Yeesh - Alec Baldwin just plopped into a world of hurt

[Baby Lee]

Breaking - details forthcoming

Discharged a 'prop' weapon that resulted in a death and another severe injury.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...c47b69ce5.html

[PHOG]

Originally Posted by Bwana

Perhaps it was a magic gun, capable of shooting itself at will!!

Perhaps.

[stumppy]

What do ya know. Prosecutor hid some evidence and got caught. That's the only reason Baldwin is walking away a free man.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I vaguely remember that now. He said he was holding the gun and it just went off or something?

That's kind of a questionable defense. I think you have to charge the guy who was holding the gun when the gun killed someone, even if he claims that "people don't kill people, guns kill people". Otherwise, every hoodlum in South Chicago gets to walk because, hey, they were just holding the gun and it fired on its own. The jury can then decide if it was an accident or whatever. But I think you need to charge the person just to figure out what happened.

He's an actor who has probably never shot a real gun intentionally in his life. When the prop person hands you a gun and tells you that it's safe to pull the trigger, it's hard for me to buy that you're responsible rather than the prop person who loaded it with real bullets.

I get that basic gun safety would suggest that he would check it himself, but again, he's likely never taken a gun safety class in his life. Unless we make it a rule that every actor is required to take a gun safety class before handling fake guns, I just don't understand how this went to trial in the first place.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He's an actor who has probably never shot a real gun intentionally in his life. When the prop person hands you a gun and tells you that it's safe to pull the trigger, it's hard for me to buy that you're responsible rather than the prop person who loaded it with real bullets.

I get that basic gun safety would suggest that he would check it himself, but again, he's likely never taken a gun safety class in his life. Unless we make it a rule that every actor is required to take a gun safety class before handling fake guns, I just don't understand how this went to trial in the first place.

Yep.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He's an actor who has probably never shot a real gun intentionally in his life. When the prop person hands you a gun and tells you that it's safe to pull the trigger, it's hard for me to buy that you're responsible rather than the prop person who loaded it with real bullets.

I get that basic gun safety would suggest that he would check it himself, but again, he's likely never taken a gun safety class in his life. Unless we make it a rule that every actor is required to take a gun safety class before handling fake guns, I just don't understand how this went to trial in the first place.

Agreed. I'm just saying that you have to figure out what happened, and you can't just wave off the guy who was holding the gun because he says that he didn't pull the trigger when it shot someone. Maybe you decide to drop the charges quickly, but you have to charge him and have some due process.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Agreed. I'm just saying that you have to figure out what happened, and you can't just wave off the guy who was holding the gun because he says that he didn't pull the trigger when it shot someone. Maybe you decide to drop the charges quickly, but you have to charge him and have some due process.

Is that why this was dismissed? I haven't seen that listed as being a part of it.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Is that why this was dismissed? I haven't seen that listed as being a part of it.

No idea. I haven't followed it. Someone else just mentioned that he'd claimed that the gun went off without him pulling the trigger, and people were questioning why he was charged at all. I just don't see a prosecutor declining to file charges when they're trying to sort out what actually happened. I think they initially charge everyone involved and then sort it out in court. Maybe it's a fast dismissal or maybe it's a lengthy trial, but that's what gets sorted out.

Granted, I've never been charged in a murder trial, so I'm not familiar with how it works. It just seems like that's how it would work.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

No idea. I haven't followed it. Someone else just mentioned that he'd claimed that the gun went off without him pulling the trigger, and people were questioning why he was charged at all. I just don't see a prosecutor declining to file charges when they're trying to sort out what actually happened. I think they initially charge everyone involved and then sort it out in court. Maybe it's a fast dismissal or maybe it's a lengthy trial, but that's what gets sorted out.



Granted, I've never been charged in a murder trial, so I'm not familiar with how it works. It just seems like that's how it would work.

As fast as I understand it, it was dismissed because the state's prosecution withheld evidence.

I agree that a defense of not pulling the trigger seems dumb, but I don't see how he's responsible either way unless the prosecution were claiming he knew the gun was loaded (and they weren't).

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Granted, I've never been charged in a murder trial, so I'm not familiar with how it works.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Hey, war crimes are not technically murder.

[stumppy]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Is that why this was dismissed? I haven't seen that listed as being a part of it.

The prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense. Sounded like this wasn't the first time either.

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He's an actor who has probably never shot a real gun intentionally in his life. When the prop person hands you a gun and tells you that it's safe to pull the trigger, it's hard for me to buy that you're responsible rather than the prop person who loaded it with real bullets.

I get that basic gun safety would suggest that he would check it himself, but again, he's likely never taken a gun safety class in his life. Unless we make it a rule that every actor is required to take a gun safety class before handling fake guns, I just don't understand how this went to trial in the first place.

Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to firearms.

Countless other actors train extensively. Even Will Smith's cucked ass went over the top to make sure he is educated enough to be doing the job safely. I honestly can't believe the insurance companies let actors who haven't trained to proficiency handle them on set, armorer or not.

I don't believe it was a fake gun either, but I can't remember the exact details from the last time I read about it.

[PHOG]

I didn't know fake guns shoot real bullets. Sounds like a real gun to me.

[Dante84]

From what I gathered:
- The armorer was provided real bullets that looked identical or very similar to the blanks.
- The armorer loaded the gun and eventually it gets to Baldwin.
- Baldwin is on set, practicing a “cross-draw” and the gun fires, killing one and injuring another.
- They decide to prosecute the armorer (is found guilty) and Baldwin for being reckless.

During the Baldwin trial, Thursday, it comes to light that the armorer gave the bullets to her father, who gave them to a family friend in law enforcement who took them to the authorities.This should have been checked into evidence for both the armorer and Baldwin cases.The prosecution made a determination that the bullets weren’t similar looking enough and told the underlings to log the evidence under a separate case, effectively concealing it from the defense in both cases. One might even say they “buried” it.

When it was brought to light, one of the prosecutors who was previously unaware told the team to dismiss the case, and when they didn’t, she resigned.

The judge sent the jury home on Friday, and they spent the day reviewing the facts around the bullets and how they were checked in. They even looked at the bullets and apparently they were pretty similar, meaning that if the defense had known this, they could have created reasonable doubt about the charges.

The judge was like **** you guys, dismissed.

[Kiimo]

Originally Posted by DaFace

As fast as I understand it, it was dismissed because the state's prosecution withheld evidence.

I agree that a defense of not pulling the trigger seems dumb, but I don't see how he's responsible either way unless the prosecution were claiming he knew the gun was loaded (and they weren't).

Not only that, the evidence they withheld was bullets found on the ground of the movie set. They found those, then filed them away and started asking how did bullets get on your movie set????

Like, it's egregious, if the local news here in LA are informed enough. They had a prosecutor on who resigned from the case when that came to light. She was asked if she thought the judge dismissed the case because of her resignation and she said absolutely not. Apparently there is an internal investigation underway already about them withholding evidence in OTHER cases as well.

So people can say Alec Baldwin nobody feels bad for you, rich opinionated actor that you are! But really they should be saying WTF is going on with the New Mexico system down there???




edit: beaten by moments