You can't have it both ways. Either he did something wrong, according to SAG, or he didn't do anything wrong, according to SAG.SAG disagrees that it was negligence. By all accounts, being handed a gun as he was handed that one, and what he was told at the time would indicate that the prop was just an inert piece of metal. Not loaded with live rounds, not even loaded with blanks. Pointing an inert piece of metal at someone when you have been explicitly told that it is not dangerous to point it at anyone is not negligence. So, yes, there is absolutely something in the context that not only justifies what he did but also says it was not even negligence in the first place.
Because there is one person on the set who has the responsibility for making sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen. It's what they are paid for. It's in their job description.
You've never seen a scene in a movie where the gun is pointed at the camera? Come on...
Of course they are fictional. Because the armorer/propmaster made sure that it was safe to carry out the actions, as he was responsible to do. When they don't do their job, you don't charge the actor for the armorer/propmaster's screwup, any more than you would charge the actor with assault for pointing a gun at someone (as in the pictured scene and many others that we have all seen), or for battery for slapping someone if the scene calls for it, or for sexual assault if the scene calls for fondling them, or for any of the many other things they do in the course of making a movie that would otherwise be against the law.
Now this is where Baldwin is probably going to get nailed--but that's a different offense.
I do appreciate and fully agree with your sentiment. In the time I've been around here, I've NEVER made it personal. It only becomes such when accusations are pointed in my direction first.
I agree with this assessment as well, but the point of my question is whether the standard is the same from both directions. Those of us who can't stand Alec Baldwin wanna see him taken down a few notches. Those who support him wanna blame it on everything but him. Countless people have died and many more injured from being shot by "empty" guns and ND's. Out of sight, out of mind I guess? Whatever the standard is is what the standard should be, regardless of our personal feelings toward the culprit.
The outcome of this case will largely depend on the jury makeup. Both sides in a criminal case dwell at LENGTH on jury selection, as that’s when the trial really begins. Not in opening statements. This one is higher profile given who the defendant is. Let’s hope he gets some good advice, some local advice, and hires a top tier defense team and experts.
He very obviously did something that violates one very key SAG safety recommendation, regardless of their having chosen to defend their member
There are more than one, but the person with primary culpability is the one who fired the shot--by law.
I may have, but the SAG-recommended practice is to not point a gun directly at anyone, or to use an inoperative item. The same thing applies in law.
Why do you believe that?
Those things do not begin to meet the definition of the crimes.
He did something that violates one very key SAG safety recommendation, regardless of their chaving vhsen to defend their member
There are mor than one, but the peraon with primary culpability is the one who fired the shot--by law.
I may have[, but the SAG-recommended practice is to not pont qa gun directly at anyone, or to use an inoperative item. The same thing applies in law.
Exactly.
I'm more interested with what happens in Hannah's trial. I don't want to see her put away forever, but this is a serious job and seems pretty clear she was neglectful and allowed risk to enter into her world without much thought or care. I am not protecting Baldwin but hollywood has had a system and actors are treated as morons that need handlers and the armorer is the expert on staff.
This is just a non-starter. You can't use SAG guidelines (which are not law) to try to claim he should be prosecuted when SAG says he shouldn't be.
They will have to prove negligence and since what he did is regularly done on movie sets (under the control of professionals who are supposed to insure safety) I just don't see it going anywhere. It's like trying to prosecute racecar drivers for speeding, trying to prosecute boxers for battery, actors for actions that would be criminal outside the context of a movie set.
Of course they do. Go point a gun at someone in front of a police officer and see what happens. But in the context of a movie set, it's not an offense or you would see all kinds of prosecutions any time an action movie comes out.
That's a 61+ minute deep dive.
A lot of talk to cover a very simple subject, but it all comes down to proving negligence. If the prosecutor can make the jury believe that Baldwin was responsible for doing/redoing the propmaster/armorer's job himself and that to not do so was negligent, then he will be convicted. If the jury believes that the armorer/propmaster's job is a real job, an important job and that the propmaster/armorer, not the actors, is responsible for ensuring firearm safety on the set, then he won't be.
Very true indeed. I am simply highlighting one inconsistency in their position. What they say regarding guilt here is irrelevant.
Why do you think what he did is done regularly on movie sets? Do you beleive that the sAG Safery Recommendations are routinely ignored?
It could happen that way, but proper jury instructions and competent prosecution should mitigate the risk of such an error.
Think about it. No one other than Baldwin himself could hav prevented the tragedy. The firearm was thandled by others before the shooying, and it had been left unattented. There may be others whose failures to act contributed to the death, but realistically, no one Baldwin could have ensureed that the shooing of an indiviual could not
Interesting questions coming from someone who is essentially claiming to be an authority on the topic. Here's the first result from searching "are gun safety rules followed on movie sets".
www.bbc.com
No, very specifically, he is charged with NEGLIGENCE leading to a death. The death is not in question. The fact that he was holding the gun is not in question. The question is, very specifically, whether or not what he did was negligent. If he is not found to be negligent, then he will not be convicted even though everyone knows he was holding the gun at the time of the death.
That is an extremely and very obviously false statement. If the propmaster/armorer had done their job, ensuring no live ammo was on set when it was not required, that no live ammo was in the gun when it was not required, that an actor was not handed a loaded gun and told it was safe to treat it as an inert piece of metal (at least 3 different ways they could have prevented it), then this would not have occurred. I'm not saying that Baldwin could not have prevented the tragedy--he could have by following the gun safety rules on set--but it's obviously not true that "no one other than Baldwin" could have prevented it.
The NM law as written for Manslaughter:
Actually, we don’t know what their relationships were with the director.
