Alec Baldwin Accidentally Kills Cinematographer on Set of New Movie (2 Viewers)

[Madmarsha]

Why would you want an actor who was handed a gun by a prop master to get charged for something he was doing while ostensibly “playing pretend” with a prop he was told was safe ? Don’t get me wrong, you aren’t the only person I’ve heard voice that opinion.. i personally think it’s insane to blame something like that on any actor .. Now Alec Baldwin THE PRODUCER being blamed for some, or all of this, would at least be debatable IMO.. but as mentioned , a lot of this seems to fall along political lines.. i myself am a Registered Independent (#humblebrag) since 1992 so i got no dog in this fight, i just dont think an actor can be blamed .

As producer, he is civilly liable. But you're right, any other random actor I wouldn't feel he was criminally liable.

Now, none of the extra stuff could be heard or seen in the criminal trial. But as someone in the general true crime viewing public knowing everything we've seen and heard from Hannah's trial? He is morally responsible. Several crew members quit because of other lax measures on set. We read about the veteran armorer that Dago posted about. Hannah was hired because there was no one else, and she was too inexperienced not only for the job but to even KNOW how inexperienced she was. That was a Western, a very gun heavy movie. She was hired PART TIME. That wasn't a part-time job even for someone with tons of experience. She was given ONE helper and that was part time as well. Both of them also did double duty at I believe prop masters. Baldwin hurried everyone up. "I want to go again. Let's go! Reload! Reload!" He is used to don't say no to actor Baldwin, what do you think boss Baldwin expected? "No, Alec, I need more time! I need more help!"? From a 21-year-old girl with multicolored hair.

Now, this multicolored hair 21-year-old young lady THOUGHT she was experienced with guns but she also apparently asked someone if she could have live ammo on set and was told no but clearly did it anyway cos she had a "I know better" young girl hubris. It was a huge tragic "perfect storm" of misplaced egos that killed a young cinematographer.


Do I expect that were I a juror everyone would feel like me? Nope. It was going to be a hung jury.

 

[Madmarsha]

At least I got to see him cry like a baby.

ETC: This is the judge handing down her ruling and the reasons for a Brady violation.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

As producer, he is civilly liable. But you're right, any other random actor I wouldn't feel he was criminally liable.

Now, none of the extra stuff could be heard or seen in the criminal trial. But as someone in the general true crime viewing public knowing everything we've seen and heard from Hannah's trial? He is morally responsible. Several crew members quit because of other lax measures on set. We read about the veteran armorer that Dago posted about. Hannah was hired because there was no one else, and she was too inexperienced not only for the job but to even KNOW how inexperienced she was. That was a Western, a very gun heavy movie. She was hired PART TIME. That wasn't a part-time job even for someone with tons of experience. She was given ONE helper and that was part time as well. Both of them also did double duty at I believe prop masters. Baldwin hurried everyone up. "I want to go again. Let's go! Reload! Reload!" He is used to don't say no to actor Baldwin, what do you think boss Baldwin expected? "No, Alec, I need more time! I need more help!"? From a 21-year-old girl with multicolored hair.

Now, this multicolored hair 21-year-old young lady THOUGHT she was experienced with guns but she also apparently asked someone if she could have live ammo on set and was told no but clearly did it anyway cos she had a "I know better" young girl hubris. It was a huge tragic "perfect storm" of misplaced egos that killed a young cinematographer.


Do I expect that were I a juror everyone would feel like me? Nope. It was going to be a hung jury.

I was today years old when i learned , from FullMonte’s post above- that Baldwin wasn’t even an actual producer, per se.. it was apparently a vanity credit.. like i said, even though i started this thread a couple years ago, I haven’t followed the case closely lately so i wasn’t aware of that.. Anyway, it means that the negotiation went something like “Mr Baldwin we’d like you to star in our low-budget film and in return we’ll give you a percentage of the backend and we will give you a producer credit”..
anyone who’s spent even a modicum of time in the film industry ( i made my living in that business, at a peon level, a lifetime ago) will tell you that means he probably had zero responsibility for “producing” the film , so probably wouldn’t be found liable on that level either .. where it gets murky is that, according to ur post above, he was acting like ur basic A lister and being a little bit of a de facto director/bossy on set.. BUT since he wasn’t allowed to be tried as a producer, only as an actor- it is hard to assign blame, legally, for whatever shortcomings the armorer had, and it seems as though there were many .

 

[Madmarsha]

...... so probably wouldn’t be found liable on that level either ..

They've already done the civil settlement. His criminal trial now being over, it's all done.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-settlement/index.html

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Why would you want an actor who was handed a gun by a prop master to get charged for something he was doing while ostensibly “playing pretend” with a prop he was told was safe ? Don’t get me wrong, you aren’t the only person I’ve heard voice that opinion.. i personally think it’s insane to blame something like that on any actor .. Now Alec Baldwin THE PRODUCER being blamed for some, or all of this, would at least be debatable IMO.. but as mentioned , a lot of this seems to fall along political lines.. i myself am a Registered Independent (#humblebrag) since 1992 so i got no dog in this fight, i just dont think an actor can be blamed .

I just don't get why there's so much hate for this dude:

 

[Sailorsaint]

I still don’t understand why we can’t have fake guns that create a realistic gunshot sound electronically instead of using blanks. I have to believe the technology is out there.

 

[superchuck500]

As producer, he is civilly liable.

Are we certain that's true?

It's also interesting that after the dismissal, a spokesperson for the widower said he looks forward to presenting the evidence to a civil jury for damages . . . but they settled in 2022.

Baldwin also faces a lawsuit from some of her family in Ukraine.

 

[Thunderchild]

I still don’t understand why we can’t have fake guns that create a realistic gunshot sound electronically instead of using blanks. I have to believe the technology is out there.

The gun shots can be added after the fact by sound fx.

 

[Sailorsaint]

The gun shots can be added after the fact by sound fx.

Then using something like a starter pistol would be perfect. Something with a solid barrel would be my choice.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

so at first they decide not to prosecute, then they find new evidence, decide to prosecute, then it gets thrown out because they hid very important evidence from the defense?
all that sound like coincidence, i think not.. sounds like they just wanted Baldwin for personal or political reasons..

 

[Thunderchild]

Then using something like a starter pistol would be perfect. Something with a solid barrel would be my choice.

I think accurate appearing plastic/frn pistols exist and are in usage. So that would work also.

If they continue to use real arms then, imo, another layer of safety needs to exist. The actors need to be given a specific safety course on checking the gun they will be using and actually check it in front of the armorer (who should have already checked it), this being done immediately before the scene. This type of thing is often done in other industries. For example the requirement of checking an enclosed space for O2 before entry, often done by a safety tech then rechecked with another O2 meter by the guy actually entering the space.

Double checking safety situations is very, very common. No reason that they can't get an actor involved as well. Safety is safety no matter where it takes place.

 

[superchuck500]

so at first they decide not to prosecute, then they find new evidence, decide to prosecute, then it gets thrown out because they hid very important evidence from the defense?
all that sound like coincidence, i think not.. sounds like they just wanted Baldwin for personal or political reasons..

In fairness to the facts, I think the timeline can be more accurately characterized.

There was an initial case, but then it was voluntarily dismissed by the state because the prosecution decided that it needed to do additional forensic analysis. Then about nine months later, they convened a new grand jury that returned indictments.

I also think that the description of the evidence as "very important" is questionable - the evidence was a set of "exemplar" (example) set rounds that are dummy/blank rounds but appear very real next to a live round that were provided to the prosecution for their expert to examine - but those rounds weren't actually taken from the set according to the prosecutor, and had not even been in New Mexico at the time of the shooting. So in her view, the state didn't need to turn them over to the defense.

The judge, however, concluded that because the rounds did show that some on-set blank rounds can indeed be mistaken for live rounds and because the state's expert examined them, the state was required by shared-evidence rules (that are themselves based in due process and fair trial principles) to turn them over to the defense. And because the judge believed that the state had deliberately not done so, she ruled that it was intentional and "borderline bad faith" - which she concluded required her to dismiss the case.

The prosecutor stated that the defense was obviously aware that these kinds of rounds are used on sets and because they weren't otherwise taken from the scene as evidence or had any direct relationship to the case, they didn't provide them.

I think it was just poor case management by the prosecution - they made a very significant error in judgment about those rounds, but they didn't "hide very important evidence." Trial teams make mistakes all the time, and we're talking about a criminal prosecutor's office in the state of New Mexico, they're probably fine lawyers but it's not necessarily the Kansas City Chiefs.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

but isn't that the purpose of hiring a professional? what are the chances that if she checked this gun 1 minute before this scene, that she cared enough to check it accurately? if she "checked" it before it got to him, another check probably would have resulted in her not not doing her job correctly again.
i work in an industrial setting. people get killed all the time in this line of work because of complacently.. Being complacent when others lives are in your hands happens more than people like to think.
if the safety guy tells someone he's good to proceed, but he's really not, i blame the safety guy over the crane operator who was just proceeding when told everything was right..

 

[Thunderchild]

but isn't that the purpose of hiring a professional? what are the chances that if she checked this gun 1 minute before this scene, that she cared enough to check it accurately? if she "checked" it before it got to him, another check probably would have resulted in her not not doing her job correctly again.
i work in an industrial setting. people get killed all the time in this line of work because of complacently.. Being complacent when others lives are in your hands happens more than people like to think.
if the safety guy tells someone he's good to proceed, but he's really not, i blame the safety guy over the crane operator who was just proceeding when told everything was right..

Complacency is the issue. The double check overrides complacency and allows the worker/handler/actor to be sure for themselves, and others, that the safety tech/O2 meter/armorer/etc. was correct and keeps the safety individual from failing at his/her job.

In this particular instance a double check would have saved a life.

 

[superchuck500]

but isn't that the purpose of hiring a professional? what are the chances that if she checked this gun 1 minute before this scene, that she cared enough to check it accurately? if she "checked" it before it got to him, another check probably would have resulted in her not not doing her job correctly again.
i work in an industrial setting. people get killed all the time in this line of work because of complacently.. Being complacent when others lives are in your hands happens more than people like to think.
if the safety guy tells someone he's good to proceed, but he's really not, i blame the safety guy over the crane operator who was just proceeding when told everything was right..

Yeah, certainly when it comes to activities that can kill people if not done right, commitment to safety requires actual commitment, and redundancies to ensure there are no accidents. When accidents do happen and people die, it's almost always because there was some failure in that commitment to safety and redundancy process.