Alec Baldwin Shoots his cinematographer, movie director
doctorevil
Evil Lair
Something seems fishy about this story. Gun control activist Alec Baldwin is a known hot head. I’m eager to hear the details of what happened, if they are ever reported.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/al…
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/al…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
117 comments
https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/
I’m not saying something didn’t go wrong here. Something obviously did. Usually it would be the wadding from the blank, but killing one person and injuring another? That’s definitely a fuck up. There’s been some mention that they may have been filming at the time so a lot more will come out.
ffs, that's literally how it's being reported in some places.
Prop Gun That Killed Cinematographer on Alec Baldwin Film Contained ‘Live Single Round,’ Union Claims
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-…
That said, I think Baldwin is a major asshole and a total fucking moron, but I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anybody. Unless something to the contrary comes out of the investigation, it seems a little soon to put this on him. I'm sure he's going through a ton of grief and guilt right now. I hope it will turn out to be some kind of freak accident, rather than a reckless disregard for safety.
It is a heavy weight to carry - even for a guy who appears to be a self important asshole like Alec Baldwin.
Regardless of who is ultimately deemed to be at fault - if he was holding the prop gun - he will feel guilt due to the circumstances.
Of course! It can't possibly be the fault of the person *holding* the gun, especially when that person is the great Alec Baldwin!
If you want to lock criminals up, start with Trump and his retarded insurrectionists.
Either a live round was mistakenly put in the gun or a foreign object was in the chamber with a blank round. Either way, somebody fucked up.
“I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone,” Baldwin tweeted.
An *avoidable* accident. Not *supposed* to have live ammo. Alec Baldwin *is* an asshole, and he's absolutely responsible for what happened while the gun was in his hand. Just as every single other shooter ever is responsible for what happens when the gun was in their hand.
He *should* have checked it to make sure it was *properly* loaded. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when it's *correctable* ignorance.
I have a good deal of experience with firearms starting with rifle team in High School (yes, public high schools used to have rifle team as a sport). Spent 8 years as an Infantry officer in the Army. NRA certified Range Safety Officer and taught classes on gun safety. So I know a lot about the huge responsibility that comes with handling firearms. When I'm at the range, I'm obsessive about safety for myself, any guest who I might bring with me, and of course it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to speak up immediately if they witness an unsafe act, no matter how minor.
I'll admit I know almost NOTHING about the movie business, but it seems to me that BY DEFINITION actors must intentionally point guns at each other and pull the trigger. I don't see any possible way to make a western style film while following rules designed for target shooting or hunting in the real world.
Clearly there must be very different safety measures used in film making, such as "prop guns" which I imagine are supposed to be incapable of firing actual ammunition. I don't know why it should even be necessary to use "blanks" which still force a massive amount of pressure into and out of the barrel of a pistol. It's enough pressure to cause serious injury or death if fired too close to someone's body. And if by some crazy accident an object became lodged inside the barrel, it could be almost as deadly as a real bullet. One would think with all the technology that goes into film making these days, they could use something no more powerful than a toy cap gun. Or even a prop gun that just makes a "click" sound without any sort of explosion at all, then add in the sound effects and muzzle flash later??? I don't know, like I said I'm not in the movie business.
Anyway, whatever safety protocols do exist in movie-making, all we know at this point is something went tragically wrong. In the absence of more information about what really happened, it's not fair to start blaming Alec Baldwin or assume he somehow acted recklessly (no matter how much of an ASSHOLE they guy might be).
SJG
Honeyybunn
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=8133
That said, this was a damn shame. And anyone who is tempted to cheer this happening to Alec Baldwin, you should be thinking about the completely innocent cinematographer and director who were killed and injured instead.
-The camera crew walked off the set hours before the shooting as a protest against working conditions. It is unknown whether the prop master also walked out.
- There were other problems with prop guns on the set prior to the shooting.
Thank you for you military service
SJG
SJG
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to use fake prop guns that can't possibly fire a live round of ammunition, than to use real guns and "be careful" about not putting actual bullets in them? Seriously, who are the assholes that make these decisions? And more importantly, who are the scumbag politicians who pass ultra-restrictive gun control laws, ostensibly for our safety, but allow real guns to be passed around a movie set as if they were toys?
They were filming in New Mexico. I wonder if the reason might be that in California they couldn't get permission to use real guns? Last year CA was ranked #47 in the Guns & Ammo list of gun-friendly states. The only ones lower on the list were NJ, MA, HI and NY. (Yes, that adds up to 51 because the list includes Washington DC. Apparently even DC is more gun-friendly than the five worst states.)
As a gun owner in NJ, I can tell you that NJ's gun laws are so restrictive, arbitrary and complicated, nobody in their right mind, whether you're a bum on the street or a big-shot movie producer, would even think of taking a gun out in public, much less passing it around to be used as a prop. (Exceptions of course would be gang members and other criminal shitheads who don't think twice about blasting away on city streets.)
Furthermore, one would think an anti-gun jerkoff like Baldwin would insist upon strict rules regarding the types of guns that may be used on a movie where he's the producer, since guns are such terrible things, especially in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I guess his political causes take a back seat to his earning potential.
Regardless of all that, I've gotta admit I feel some degree of sympathy for the dumb fuck. Obviously not in the same way as for the victims of this major screw-up, but man I'd hate to be in his shoes right now. As much as I can't stand the stupid blowhard, I wouldn't wish something this awful on him.
A Prop Gun cannot fire a live round. It cannot. Therefore, the weapon in Baldwin's hand was not a Prop Gun.
Whoever brought a live round or live rounds of ammo onto the set is in serious trouble, and Baldwin potentially is also. One NEVER aims at another on set, even with a Prop Gun. Camera angles trick the eyes of the viewers into imagining that, but on-set, it is strictly forbidden. And aiming at the cinematographer? Not part of the movie-making process, but a choice Baldwin made.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-ar…
It could be argued that Baldwin had some responsibility, even if there's no fault on his part. In similar situations, where the acting talent became aware of safety issues that threatened them and others, the lead actors have stopped working or walked off the set to leverage the production company into making changes. Who knows how much Baldwin did or didn't know (or care) about the conditions. Based on the stories I've read, this was the sort of movie where everyone is just trying to collect a paycheck.
And, if anything, this accident makes it even easier for Baldwin and others to trumpet about gun restrictions/control. So, if you're a gun rights enthusiast, you can chuckle all you want but this isn't helpful.
Not only is Baldwin acting in this movie, he is the Producer. As a result, he is ultimately in charge of all safety procedures and hiring the people to carry them out. The fact that there were 3 prior incidents, that he didn’t correct as producer, makes him all the more guilty.
Yes this is a tragedy that's pretty much the sum of the whole story.
BTW I agree with those who pointed out there's no legitimate reason that real firearms should be used for this type of work, I'm sure they could come up with very real looking non=lethal props.
This movie has seven producers (including Baldwin) and five executive producers. It's not uncommon for production companies to give a lead actor a producer credit as a perk to jump on a film. It includes an ego boost and (usually) a bump in pay, but essentially zero real duties other than showing up to act. The person on set who is responsible for safety is the director. That's the person everyone reports to on set. I'd still contend that all of the acting talent on that film could or should have done more to pressure the director and studio executives into taking safety seriously.
I know that you really want this to be the sole fault of the liberal actor you hate, but it's really not.
But it remains a horrible tragedy.
“Something seems fishy about this story”
Lots of comments on politics and who’s to blame but there is certainly more to the story. Let’s hear why the members of the prop union walked off the set hours earlier due to safety concerns. Fishy indeed.
Go with the full quote You left off half of the quote went from suspicious to an accusation, "Something seems fishy about this story." ("Gun control activist Alec Baldwin is a known hot head")
The latest reports say that he was handed a gun and told that it was a “cold gun.” If true, and if he didn’t check it himself to make sure it was really unloaded before pointing it at other human beings, in my opinion, that’s negligence at least.
I’ve never worked in Hollywood, but I would be surprised if the safety protocols don’t require the actor actually using the firearm to do the final check. If not, they should.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldwi…
I have no quarrel with what are saying my point was quite simple, and thought it was obvious to any fair-minded people, my quarrel with the posters that are so quick to balkanize every story and make everything that happens a case of right vs left
I never thought and still don't think Baldwin intended to hurt or kill anyone. However, given his well known hotheadedness, I can easily see him creating conditions on the set that could lead to this kind of accident. I'm very sorry for the deceased and the injured director, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say I feel sympathy for Baldwin. I don't.
Also, it seems that Baldwin's spokesperson lied when they initially said this was a "misfire" incident. It appears that Baldwin pulled the trigger and the gun fired. That's not a misfire. That's what guns are supposed to do. It looks like there will be plenty of blame to go around
As much as I agree with most of what you post here, with this bit I vehemently *dis*agree. The gun was in his hand. He pointed it at someone and fired. He *is* responsible.
Whether or not *other* people said the gun was safe is irrelevant. He should have checked it himself. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction before ever picking it up. Other people *might* share some responsibility, but his responsibility is absolute.
I follow a greater law than hairless ape law...THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE! ROAR!!!
How is his work on SNL back in the day ? It was less than 4 tears ago he was doing his Donald J. Trump impressions if that's back in the day wow !
LOL
Anyway I do feel for Alec Baldwin. I saw that photo of him on his phone, you could see a man broken. That’s not to say he wasn’t at fault but it’s just so crucial to be educated on firearms and practice safety No.1
I'll meet you halfway on this one. I think that any actor who is going to handle firearms on a set should be extremely familiar with guns and know how to check them for proper loading.
That said, the film industry set up its on-set safety rules based on the reality that most actors aren't knowledgeable about guns (or any other dangerous props) and are poorly equipped to make these checks.
As a matter of fact, insurance and the actor's agents usually require that the actor be shielded from any responsibility for gun safety (or any other prop) because they are not experts. And that's why production companies seek to surround the talent with experts so as to keep them removed from that liability.
(In another discussion, I saw it stated that talent is prohibited from checking their own weapons or props because, in doing so, they might compromise the work done by safety and stung engineers. But I have no idea if that's true.)
And, as this incident proves, that's an imperfect system. If I were pointing guns at people, I'd want to be able to check them, because how horrible would it be if something like this happened?
I think that this is a tragedy right now, but a developing story in terms of liability and blame.
Though it's only barely related to this thread, I think the last bit of acting of his I enjoyed was "Hunt for Red October".
Also worth mentioning that at least half the people on a movie set are probably high on who knows what kind of mind-altering substances.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sheriff-baldw…
I think Papi raised the right question, why not use a fake gun?
But then how do you know it is a fake gun?
And sometimes you do want to show an actor firing a real gun.
So use a gun which has the barrel plugged, and then have under lock and key an unplugged gun.
I have seen movies about movie making where they have the person who will be holding the gun let the person whom it will be pointed at examine the breech.
Better if it could be inspected even more easily. Say you cut a piece of 16 gauge sheet steel so it just fits in the barrel. Then push it in and have it stop 2 inches short of the muzzle. Then weld it into the breech. Then you can verify by opening the breech, looking down the muzzle, or pushing something else into the muzzle, that this an an un-firable weapon. All weapons are kept under lock and key, and anyone who will be on the set when an unfireable weapon is being used, can inspect it.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, so details will be sketchy. So just like doctorevils last thread, it is important that threads remain open, as people do need to be able to add to them when more information becomes available.
SJG
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=7607
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=6046
SJG
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=7607
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=6046
Maury Povich says “that is a lie!”
I have responsibilities, commitments, and obligations. So I must not disclose more.
SJG
"...describes a woman after copulation with Satan as 'very proud and satisfied'."
https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=7742…
SJG
There have been previous accidents on movie sets.
Also, for some scenes you need real guns, which will have revolver leak by, and which will cycle like a real automatic.
SJG
"You plug the barrel, but the plug is something which runs all the way into the breech, and the breech is where it is welded in. So no round could ever be gotten into it."
Let me get this straight. The plugged gun is completely inert, as not even a blank round can be inserted? So why the elaborate design? You might as well just use a rubber training gun. And then for the actual shooting parts you bring out the real (unplugged) gun which was under lock and key? So we're back to square one, with a real gun that actually functions, but no plug or muzzle dipstick contraption as you've devised for the plugged gun.
Y'know what, you really might be onto something here!
Everyone has the right to know that an able gun is not being pointed at them.
SJG
Also, to continue my previous point, I suspect that another reason why production companies want to keep actors out of the safety loop is the number of people (including actors) who think they are experts, but are aggressively not experts.
Case in point... SJG, who as usual has many opinions but a complete lack of applicable knowledge when it comes to guns and ballistics... or reality.
Side note... Hi, SCL troll. I see that you've added "nikau" to go along with "yarise9". You're still a twat.
And yes, sometimes they do need to use fully functional guns, but not ever pointed at anyone. Rather adequate safety precautions in place.
SJG
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/26/…
Must have been something strange going on with that movie set.
I remember about 20 years ago, there was a fatality in Formula One racing. It was related to recent modifications made to the car. People talked about it being prosecuted for criminal negligence.
We have some lawyers here, people who might know how fatalities like this have been treated before.
SJG
Bondage Harness
https://www.etsy.com/listing/856981278/b…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alec-baldwi…
I'll admit I have no evidence, but I'm willing to bet this is not true. When guns malfunction, it usually causes them to jam and not fire as opposed to fire without warning. It's hard to imagine a single action revolver just firing without warning while being held in the hand.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to pull it. He's clearly distraught about it and I doubt his mind will ever allow him to admit that he might have pulled it by accident.
The big question to me is whether or not his finger was physically on the trigger when he was pointing it. If it was, the I say it was a negligent discharge.
None of these idiots meant to pull their triggers but yet here they are...
https://youtu.be/mebcvnWc7ag
It will be interesting to see the full interview, which is tonight at 8:00 on ABC.
I said earlier that I feel bad for the dumb fuck, and I meant it. But depending on what he says, I might change my mind. If he takes ownership of what happened and is truly remorseful, that's one thing. But if the interview just looks like ass-covering and finger-pointing, that's something else. Claiming he "didn't pull the trigger" is not a good start, but let's see the rest of his explanation.
Sorry but I cannot wrap my head around this. Basic gun safety should trump everything else. If you are handling a gun you should be responsible for knowing and understanding the condition of it. Actors can be trained to do this. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than this. And you can still have an armorer and prop guy to still do their part on the safety of it too.
I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately. Gun safety 101. But this doesn't apply on a movie set? WTF???
Guns just don’t spontaneously fire on their own.
Only stupid people who have no mechanical understanding about how a firearm works would believe that.
But stupid people believed cars would suddenly accelerate on their own and couldn’t be stopped by a driver using the brakes. Ridiculous but idiots believed it.
Secondly, was his finger on the trigger or was he trained in proper firearms safety for the role?
Third, the weapon was described as a single action revolver which means even if pulled the trigger it wouldn't have fired unless the hammer had been cocked prior to pulling the trigger. If the hammer was cocked and he was pointing it at people he needs to face some type of charges for his reckless behavior because it is asinine to point a weapon that is cocked anywhere near a person you don't intend to shoot even if you don't think it is loaded.
The only way this could have been an accident that wasn't caused by his recklessness is if the gun was uncocked and his finger wasn't on the trigger when it fired. That would take either an extremely rare mechanical defect or if it was a rimfire cartridge that somehow was bumped hard enough to ignite the primer. A rimfire accidental discharge is slightly more common but usually involves it being dropped or hit up against something fairly hard which seems unlikely since all witness statements describe the gun as being in his hand when it fired. Even if it was a true accidental discharge it was still reckless to point a gun at multiple people without being 100% sure it wasn't loaded.
My guess is that his excuse that he didn't pull the trigger is either his mind blocking out part of a traumatic event as a type of ptsd which wouldn't be uncommon after killing someone or he didn't realize his finger accidentally put enough pressure on the trigger to activate it but that could only happen if it was cocked and his finger was on the trigger.
That or he is trying to counter the statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns" but saying that the gun killed her instead of admitting that he did.
Possible. I think it’s more likely that he’s just an arrogant blowhard who can’t admit he did something wrong.
"I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately."
You know what, if I was holding a revolver, and I opened the cylinder and found all six holes plugged with wooden dowels, I still wouldn't be able to point it at someone and pull the trigger. That little rule about "treat every gun as loaded" is something I take very literally.
But that's just me as a regular guy. I suppose if I was a big movie star and the scene called for firing a gun at someone, I would do it. But to your point, there is NO WAY I would do ANYTHING with that gun before I checked it myself. It wouldn't even be a deliberate action - more like muscle memory. My hands and eyes would be checking the gun before my brain even thought about doing it.
But some dipshit anti-gunner doesn't even have the common sense to check it or call someone else over if he doesn't know how. Apparently he was told the gun was unloaded... "cold gun" someone said. I wonder if the scene required him to put the gun to his own head and pull the trigger, would he have insisted on checking it again, or just took the guy's word for it?
^^^ @misterorange this right here is the crux of my point that any actor handling a functioning firearm must go through gun safety training if they are going to handle one on set. An anti-gunner or just someone ignorant of handling one has no business having one in their hands. Alec just proved it.
I was never an anti-gunner but I'm a relatively new gun owner and I can say that I had poor trigger control and challenges in consistently following the safety rules myself when I started out. And training and practice and help from experienced gun owners is how I improved.
So now I'm reading this story and it is just boggling my mind how the movie industry doesn't just simply have that training requirement for actors. They should still have an armorer and prop guy and others doing their same thing with gun safety, and also not allow live ammo on the set, but these should be the additional precautions. The actor is the one holding the fucking gun at someone. Shouldn't they have the fucking MOST training AND responsibility out of anyone?
My initial reaction is that it was very highly produced. One might even say "over-produced." The first thing that struck me was the lighting. Half his face in the dark, the other half well lit. Very dramatic.
Stephanopoulos did ask some ostensibly hard-hitting questions. But Baldwin's responses seemed extremely well scripted, obviously coached (and undoubtedly edited) by his legal team. I'll bet in the month and a half since this happened, he spent a week grieving, and the rest assembling a legal dream team of lawyers.
I'm not ready to say that him getting choked up and crying a few times was fake. I believe that even a douchebag like Baldwin would have to be going through terrible emotional distress over what happened. Yet he forcefully denied any responsibility. He even went so far as to complain about the response time of EMS, and how long it took them to transport her after they arrived.
Regarding the accusations that HE should have checked the gun, he made a convincing argument that in 40 years as an actor he relied on other people for that. Honestly, that would sound reasonable to me if I was some idiot who never owned a gun. But you would think that someone who's so "anti-gun" (but makes his living by handling REAL guns on a movie set) might make more of an effort to educate himself. He said (several times) he partially cocked the hammer and aimed it according to the direction of Halyna Hutchins, who was shot and killed. He walked the line of "blaming the victim" but didn't quite go there.
I think he's coming to terms with what a jerkoff he is, but has the means to make it less painful. Shit, if I was in that situation, I'd do the same thing. Not that I ever would be in that situation, because I'm educated on gun safety... and not a self absorbed millionaire.
Bottom line is Baldwin is a fucking idiot, corrupted and blinded by the riches of Hollywood. I don't want to see him serve life in jail for being a moron, as much as I hate the fucking asshole. I wish he would donate most of his money to realistic gun protocols on Hollywood movie sets, instead of blaming responsible gun owners... but I doubt he'll do that. He's more concerned about getting this behind him.
So fuck him. I hope he gets locked up for a few years. I don't care any more about him than he does about me.
Well, if he wasn't such an anti-gun asshole (who still relies on guns to make his living) maybe this wouldn't have happened. Only an idiot would fuck around with a gun that he didn't personally inspect.
But still, the other people on the set should have made sure this didn't happen.
Yep. Especially when it’s something that’s so easy to do. It would take a few seconds at most.
I agree it was highly produced and it was scripted. Also his crying and the remorse he feels was genuine. I felt sorry for him.
I was glad to hear that some actors only trust themselves with checking the gun, but I was still WTF about how others, like Baldwin, trust the armorer or prop guy to check. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The fact that it was always fine for 40 years prior in Baldwin's career is a poor excuse.
Releasing the hammer is still a negligent discharge as far as I'm concerned. It's just taking out the "middle man" being the trigger. Same rules of gun safety apply, as cocking and releasing the hammer is still a means to fire that type of gun. Again maybe if he understood the firearm's physics better, he wouldn't have released it like he did.
I also thought he came close to saying it was her own responsibility that the gun was pointed at her because she was asking him to do it as the cinematographer. In my book, still not OK to point a gun you didn't personally check yourself at another person. Still shouldn't point a gun at someone that you don't intend to shoot. The fact that they say it's OK doesn't mean you should do it.
Ultimately it reaffirmed my view of the lackadaisical nature of movie set gun safety. I know hindsight is 20-20 but really it's just bad. The actor still needs to be that last line of defense in the safety so he should have training and a lot more responsibility.
And Baldwin has got to bear at least some responsibility in this. At producer and shooter level.
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/rust-…
Seems he forgot the two most basic rules of handling a firearm.
1) Treat every gun as if it is loaded
2) Never point a gun at anything that you don't want to kill or destroy
Not saying he is the only one to blame, whoever loaded live ammunition into a prop gun certainly should be held responsible as well. But, in the end he pointed the gun, cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger so he bears the ultimate responsibility.
"I hired a private investigator," Baldwin told CNN, later adding that the last 10 months have "taken years off my life."
What an interesting choice of words under the circumstances. Years off HIS life???
"Baldwin noted that he wanted to finish Rust for Halyna's family — 'we wanted to put the money in the kid's pocket.' Halyna and her husband, Matt Hutchins, shared one young son."
Sheesh... that's how he wants to take care of the kid, by getting his career back on track and profiting from the film where he shot the boy's mother? What's the plan, to donate her would-be salary to the child? Why doesn't he just reach in his own fucking pocket and set up a trust fund in the mother's memory?
He goes on to blame others on the set and says they should be banished from the film industry. And he whines and cries about not getting work in the year since the incident. Gosh, who would have thought killing a woman would be so inconvenient for him.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec…
Bacon!!
I got the impression, generally speaking, that Baldwin was filming a scene which called for him to perform the action of shooting someone, and that in so doing, he was holding what he sensibly thought was a fake gun (a "prop" gun = "properties of the movie"). The script (so I guess) says that Baldwin's character points the gun and pulls the trigger and the other actor's character gets shot.
This happens in movies a lot. All the actors and director etc. etc. leave it up to the properties people to set up the fake gun. In this case, Baldwin uses the fake gun, as intended, all the while assuming it will be fake. But it turns out to work like a real gun, much to his surprise.
Why is he guilty of anything other than simply expecting the movie to be filmed the way all movies are filmed? Didn't he get surprised by the fact that the gun worked like a real gun? Was he somehow AWARE that the gun was not fake? Was he clued in to the fact that it would kill? If, instead, he genuinely thought it was fake, then how on earth would he film the scene in any other manner than pointing the gun and pulling the trigger? If he's guilty and yet thought the gun was fake, this means we can never again have any movie with a shooting in it because all filmed shootings are attempted murders.
Maybe I don't know all the facts, in which case please enlighten me. But I see people on this thread (two years ago) saying that because (a) he was holding the gun he must therefore (b) be guilty. No, he was holding WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A FAKE GUN. I don't get how the mere act of holding it makes him the guilty one. If instead he knew it was going to be real (or work like a real gun); or he's responsible for loading it and chose non-fake bullets; or he's the one who commanded it to be loaded with non-fake bullets; or he changed the script which never called for him pulling the trigger, and ad-libbed the trigger-pull on his own; or ... any of a number of other scenarios, then yes, maybe he's guilty.
But if he genuinely (a) thought the gun was fake, therefore harmless, he must be, as far as I can tell, (b) entirely innocent of attempting or intending to cause harm.
But a lot of people here, many of whom may be intelligent guys with common sense, seem to think Baldwin ought to be found guilty. Right now I can't understand that at all. Will one of those intelligent guys with common sense please explain how Baldwin could be guilty if he really thought the gun was fake?
I am genuinely asking. If you rant back at me with "you idiot" type responses you will lose a great deal of the opportunity to convince me of the validity of your side. If instead you explain something that I don't understand, we might come to an agreement of one sort or another.
Main question. Did Baldwin believe it was a fake gun that would cause no harm?
Next question. If he did believe this, then he is not guilty, right?
Or maybe not ...
Alec deserves probation for manslaughter, fines, community service, and a mnadatory NRA gun safety class. Even if an Assistant Director did pick it up off the prop table and declare "cold gun" when he brought it on set, it is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger (really pointing it anywhere) to ensure that it is safe to use. Alex Baldwin has been in enough movies that he should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round. This " don't point the gun at anything you don't want to kill" maxim does not apply here. They were seeking point-blank twelve o'clock shooting footage, so the camera and cinematographer had to be in front of the barrel. Again, Alec should have been trained to ensure the gun was safe before pointing it anyone and pulling the trigger. Likewise, had I been the person the gun was pointing at, I would have insisted on being allowed to inspect the gun and the blank rounds to ensure I was satisfied that I was safe.
There are a lot of parallels on how unlikeable Alec Baldwin is as a defendant and Donald Trump. There are a lot of parallels in their behavior as defendants and their polarizing effect on jury pools. I won't state the obvious about dead bodies and who I feel is innocent.