Why was Alec Baldwin’s case dismissed?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- A judge just dismissed the involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin. It turns out prosecutors withheld key evidence from Baldwin’s defense lawyers, which is a violation of the Constitution. He can’t be put on trial again. #criminaljustice #guns #movies
Agreed. The case was because he was Alec Baldwin, not because he was negligent. It always irritates me when I'm forced to defend someone i dislike simply because attacks against them are hypocritical.
People who continually cry "gun safety" are deliberately ignoring many things, including the fact that as an actor filming a scene or taking publicity photos, an actor must do things that would not be normal in everyday life. This is why safety people (armorers, etc) are hired. The one on this set was negligent in her duty and whoĺely unqualified.
Quite the opposite. I believe the reason the prosecution kept getting punted down the line was because he was a famous actor. A normal person would have been prosecuted and likely convicted much sooner.
Baldwin directly violated the SAG-AFTRA safety guidelines with how he handled the gun. He wasn't just doing things actors normally do, he was messing around in ways that are expressly forbidden by the safety guidelines of the acting guild.
On top of that, as the executive producer, he was the one who cut corners in hiring the armorer, and he was explicitly warned of safety issues by staff who walked off the set days before the incident because they feared someone would get seriously injured or die due to how unsafely the filming was being run.
Regardless of which angle you want to look at it, Baldwin was both directly and indirectly responsible for what happened. It's not like he was in the middle of filming a scene that called for him to pull the trigger when he killed his colleague, he was just supposed to be posing when he pulled the trigger as a "joke."
people watch movies & films. There's guns getting pointed at everyone all the time. This trial made absolutely no sense. The cops already busted 2 people responsible for putting real bullets in Baldwin's movie gun.
Agreed
I don't like Baldwin, but the actor is the last person you make responsible for gun safety on set.
Except he was also the producer.
@benhalstead5176 actor are constantly made executive producer of film they help bring to life. Its a title that don't mean anything.
He got involved in calling a couple of costar to join in on the project and maybe change a couple of lines.
At most they leverage his name to the studios to pump the budget.
Not the kind of of power that gives you responsibility on set.
If anything the director had more power in this context.
The person holding it is responsible for its safety whether in the woods or on the range, battlefield, streets, or movie set.
Actors don't get a pass just because they are famous.
Absolutely! There were people on set specifically to protect people! It's absurd that he was on trial in the first place.
Has the evidence they withheld been publicized yet?
I'll tell you who's guilty, is you for holding that clip on microphone like that 👨🏽⚖️
Tragic, but another case where a woman who KNEW the gun was loaded shot her boyfriend for a video who had a book to his chest. The bullet unexpectedly went through killing him, because previous tests showed it wouldn't. She got 90 days in jail, 90 days home arrest, and 10 years probation.
The test fire was done while the book was laying on the ground. They assumed the dynamics to be the same as it being held against his chest. Some of life's lessons come harder than others.
He had to pressure her into doing it, as well. She really didn't want to, but he kept telling her it was okay.
Thank you for your fair perspective in this matter. Not necessarily a fan, but Mr. Baldwin should not have been charged and brought to trial.
It was not a "prop gun" but an actual firearm.
There is no difference between a prop gun and an actual gun. A prop is just any object that actors interact with as part of a film. This can be toys, normal object, specially made models and yes, even real weapons.
We can’t make a man guilty just cause we don’t like him
Well, that would depend
He was more then just an actor, he was producer. He was in charge of safety.
No the armorer was in charge of safety. From a quick google search on what even is a producer: "A film producer is a person who oversees film production. Either employed by a production company or working independently, producers plan and coordinate various aspects of film production, such as selecting the script, coordinating writing, directing, editing, and arranging financing."
So there like the ceo in a sense I guess. The armorer though: "The Armorer on a Film/TV set is present to ensure the safety of the cast and crew when weapons are used. The Armorer also ensures the production is able to get the best possible use of blank firing weapons. The Armorer should know what the director wants to achieve and help them carry it out in a safe manor."
So obviously it is the armorers fault this happened.
@@nemesiswes426 Who is in charge of the armorer? The producer. The producer should have made sure the armorer was doing his/her job. Thats why a CEO or producer is payed the big bucks, because they take on the responsibility. Its like saying a football coach can't be fired for a bad season, because he wasn't the one handling the ball.
@@northyland1157 I agree the producer, so baldwin still holds some responsibility here but not criminal responsibility which is what I should have stated. The armorer is the one criminally responsible since they were in charge of safety directly.
Baldwin would seem to still be civilly liable though since as you said he was in charge of overseeing the production which includes safety.
The 'withheld' evidence was completely unrelated to this case. As the prosecutor said, the box of ammo never left Arizona; it would be like dismissing murder charges because the food in the killers fridge wasn't catalogued and the list given to the defense: immaterial.
Except someone came to police and said this might be material to the case and a report was generated from it. That’s material to be given to the defense regardless if the prosecutor doesn’t believe it’s relevant. That’s ultimately up to the judge to decide if it’s admissible and the jury to decide if it’s relevant.
@@rickyt7666 It was not evidence. Period, end of story.
@@redwhiteandbluebonnets8180 that’s not up for the prosecutor or sheriff to decide. Also, putting it under a different case # adds to the inappropriate behavior. The state was privy and the defense wasn’t. End of story.
@@rickyt7666 It wasn't evidence. End of story.
@@redwhiteandbluebonnets8180 doesn’t matter. End of story
Ok, but on the flip side, if someone hands me a gun, and says it’s not loaded, it is extremely irresponsible, and dare I say, negligent, to not verify for myself that it isn’t loaded.
It seems to me that a lot of people who were involved and who have expressed opinions about this case are not personally familiar with firearms in general, and the type of firearm that was used in the shooing. They also lack basic understanding of firearms safety protocol, which basically says that when you pick up a firearm, you are responsible for any damage that happens as a result. One thing that I do not understand is how ammunition that was never on the set is relevant to the trial. If I have that wrong, please correct me, but if I am right, I think that the whole play in this case was to delay the trial until people had forgotten all of the details that were in the news shortly after it happened, and to come up with some sort of pretext for letting Baldwin off. On his being handed the pistol, it was done by an assistant director, which is a violation of protocol that Biden should have been very familiar with. Also, an entire union crew quit the picture shortly before the shooting because of firearms safety issues, so it is not like this came out of the blue.
This is patently wrong, when you're an actor in a movie and there is a person responsible with handling and handing the guns who was specifically there for safety and liability, and he tells Baldwin that it has no bullets, the last thing the person responsible for the gun wants is Baldwin or any actor fucking with the gun. The person responsible for the firearms on scene was the responsible party and I believe they got charged for it. Additionally, the time has nothing to do with the case's conclusion, I think your confidence is very high given the lack of understanding of our judicial system, the prosecution has access to most of the evidence and the evidence got entered at the beginning of the case during discovery and is presented during the trial, the jury has no need and in fact is encouraged and selected for having no knowledge or prior biases that may affect their opinion on the case, so more often than not, they wouldn't have known anything about the case prior to the trial starting.
Ok first, the person firing the firearm is always responsible for what comes out of his firearm, blank or not. Secondly, even a blank is never to be aimed at a person ever. Movies go to extra lengths to make sure a person is not in the line of fire when shooting a round in this instance they refused to use the safety protocols when filming. Thirdly, baldwin was never told that the gun wasn't loaded, he was told they were blanks. Fourth, the firearm expert wasn't even on the set that day to follow firearm procedures on set, so the scene using the firearm shouldn't have been filmed in the first place by violating several laws.
My theory is that the gun that was handed to him was unloaded. Probably impossible to prove, but we’re fingerprints taken from the casing to see who last handled and loaded it?
Its weird because I agree he shouldn't be charged, but i'm mad about the verdict since any other regular person would have been.
They made a just verdict because Baldwin can afford a fair trial. The average person does not have that kind of money
For a regular person they have the responsibility of the gun holder. But actors have no such responsibility
Baldwin being told the gun was cold should've been the end of the story for his legal culpability. I don't remember if the family of the victim took him to civil court for wrongful death, though, and imo he should be if he wasn't.
I'm going to need more of an explanation than "Arizona law required him to know it could have been loaded" before I believe that they were spuriously pursuing the case. You're going to have to actually read out the relevant section of the law and explain why you interpret it that way.
It seems to me that the fact there had already been a negligent discharge on the set and Baldwin had been notified by crew members that they were quitting due to fear of safety issues on set that Baldwin had more than enough warning that the gun MIGHT be loaded despite the armorer claiming it wasn't.
He then pulled the trigger even though the scene did not call for it, in violation of SAG-AFTRA gun safety guidelines, while pointing it at his coworker.
I can understand and agree that the prosecution botched the case, but the idea that they were only pursuing him for his political beliefs seems absurd to me, particularly with how long they kept kicking the can down the road.
I'm sure that 'slip-up' was made by someone with a now heavily padded bank account in the Seychelles.
It did look like an orchestrated, intentional Brady violation specifically timed to get a dismissal with prejudice.
the prosecutor wanted her 15 minutes of fame. Big trial on TV against a famous actor. The detectives were smiling while they lied under oath. Almost like a TV game show called "Cheat to Win."
Is that a microphone you are holding in front of your mouth? Why? LOL
He's worked with props for years and is anti-2A. Between those 2 facts it points to negligence. SAFETY dictates you check it yourself. The evidence isn't necessarily crucial, but it got him off on a technicality.
Quite he OPPOSITE! The judge was scanning for any excuse to dismiss the case because the Baldwins are a rich and famous family. (Alec, his parents and sibling(s)) THAT’S not how justice should work!
Agreed, But still... Aiming a pistol of any sort, Prop or not, Is Still a big No-no
The way movie productions handle firearm props bothers me, they openly violate the 4 basic rules of firearms handling which all rely on the person handling the firearm to have accountability enough to treat it as if it were loaded, and not point it at things they do not intend to destroy, as well as being sure of their target and beyond. Just because an actor dosent want to be 'a gun person' is no excuse for delegating all personal responsibility to a wrangler.
The union safety rules specify safe handling is required. As a member of the Screen Actors Guild, Producers Guild and Directors Guild, Baldwin was professionally responsible for complying with safety protocol.
i always thought his fantasy defense was always the most slimy and disgusting. he couldn't even ever bring himself to admit that he pulled the trigger. no respect for this person.
Are you saying that movies should always be filmed so that when it looks like someone is pointing a gun at someone on camera that they're actually pointing a little to the side or something?
@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37 no, that there should be no assumed transfer of liability for the tools of your trade. If you are working with mixed prop and real firearms, it is incumbent on the person actually handling to ensure they are working with a safed or properly rigged item. Yes this requires actors to become competent with their props in a real way. If that makes them uncomfortable, maybe they don't need to be taking work to portray a western gunslinger. Know your craft, and be accountable for your actions.
@@Edweird2w1 I agree with that, but you seemed to be saying that filmmakers should follow the rules of gun safety with props, including not pointing it at people you don't want to kill, and I'm saying that seems to conflict with filmmaking needs. Surely some scenes require on target aiming.
Pretty sure identical actions off a set would result in the charge, so unless the set is under a different legal code ...
I’m completely in agreement.
Come to Jesus he’s coming back soon he loves you
Money
Hey ReasonTV! The REASON why a lavalier mic has a clip is so you can clip it to your shirt, tie, lapel, etc.
If you’re always going to hold it, tell us the reason why you didn’t buy a handheld mic.
Dude🤦🏻♀️ it’s a CLIP ON mic for a reason! Super distracting and annoying.. what u were talking about?
y'all can say what you want on Alec, but at the end of day he still has to carry the weight of killing someone. A tragedy that should have never happened.
This sounds like the same as the LA cops trial after Rodney King. They overcharged vs the easy slam dunk. This would have been a slam dunk on "reckless endangerment w a firearm".
least racist american law decision🤬
I love Alec Baldwin. He inspired me. I love him more than Stephen
holy cow, this video is ridiculous. it was not a "prop gun" it was a real gun being used as a prop. also, the first rule of firearms safety is that you assume all guns are loaded. it would have been easy for him to check to see if there were live rounds in the chamber. lastly. HE PULLED THE TRIGGER. there i no way for the firearm to have discharged without him pulling the trigger. just because there were some cameras around and someone else handled the gun doesn't mean he's not completely reponsible for the death of that lady under NM law or laws of any other state.
Say with me "Criminality requires both intention and action".
@johnlove2954 that's completely false. Why do you think there's such a thing as involuntary manslaughter? He's obviously guilty but the prosecution bungled the case. Whether they did it on purpose remains to be seen
@@aaronkcmoImagine you're filming a movie about mining. Your prop guy, whom you trust, passes you the ignition plunger to simulate the explosives, and he tells you it won't blow anything up. The pyro guy is over in the mine off camera setting up the explosives for the separate practical effects shot. Camera rolls, you plunge the plunger, and blow up the technician. Are you telling me you want to go to jail for this?
@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37 a number of those people should be investigated. Nothing is ever that simple. Through an investigation they would determine the most responsible parties. In this case were not taking about some crazy rube Goldberg contraption, we're taking about simple, basic firearm safety which everybody knows and should follow all the time. It's simple. He's guilty. Why the prosecution dropped the ball should be investigated
@@johnlove2954Say it with me now "That isn't how criminal charges work"
Bc he didn't do anything.
Is a man not entitled to ignore basic firearms safety?
That’s assuming a person does know or has to know gun safety.
If you try to implement basic firearm safety on a movie, you won't be shooting a movie at all. Since one part is always assume a gun is loaded and don't point it at others.
Try making a movie without that.
@@stansman5461 Amazing! If only there was a way to have something that resembled a firearm without being a firearm
You obviously don't understand small arms safety, you ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded until YOU check to see if the gun is loaded. He's guilty so your feelings are irrelevant. 🤨
Im starting to think that genuinely every person doesnt have any morals
Speak English, please!
Nah, yoy hild a firearm then you take responsibility for it. He was also an executive producer
Being an executive producer doesn't make him the weapons expert or prop master on set. That's like saying the Bezos is responsible to put wet floor sign when someone mops the floor.
Yeah it did all seem quite thin. The procedure on set required that the armorer, the responsible expert in charge of guns in the workplace, tell him that it was or was not loaded when handing it to him. While she has now gone to prison for being incompetent, he was entitled to trust the hired expert and had been specifically told that the weapon was not loaded.
She was a woman.
That is why people want to shift the blame to baldwin
i am so glad it is Dismissed the world is soft Today and Actually Pretty dumb
Baldwin ahoole
Exactly!
What does she got to be embarrassed about??? She screwed up with the handling of evidence. Is this going to be swept under the rug???
Because he had money and fame and used it to his advantage. What else is new?
Conservatives screeching for Baldwin to be arrested was just them telling on themselves
"Conservatives"? Dude, some people did make it political but there were leftist qu3estioning it too. There needed to be a trail because the whole thing was super suspicious. So many people just seem to be defending Baldwin just because he's an actor too, more than the one attacking him for some twitter posts.
I woman is dead regardless and no one is bothering to think about her family or want to giver her justice. It's all just about sweeping it under the rug. That feels very off.
He's 100% innocent
Yes.
People hate baldwin and that hate men screwing up.
If alec was a woman, people's reactions would be a lot different.
Now i have more respect for baldwin after knowing what sh*t he has to deal with on regular basis
And hats off to the judge