaded, which was her job. She seemingly, wasn’t even on set when the accident happened. Baldwin didn’t need to inspect the gun but he should have known that it was against protocol to use a gun given to him by someone other than the armorer. Any other crew member handing him a gun and claiming it’s “cold” is an obvious safety violation that Baldwin should have called out.

Count Dooku

I wonder how many times Alec Baldwin has been on movie sets where firearms were given to him, or to other actors in his presence. And I wonder how many times Baldwin or any of those other actors stopped to question if the gun they were given was really loaded with live ammunition. It's human nature to assume things will be the way they always are and have been, right up until the time they are not. Nobody gave a shit about passengers carrying box-cutters and knives on planes before 9/11. And then, everybody cared about it. I 100% guarantee you that it never crossed Baldwin's mind for a second to wonder if there was a bullet in that gun, and there really was no reason for it to, but we know he will never touch a gun again and not wonder. That's how life works.

Decker

And though it's ultimately impossible to prove, I can't help but feel the public response would have been very different if it had happened to a much more likable star. It's human nature to project your personal feelings onto the person involved. If it were Tom Hank's or The Rock or Daniel Craig who had a gun mishap on the set, I kind of doubt anyone brings manslaughter charges against them.

Count Dooku

It almost might make you wonder if there was a giant media company with an agenda to push about Baldwin.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6325528258112

DaveyJoe

Or James Woods...

jjcool

Baldwin should have inspected the gun to see if it was actually loaded or not. That's my assertion. That is absolutely not what others are asserting. Read what was written again. One person even made the asinine comment to inspect each and every round.

Baldwin, and any actor for that matter, should have absolutely checked the gun if he was told it was unloaded. Surely if they are being asked to operate a gun for their job they should know how to do so safely, right? And was he told the gun was unloaded or was he simply told the gun was cold? Is there a difference?
And while it may not be technically "unsafe", there's a reason that people that actually know there way around a firearm don't point a gun at someone, even if it is unloaded, much less pull the trigger while pointing at someone. And, by your own account, Baldwin didn't know the gun was unloaded. He had simply been told it was unloaded. He did not handle the gun safely. Not by any widely accepted rules of firearm handling.

Decker

Once again your assertion is that Baldwin should have done more, should have been more skeptical. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. He certainly could have ,even if he were far from an expert in firearms.
The issue is : Did he commit the crime of negligent manslaughter because of what he did do? At least in his capacity as an actor on set, the answer is clearly : No.

Now yes, he was also named a producer of this film -- whatever that meant in this context. The DA had said publicly that it was his combined responsibilities as both an actor and a producer that made him criminally liable. But that's a BS legal argument. If he wasn't criminally liable exclusively as an actor, and if the other producers weren't criminally liable for the accident, you can't suddenly become a criminal just because you were only slightly below the level of criminal negligence in each of two separate capacities. You either committed a crime or you didn't. Almost x 2 doesn't count.