Charges Against Alex Baldwin Being Dropped

Mike said:
Maybe you don't think that they are necessary Old Salt, but I do,
any time I ever had a gun in my hands, I checked that it is clear.

It is like driving a car, anything happens, the driver is the first to be
suspected, same with a gun, you are the driver, if it was me that had
a similar situation as Alex Baldwin, I would be devastated, so he should
have done a basic check, maybe he doesn't know how to handle a gun,
but he is American.

Mike.
Click to expand...
Is it easy to check if a revolver carries blanks or live ammunition? Genuine question because I have no idea?
 

Just heard on the news , that the gun may have been modified so that it would fire without the trigger being pulled ....... yeah right.
 
Alligatorob said:
I agree, but even if it was Baldwin violated industry standards by point it at her... still no defense.
Click to expand...
This is what I keep coming back to as well... and I've been on both sides of this one. But the bottom line is that they were NOT filming (which would maybe be a little easier to understand)... there was NO reason for him to point that at Halyna. She was the cinematographer, not another actor he would be "shooting" in the film that would make him want to "rehearse."
 
Old Salt said:
Isn't that a bit cynical! He shouldn't have been charged in the first place. Actors depend on a gun being empty when they are being handed one!
Click to expand...
But to point and then shoot at the cinematographer, @oldsalt ? He's an actor, yes, but they were not filming. While filming it may be looked at differently... like.... who was it? Brandon Lee? At least they were filming... not screwing around with the crew. In my mind it's not a matter of whether or not he should have checked the gun, but rather why was he messing around pointing it at her?
 
Ah yeah re-election politics and a justifiable hate for Alec Baldwin made it easy to charge him. Let's remember they did charge him originally w a law that wasn't on the books when the incident happened so the district attorney's lawyering leaves a LOT to be desired.

Who brought the live rounds on the set?

What was modified on the weapon?

Who told AB the gun was "cold?"
 
In my mind they were fooling around, otherwise why would AB point the gun at the woman. And no one thought that the gun was loaded. What would a prop do on a movie set with ammo in the barrel? But having looked at all of your arguments I won't be dogmatic about it. Maybe there are undercurrents I am not aware of. Time will bring out all the pertinent facts. I hope!
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
I never thought Baldwin should have been charged in the first place. Yes, he was in charge of the production, but there is a limit to his responsibility. If the film director put the wrong speed film in the camera, should Balwin have triple checked to see if the correct film was loaded up? Then triple checked the script writer, then triple checked the boom operator, then triple checked the payroll clerk, then triple checked the crafts people, then triple checked the guard at the gate, then triple check.........At some point, the producer has to rely on his staff. And there was nothing to suggest to him that anything was amiss with the firearm.
Click to expand...
Guns are a slightly different situation since they can kill people.
 
The man IS guilty of manslaughter and he has to live with that. As a sign of respect and decency, I think the film should have been scrapped, but I suppose it now has a certain notoriety and the film company are hoping it will attract ghouls no matter how bad it is.
 
Alligatorob said:
Hard to say, you may be right. However, I don't see that as a defense. Any more than an argument that most drunks don't have problems driving should justify drunk driving.

A shooting like this is a very low probability event, but the more often people don't use good safety practice, the more often those low probability events will happen.

I'll bet more are following the rules today, unfortunate it took something like this to call attention to the problem.
Click to expand...
Someone else was in charge of the gun or more than one person else. Different people have different responsibilities. Alec did not pull the trigger it was found. Others may be responsible for the loading of the gun and I don't think we've heard anything about that yet. The gun has been proven faulty.
 
Last edited:
Lavinia said:
The man IS guilty of manslaughter and he has to live with that. As a sign of respect and decency, I think the film should have been scrapped, but I suppose it now has a certain notoriety and the film company are hoping it will attract ghouls no matter how bad it is.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. He does feel bad but he is not guilty. Someone else was in charge of loading the gun and the gun was faulty. 🤔

I too think the film should be scrapped in favor of making something else not related.
 
Last edited:
Ruthanne said:
You are wrong. He does feel bad but he is not guilty. Someone else was in charge of loading the gun and the gun was faulty. 🤔

I too think the film should be scrapped in favor of making something else not related.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, he was holding & handling the gun, and the FBI lab @ Quantico said the gun operated properly.

The ultimate responsibility falls with the last person to touch the gun ... and that was A/B.
 
againstthegrain said:
This is the actual FBI report. They did get the revolver to accidentally discharge 2 different ways w/out pulling the trigger during their testing.



FBI report
Click to expand...

So the way i read it ... he {A/B} either pulled the trigger or .... pulled the hammer back far enough that when released it fired the cartridge . The report also reads that there must have been sufficient pressure on the trigger @ the same time. Meaning too me .... he pulled the trigger.

Or it was dropped ? Although that was never mentioned in the story.
 
Pepper said:
I support the charges against Alec Baldwin being dropped. I think his money has nothing to do with it. R.I.P. Halyna Hutchins. The armorer charges should stick, can't see why not.
Click to expand...
I was surprised they even charged Baldwin with anything. Although someone, most likely the armorer, is probably responsible for the accident. It could have been someone who loaded the gun with live ammo when the armorer was not looking. As for Baldwin, gun safety classes usually teach that anyone handling a gun should check to see if it's loaded as the first thing he does when he picks it up. It's not a law, however. It's just a safety protocol. I was taught as a kid to always assume a gun is loaded, even if you don't believe it is, but that was not a gun expert that told me that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top