Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Alec never pulled the trigger


Utah Bob #35998
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

I strongly doubt that any experienced attorney would have let Baldwin do that interview unless there were "assurances" from the authorities investigating the shooting that he was in the clear. 

 

If he is charged criminally I will consume my Stetson bit by bit. Not because of 'assurances', which would never have been given. It's because whatever his negligence, he didn't intend to shoot her, he was handed the gun and specifically told 'cold gun' by the ass't director, there was an armorer on the set, and the presence of a live round under the circumstances on a movie set would not be anticipated. He acted in accordance with industry practice, even if prudence would have required him to examine the rounds himself.

 

Pards are having a lot of fun hating this guy, and I don't like him, but he's not guilty of a crime. Of course he'll be sued, he knows it full well; that's what insurance is for. He never claimed he shouldn't be sued. He said the thought it was unseemly that a script reader and another hanger-on should sue for their 'emotional injuries' before the widower and father sued. I agree with him on that. It won't make any difference to the outcome, but it was ridiculous.

 

I doubt he said anything he hasn't told the cops already so he had nothing to lose with the interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 how is he not guilty of a crime? He was utterly negligent in violating the basic rules of firearm safety. Was it a deliberate attempt to kill those two people? I do not believe so, and I really don't care much for AB, but I do not think he deliberately did this. His negligence though, is another matter. If you do not know how to operate a diesel locomotive and get in it and run someone over, you were negligent and careless. Unless the gun is damaged internally, which if it was so, I believe would have already been released, he cocked and pulled the trigger on a firearm that was pointed at two people. That is Manslaughter under every State's laws that I am aware of. And in some would be Negligent Homicide. Does he feel remorse? Unless he is a sociopath, of course he does. Is he afraid of going to prison? Of course, that is why he is trying to use any defense he possibly can.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well according to other actors they were not following industry standards. George Clooney said he's never had someone announce cold gun and hand a weapon to a director or actor. He said every single time he has handled a gun in a movie thats supposed to be unloaded the armorer or his assistant physically shows him the gun cylinder or magazine is empty and no round in the chamber. The same procedures are followed if the gun is supposed to be loaded with dummy or blank rounds. Some crew members walked out after stating safety issues. They keep saying it misfired but that term is used for a loaded gun that does not discharge when the trigger is pulled.

Tell me with a straight face that if the exact same incident happened to a known conservative actor that Baldwin wouldn't be joyfully ridiculing him and calling him a liar if he said he never pulled the trigger. He'd be doing a skit on it on Saturday night live.

He said he was practicing drawing the gun and cocking the hammer. Hmmm. How did he lower the hammer on subsequent practice draw? Pull the trigger that he never pulled? Maybe that's when he fired it, trying to lower the hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the commentary here is about Alec Baldwin, the reviled person, not about what happened.

 

He won't be charged criminally because he had no intent to injure or kill, and because he has sufficient defenses that a county prosecutor is highly unlikely to charge him with a crime, under all of the circumstances.

 

I hold no brief for him as a man, but 44 years of practicing law leads me to believe that that will be the case. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll have to figure out how to cook that chapeau before I eat it. Somhow, I think that Stetson will remain intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said:

Well according to other actors they were not following industry standards. George Clooney said he's never had someone announce cold gun and hand a weapon to a director or actor. He said every single time he has handled a gun in a movie thats supposed to be unloaded the armorer or his assistant physically shows him the gun cylinder or magazine is empty and no round in the chamber. The same procedures are followed if the gun is supposed to be loaded with dummy or blank rounds. Some crew members walked out after stating safety issues. They keep saying it misfired but that term is used for a loaded gun that does not discharge when the trigger is pulled.

 

The one question I would like to have heard Baldwin answer:

 

"Would you have pointed that gun at your own head and cocked the hammer back without checking it, the same way you pointed it at Ms. Hutchins?"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Fox News article today:  "The actor said he'd been in touch with people who assured him it was "highly unlikely" he would face criminal charges."   However, the District Attorney reportedly said:  "....no one who handled guns on the movie set has been cleared of criminal culpability."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but, but...he never pulled the trigger!!! It's the gun's fault!! Don't you guys get it??:P

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I think most of the commentary here is about Alec Baldwin, the reviled person, not about what happened.

 

He won't be charged criminally because he had no intent to injure or kill, and because he has sufficient defenses that a county prosecutor is highly unlikely to charge him with a crime, under all of the circumstances.

 

I hold no brief for him as a man, but 44 years of practicing law leads me to believe that that will be the case. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll have to figure out how to cook that chapeau before I eat it. Somhow, I think that Stetson will remain intact.

There's people in prison who drove drunk and killed someone. They didn't intend to either.

JHC

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking at the case from a legal standpoint and discounting Baldwin’s personality and behavioral history, as are the investigators and State Attorney.

It  is not necessary to prove intent for a negligent homicide or manslaughter case. Proof that your actions were not those of a reasonable person is the key factor. Depending on how the NM statutes are written he could be vulnerable to being criminally charged. But I also think the chance that he will be prosecuted is slim.

am not a prosecutor but I did buy one a few drinks once. ;)

Edited by Utah Bob #35998
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can this egotistical, Pompus idiot discuss an ongoing criminal investigation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I think most of the commentary here is about Alec Baldwin, the reviled person, not about what happened.

 

He won't be charged criminally because he had no intent to injure or kill, and because he has sufficient defenses that a county prosecutor is highly unlikely to charge him with a crime, under all of the circumstances.

 

I hold no brief for him as a man, but 44 years of practicing law leads me to believe that that will be the case. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll have to figure out how to cook that chapeau before I eat it. Somhow, I think that Stetson will remain intact.

 

This was Alec Baldwin's movie and as such he is responsible for the safety.  If he's charged criminally I would expect it to be because of that, not just because he pulled the trigger. 

 

But he won't be.  He's not a commoner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he were charged with involuntary manslaughter (hard for me to imagine a greater charge being made), I think the main line of defense would be that his belief the gun was harmless was a reasonable one under the circumstances.

 

The question of the objectivity of his belief that the gun was not loaded is quite separate from the issue of whether or not he should have checked for himself.

 

Several reasons:

There aren't supposed to be any live rounds on a movie set whatsoever.  This is not like a shooting range, shooting match, or hunting, where the whole point is to have, handle, and use live ammunition. Those are the circumstances that gave rise to the expectations among shooters that individual checking is required. So the expectation is that the Western or cop movie set will be 'sterile', live ammo-wise.

 

The production hired an armorer; an industry standard. That person is expected to have professional responsibility over all firearms handling issues.

 

He was handed the revolver by the assistant director with the statement that it was a 'cold gun' ; i.e. checked specifically for safety and not loaded.

 

I think it's enough  to take it out of any criminal prosecution. Hard to imagine a prosecutor thinking he could prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

Edited by Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know how many of the stories I heard are true.  But amongst the more often heard stories are that there were up to 3 ADs on the set already before that happened, that the producers (alec) were cutting corners with the armorer and not only hired someone inexperienced, but had also told her not to be there that day. 

 

If that stuff is true, he should be in trouble.  If it's not true, she's likely in trouble.  If she was told to not be there I imagine she'll throw him under the bus. 

 

Also, I've heard from people who work in movies and they all say that you never actually point the gun at anyone.  They use camera tricks to make it look like you are.  So if nothing else he goofed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Alec Baldwin spends his entire fortune defending and loosing lawsuits over

the next several years.   May he be banished from Hollywood and end up working at Home Depot loading customers' trucks.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I hope Alec Baldwin spends his entire fortune defending and loosing lawsuits over

the next several years.   May he be banished from Hollywood and end up working at Home Depot loading customers' trucks.


NOW JUST YOU WAIT A DAMNED MINUTE!!  I certainly don’t want that idiot loading my truck!!  WHAT?  You wanting to get someone else hurt or worse??

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I hope Alec Baldwin spends his entire fortune defending and loosing lawsuits over

the next several years.   May he be banished from Hollywood and end up working at Home Depot loading customers' trucks.

 

I suspect Baldwin and the various production entities have plenty of insurance. One of the benefits of insurance is that the insurance companies pay for the defenses, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 3:09 AM, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I think most of the commentary here is about Alec Baldwin, the reviled person, not about what happened.

 

He won't be charged criminally because he had no intent to injure or kill, and because he has sufficient defenses that a county prosecutor is highly unlikely to charge him with a crime, under all of the circumstances.

 

I hold no brief for him as a man, but 44 years of practicing law leads me to believe that that will be the case. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll have to figure out how to cook that chapeau before I eat it. Somhow, I think that Stetson will remain intact.

"He won't be charged criminally because he had no intent to injure or kill."  That's precisely the definition of "Involuntary Manslaughter!"  While I too believe that he had no intentions of killing anyone, his actions resulted in the wrongful death of another and he needs to be held fully accountable.  Frankly, I also dislike your statement about the commentary here being about Alec Baldwin, the "reviled person," not about what happened.  I personally have no other beef with this guy, but get really angry when our system of law is applied differently to those of fame, popularity, and wealth.  Do you really believe that in similar circumstances you would not be charged criminally?  Hey, if a judge or jury aquits him, then so be it, but he should at least have to stand trial with the real possibility of jail time hanging over him and believe me, his recent interview and comments were fully intended to directly affect the outcome of any such proceedings!  In my opinion that borders on criminal as well. 

 

However and In reality, I too believe that your Stetson may remain intact, but that would be wrong on so many levels that I feel the need to make these comments.  The law of the land should apply to everyone and to everyone equally, but this event and many others in the past have proved, at least to me, that this is just not the case!  How do we let these injustices continue and how did we get here in the first place?  The criminal offense here seems pretty darned obvious, yet over a month later there are no charges whatsoever.  I think we can and should do better and there's no better time to start than now!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll offer this up for the “no criminal charges” argument he is anti-gun.  Which means he may say that in the past he has come out against gun ownership and can use that as a way of showing ignorance in gun safety.  (I hope that makes sense).  While I don’t think he will be found guilty or if by some slim chance he is won’t serve any jail time, I think that the prosecutor is going down a very slippery slope.  If no charges are even filed (regardless of the outcome) it can be used as a yardstick for future cases by defense attorneys.  Projecting forward to cases involving negligent discharge of a weapon what circumstances were different from what happened on the set of Rust?  If a person reasonably thought a gun was unloaded yet accidentally discharged that gun and killed or wounded someone is that grounds for no charges to be filed?  Expectations aside, other than a malfunction the person holding the gun is responsible for what happens.  

Another way to think of this is a reasonable person borrows a car from someone.  The person lending the car says it’s in good working order.  The driver then gets into an accident because the car had no brakes, who is charged the driver or the person who lent the car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have said makes sense. So that means it won't ever be, as they rarely if ever make sense when it comes to cheages against the rich. All you have to do is look at BViden, Biden's son, Hillary and Bill, Epstiens death much less the people they know that traveled to his island and many more. THey don't have to play by our rules, and never will till we the people hold them accountable. 

He will walk scott free. Its already went from I didn't know there was a live round in the gun to I didn't pull the trigger. They are already coaching him on what to say and how to act. He will never so much even serve a moment on parole much less jail time. Actually sad that the rich get away with murder and everything else they want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rich can always find an "expert" who's oppinion will support their view.  The prosecution shouldn't have difficulty finding experts to say the transfer bar is intact.

 

This video is somewhat related.

https://www.brownells.com/guntech/smyth-busters-is-it-safe-to-carry-with-a-round-in-the-chamber-trade-/detail.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sassnetguy50 said:

The rich can always find an "expert" who's oppinion will support their view.  The prosecution shouldn't have difficulty finding experts to say the transfer bar is intact.

 

This video is somewhat related.

https://www.brownells.com/guntech/smyth-busters-is-it-safe-to-carry-with-a-round-in-the-chamber-trade-/detail.htm

 

From what has been released, the gun was an Italian clone of a Colt SAA, which would not have a transfer bar.  However, it should be easy to tell if the mechanism was damaged and may have contributed to this event.  So far no mention whatsoever of problems with the gun other than it was loaded with at least one round of live ammo.

Edited by Bison Bud
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bison Bud said:

 

From what has been released, the gun was an Italian clone of a Colt SAA, which would not have a transfer bar.  However, it should be easy to tell if the mechanism was damaged and may have contributed to this event.  So far no mention whatsoever of problems with the gun other than it was loaded with at least one round of live ammo.

You're right.  Further digging shows it was a F.lli Pietta long Colt 45, not the Stampede 45.  

https://www.koat.com/article/gun-used-rust-movie-santa-fe-alec-baldwin-safety-halyna-hutchins-deadly-shooting-tragic-albuquerque/38085703#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 10:54 PM, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 

If he is charged criminally I will consume my Stetson bit by bit. Not because of 'assurances', which would never have been given. It's because whatever his negligence, he didn't intend to shoot her, he was handed the gun and specifically told 'cold gun' by the ass't director, there was an armorer on the set, and the presence of a live round under the circumstances on a movie set would not be anticipated. He acted in accordance with industry practice, even if prudence would have required him to examine the rounds himself.

 

Pards are having a lot of fun hating this guy, and I don't like him, but he's not guilty of a crime. Of course he'll be sued, he knows it full well; that's what insurance is for. He never claimed he shouldn't be sued. He said the thought it was unseemly that a script reader and another hanger-on should sue for their 'emotional injuries' before the widower and father sued. I agree with him on that. It won't make any difference to the outcome, but it was ridiculous.

 

I doubt he said anything he hasn't told the cops already so he had nothing to lose with the interview.

I blame him, why I don't know he now says he did not pull the trigger that it just went off all by itself. Yeah just another rich guy getting of with involuntary manslaghter at the least.

Edited by Slapshot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.