Rust

[ahalpert]

Agreed. There should never have been a live round on that set, let alone in the gun.
From the [limited] information I have seen about this (the FBI report and pictures back up this thread) there is no way the actor could have determined if one/any of the many rounds in the bandolier, belt or gun was a live round.

Right. The issue of pulling the trigger or not only matters because it would prove that Baldwin lied, damaging his credibility. But his credibility isn't that important to the case because the outcome doesn't depend on his testimony.

The DA is charging him because he didn't check the gun himself. That's established. And the question is whether or not he was required to, which will probably involve expert testimony from both sides.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm wondering why you think the trigger pull will be hard to prove. From what I've seen in demonstrations of that model gun's use, it is not possible for the gun to fire accidentally. The hammer must be pulled back to the 4th? position and only then will the trigger operate. The trigger only operates when the hammer is in the 4th position. Neither the trigger nor the hammer can slip and fire on it's own. That can be demonstrated in court and in fact, the gun could be passed around to the jury so they can try it for themselves.

As to your second point, and what we are going in circles about, I think many here are of the mind 'it wasn't his fault' as an actor or even not as an actor. That is a reasonable opinion. But from what I'm reading, a manslaughter charge doesn't care. The way I read it, someone died. You killed them. Accident or not, you're guilty of manslaughter. There doesn't have to be any culpability for a charge of manslaughter.

But let's also realize that the sentence for the type of manslaughter I believe Alec Baldwin is being charge with is quite low. It's in the range of 6 months -1 year and $5000.

I was more confident that the FBI could prove the trigger was pulled before I read about their testing, actually.

There does have to be culpability for a charge of manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is "manslaughter committed in the commision of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection." So, Baldwin had to be acting in an unlawful manner or without due caution.

Baldwin is being charged with 2 counts. The more serious count carries a 5-year mandatory prison sentence. The less serious one has a jail sentence of up to 18 months.

Legal analyses i read concluded that the DA is hoping that the contrast between the two sentences will make jurors think of the lesser charge as an acceptable compromise, a slap on the wrist. Much as you expressed here. The problem is that it would still damage Baldwin's reputation by finding him at fault, and it would possibly end his career.

PS. I think that Baldwin pulled the trigger. I just don't know that he did

 

[DLD]

.... You're making a strong case against the armorer and possibly the persons responsible for hiring her. I have little doubt she will be convicted, possibly of the more serious charge which carries a 5-year mandatory prison sentence...

The armorer is the primary culprit. Her attorneys will likely argue the "broken custody chain" with regards to both the gun and the ammo. And here's where the AD might come in. If he testifies - or already testified - that a lot of people had access to everything, then the case against her gets weaker and against Baldwin stronger.

And then it gets trickier - she can agree to testify against Baldwin just shave off time off her sentence. He is unlikely to testify at all. Against anyone.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I used firearems professionally in the real world in both controlled and uncotrolled environments. Also on the range which was quite different to non-range "real world" use.

My apologies and good to know! My use of the term "recreational" was a poor choice, although I'm not sure what a better one would been for the point I was trying to make. I've just seen countless gun owner/users make statements about how gun safety works and that it should be no different on a film set, where of course it has to be different for the reasons discussed here (if anything, MORE stringent).

On the subject of Baldwin not being able to differentiate if rounds in the gun were dummies, blanks or live rounds--given that this was a scene where the gun was not meant to fire, there should have been nothing in the gun at all, unless the camera was able to see far enough down the barrel that a dummy would have been inserted.

Re: video of the incident, obviously if there was one (whether from the camera rolling or BTS footage) it would answer a variety of questions, specifically if he pulled the trigger or not, but given that it was a lineup rehearsal the camera wasn't yet rolling. The sad reality is that if this had happened during a take, both the director and DP would have surely been back at monitors and the tragedy averted.

 

[ahalpert]

The armorer is the primary culprit. Her attorneys will likely argue the "broken custody chain" with regards to both the gun and the ammo. And here's where the AD might come in. If he testifies - or already testified - that a lot of people had access to everything, then the case against her gets weaker and against Baldwin stronger.

And then it gets trickier - she can agree to testify against Baldwin just shave off time off her sentence. He is unlikely to testify at all. Against anyone.

I don't think this line of defense will hold water.

First of all - the gun should have been empty for rehearsal. If she loaded anything into it, she's at fault.

Second, a broken custody chain is not an excuse, it's a dereliction of her duty. She should know what all of the ammo in her cart is. If new ammo inexplicably shows up, she shouldn't use it. She should know exactly what she's loading in the gun. And she should have direct supervision of the gun from the time she preps it until she hands it to the 1st AD. The only way there's a broken custody chain that isn't her fault is if the AD or someone else loaded something into the gun after the AD took it away from her.

Third, nobody else should have access to her guns and ammo. Allowing that is a dereliction of her duty. And if they did, I really don't see how that pertains to Baldwin's responsibilities. She screws up her job and therefore someone else is responsible? Makes no sense.

Fourth, testifying against Baldwin is irrelevant. Nobody is trying to prove that he did anything that hasn't already been proven. The DA's case is that he was supposed to check the ammo. The armorer is not even useful as an expert witness because she's conflicted and inexperienced.

Maybe the DA will bring a case that Baldwin was broadly responsible for set safety as a producer and cultivated an unsafe working environment. But that's not what they indicated in their public statements.

 

[Paul F]

Even though I have been arguing 'for the law', I don't get either manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin. I agree with the arguments Abe and others have made. But in the cold eyes of the law "someone's gotta pay". It shouldn't be him.

I think they just like to pile on charges and hope something sticks. Even the producer angle seems thin. I'm thinking he didn't have active on-set producer responsibility. The producer charge against him won't pass the smell test to the jury if the defense points the producer finger at others.

 

[Paul F]

I wonder if the DA and defense seek out discussions like this to see what the public (and potential jury pool) is thinking and how to shore up their case.

 

[JAMedia]

I'm wondering why you think the trigger pull will be hard to prove.

It is impossible to prove as the FBI have now broken the working parts.
There is now no way to prove what the gun was or was not capable of.

From what I've seen in demonstrations of that model gun's use, it is not possible for the gun to fire accidentally..

That is irrelevant. it is the specific gun at the scene and no other. What similar guns of that type might do is not conclusive.

The hammer must be pulled back to the 4th? position and only then will the trigger operate. The trigger only operates when the hammer is in the 4th position. Neither the trigger nor the hammer can slip and fire on it's own.

That is in theory how the gun should operate. In the same way all cars operate perfectly and don't need maintenance and don't break or behave incorrectly. It is also impossible to prove some of those cases too.

That can be demonstrated in court and in fact, the gun could be passed around to the jury so they can try it for themselves.

As the gun in question is broken and non functioning that can't be done. The Jury can see a similar gun and how that works.
However they can't determine what the actual gun did on the day. That it broke under testing raises questions as to its condition and operation.
I had a firearm that did not behave like a standard one of that type. I could in a few seconds return it to standard spec. The mod, that would be extremely hard to prove would let me fire the weapon in a way that the spec said it could not fire. And I am sure my Barrister would have used that to show I could not have fired the weapon......

Edit. Just remembered. I had another weapon issued where we could do something similar. However even now I won't comment on if I ever tried that mod.

As to your second point, and what we are going in circles about, I think many here are of the mind 'it wasn't his fault' as an actor or even not as an actor. That is a reasonable opinion. But from what I'm reading, a manslaughter charge doesn't care. The way I read it, someone died. You killed them. Accident or not, you're guilty of manslaughter. There doesn't have to be any culpability for a charge of manslaughter.

The gun in the hand of the actor killed a person. That is Pima Facie manslaughter. The Actor should be tried for manslaughter. At no time have I said he should be found guilty. That is for a court to decide. In my opinion they should find the actor not guilty.

As for the Producer(s) that is another matter about which I don;t have anywhere near enough information to comment on. Other than I would have thought it would be all the producers? Unless only one had responsibility for running the set and the props/weapons.

 

[Paul F]

I did not know the gun is no longer as it was. Oh boy, that's really stupid on the prosecution side to let the FBI do that. I wonder what required them to destroy it. It would have been better to demonstrate it in court rather than rely on a report. Do you have a link to an article about that? I can't find anything. Yes indeed, that gives the defense some wiggle room.

 

[JAMedia]

I did not know the gun is no longer as it was. Oh boy, that's really stupid on the prosecution side to let the FBI do that. I wonder what required them to destroy it. It would have been better to demonstrate it in court rather than rely on a report. Do you have a link to an article about that? I can't find anything. Yes indeed, that gives the defense some wiggle room.

They didn't destroy it. According to the report (back up this thread) whilst testing part of the firing mechanism broke. This would suggest that the gun was not in good condition. It wouldn't need to be in good mechanical condition if it was not going to fire live rounds or blanks. However as the firing mechanism broke you now can't determine anything. Fitting replacement parts can't guarantee the same functionality as the old, worn parts.

It would not be better to demonstrate in court than have the FBI test it. A bunch of unqualified people "playing" with it does not prove much. However the FBI testing it and qualified people signing off the report that the jury an read is better.

 

[Paul F]

It would not be better to demonstrate in court than have the FBI test it. A bunch of unqualified people "playing" with it does not prove much. However the FBI testing it and qualified people signing off the report that the jury an read is better.

Maybe your right about signed off reports. But somehow I think people like show and tell over the written word. Unqualified people playing in court makes quite an impression on jurors sometimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__reD_phfbg

Sorry JA, I had to do it. It was too tempting.

 

[DLD]

Third, nobody else should have access to her guns and ammo.

Her lawyers will argue that she can control whatever is in her possession while it's in her possession. In other words, she couldn't control anyone bringing their own live ammo to the set. Now, whose bullet was it?

 

[JAMedia]

Her lawyers will argue that she can control whatever is in her possession while it's in her possession. In other words, she couldn't control anyone bringing their own live ammo to the set. Now, whose bullet was it?

You will loose that argument. There was a mix of live, blank and dummy rounds in the armourers store. The report and pictures (above in this thread) show a complete mess in the armours stores. the report says there was a mix of dummy and live in the bandolier, gun belt, the gun and seval of the ammunition trays in the armourers stores. That is under the sole controll of the armourer.

In another case in the USA of which I have some detailed knowledge that the defendants set up was a mess was enough to find them gulity without any direct causeal proof.
No one could prove the exact cause but as the set up was a mess and there were lots of other errors the one that cause the specific problem would be lost inthe mist of the others.

The armourer is going to carry the can. (prediction)
It remains to be seen if the Producers or others also get blamed.
Though whilst the actor has to be tried (the gun was in his hand when it killed some one) I can't see how he can be found guilty.

 

[DLD]

You will loose that argument. There was a mix of live, blank and dummy rounds in the armourers store. The report and pictures (above in this thread) show a complete mess in the armours stores.

All I need is a reasonable doubt. Chaos on the set is a producer's fault.

 

[JAMedia]

All I need is a reasonable doubt. Chaos on the set is a producer's fault.

It wasn't chaos on set but chaos in the armourers supposedly secure area.

It will be interesting to watch the argument and counter argument in court.
Either way I think
The Actor is Not Guilty
The Armourer is guilty
The AD and Producers I don't know.

 

[Paul F]

JA, you seem to be well read on all of this. Can you speculate why they are going after Alec Baldwin as the producer and not the other producers? I read Donnell Smith was the 'day-to-day' producer. I'm wondering why he has not been charged.

 

[ahalpert]

The AD and Producers I don't know.

Well, the AD already pleaded guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon. I think he is supposed to double-check the armorer's work by having them show him what the gun is loaded with. So, he was also responsible for making sure the gun was empty.

For the producers -- I think that if there were a record of discussions where someone expressed doubt about the experience level of the armorer and then someone responded that they should hire her anyway because they don't have the budget to hire someone more experienced; and then there was a record of the armorer complaining about doing double-duty as the props manager, and the producers responded that they didn't have the budget to hire a dedicated props person; and then you already have complaints from the crew about the long commute times, although I don't know if the armorer complained as well -- if you have records like that, you could argue that the producers shared responsibility for the catastrophe that occurred. Or even if there were records of a complaint about the state of the armorer's secure area that the producers chose to ignore.

Of course, if the armorer was unable to do her job properly because of set conditions, she should have walked off the job.

 

[JAMedia]

JA, you seem to be well read on all of this. Can you speculate why they are going after Alec Baldwin as the producer and not the other producers? I read Donnell Smith was the 'day-to-day' producer. I'm wondering why he has not been charged.

I know about firearms and their use (outside gun clubs and ranges) and some knowedge of gun crime. I have no idea on the legalities with the Producers. If as you say (I have no idea on this part of it ) that Donnell Smith was "day-to-day" produser who ran the location then I would have thought he should bve charged as "the manager in charge" ?
That or all the producers should be charged.
As Baldwin was one of the lead Actors I would have thought that he was not the producer running the set?

 

[JAMedia]

Well, the AD already pleaded guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon. I think he is supposed to double-check the armorer's work by having them show him what the gun is loaded with. So, he was also responsible for making sure the gun was empty.

That seem reasonable to me. It is part of the chain of responsibility. Though I can't see how the AD could possibley tell if the rounds were dummy or live. The silver/gold for the primers seems a biit reckless. I have said it before and will say it again there should have been no live rounds on the location. That is down to the armourer.

For the producers -- I think that if there were a record of discussions where someone expressed doubt about the experience level of the armorer and then someone responded that they should hire her anyway because they don't have the budget to hire someone more experienced; and then there was a record of the armorer complaining about doing double-duty as the props manager, and the producers responded that they didn't have the budget to hire a dedicated props person; and then you already have complaints from the crew about the long commute times, although I don't know if the armorer complained as well -- if you have records like that, you could argue that the producers shared responsibility for the catastrophe that occurred. Or even if there were records of a complaint about the state of the armorer's secure area that the producers chose to ignore.

That is going to be a "fun" session in court. He-said she-said etc. and I expect lost notes. and "I don't remember that conversation"

Of course, if the armorer was unable to do her job properly because of set conditions, she should have walked off the job.

Agreed. But then again how many of us have bent princples "a bit" because you need the job? Or it is in that gray area of "its not right but that is how the real world works...."?

 

[DLD]

It wasn't chaos on set but chaos in the armourers supposedly secure area.

It will be interesting to watch the argument and counter argument in court.
Either way I think
The Actor is Not Guilty
The Armourer is guilty
The AD and Producers I don't know.

The AD already pleaded guilty. One assumes to the reduced charges in exchange for the testimony against others.