MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > People jumping to conclusions with no fa...

People jumping to conclusions with no facts


I guess that's what people do nowadays, jump to conclusions without having any kind of relevant information. Nobody really knows exactly what happened on the set yet, but they're so quick to call him a murderer. People are so pathetic, they'll believe any article they read no matter what the source. Welcome to the world of fake news and disinformation.

reply

People have always done that.

Sad, really

reply

Nope, no facts, and nobody's going to get any solid facts from the "entertainment jounalists" who will cover this. All they do us print whatever the publicists tell them, and Baldwin's publicist is going to be first and loudest with the spin.

We won't hear anything remotely reliable until the trials and lawsuits start, and even then we're also going to hear lots of lies.

reply

Yup.

reply

Seeing as he was one of the producers as well as the star, I'm more interested in what Baldwin's reaction were to the safety concerns of the crew. I'd be very surprised if he bore much responsibility for the incident itself, but would be much less surprised if he was an enabler for unsafe practices that made it possible. We don't know the answer to either of those questions at this point, however.

reply

From the little we know, it does seem that his legal position as both the person who pulled the trigger and a producer of this clusterfuck is bad. In deep. Up the creek.

There will be many, many lawsuits against the producers of this mess, at least, and somebody's going to jail.

reply

Based on what I have read I truly believe it was an accident but however, that doesn't mean no one is responsible

Both sides are jumping to conclusions, his fans and the people who dislike him, I don't think the guy kill those people in cold blood intentionally but that doesn't mean he is not responsible for this tragedy, as you say he was a producer and if there were concern about safety and were ignored just to save some money that is equally criminal.

In time we would know who was responsible, but this wasn't just an unfortunate accident, so far looks like this was something that could have been prevented.

reply

Regardless of how ridiculous the people with an agenda are being, killing someone by accident usually means a jail term for manslaughter, and being sued for damages by the survivors of the deceased.

It does seem like an accident, based on the small and unreliable amount of information that's been given to the public, but the kind of accident that can have endless legal repercussions, because, well. It seem that there's both money and negligence involved.

reply

New Mexico has 'excusable homicide' as a legal category, which may mean no criminal charges in this case, according to this article:

https://www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-likely-wont-face-charges-legal-experts-2021-10

reply

Well, it's not clear who can be held legally responsible for the shooting, it could be Baldwin or it could be the person who put the "blanks" in the bun. The latter depends is going to be difficult to sort out, as apparently the entire crew had quit earlier that day and there were new people on the set at the time of the shooting.

Whether Baldwin is culpable for the shooting itself probably depends on whether he was handling the gun responsibly at the time it went off. If he was in costume and the camera was rolling and the director told him to point the gun in the direction of the camera and pull the trigger, then his liability is greatly reduced (but as a producer, he's still partly responsible for the unsafe work environment). If he was out of costume and the camera wasn't running and he was dicking around with the gun, then he's in a lot more trouble, and BTW the pictures of him being disdraught on the set that day show him in a t-shirt and not a cowboy costume. But he could have had time to change, who knows.

reply

He may have gotten blood on his costume because they were trying to stop the bleeding and he may have been giving aid to the two wounded people. Or, if it was just a rehearsal he may not have been in full costume.

reply

I've heard many times that it was a rehearsal, which means he had absolutely no business pointing the gun at anyone or pulling the trigger, regardless of what it was loaded with. If it was indeed a rehearsal, then Baldwin was handling the gun unsafely, and that's bad news for him legally.

I've also heard he was in costume and that yes, he got blood on the costume and took it off, for what internet rumors are worth.

reply

I've also heard he was in costume and that yes, he got blood on the costume and took it off, for what internet rumors are worth.

Costume was probably seized by police.

reply

I heard he took it off and gave it to the police as evidence.

Frankly, if he had blood on the costume, it's probably because he went over to poor Hutchins and tried to help, as any decent person would. If they were setting up a shot where he was waving a gun around, he can't have been within spattering range when the gun went off.

reply

> killing someone by accident usually means a jail term for manslaughter

I am dubious about that. Lots of people have killed people by accident ... motor vehicles ... even celebrates and never went to jail or were even charged because it was demonstrably an accident. Where are you getting that from?

reply

Oh sure, celebrities can kill any number of other drivers in LA and face no charges.

But this isn't LA.

reply

It may be worse than LA in how dependent on the film industry this area is.

reply

I have no idea how the local DA in New Mexico is going to react to this clusterfuck of criminal negligence.

reply

I don't think anyone is going to jail, unless someone is proven to have destroyed evidence.
The crime was negligent homicide I would think, and there were multiple people involved that were participatory in that.

For me, I think the point is that even if the gun was unloaded - even if everyone including Alex Baldwin checked it - as a rule it never should have been pointed at or discharged at a person. Meaning to me that I don't want to see Baldwin in anything again. He should be out of the business. Louie CK is effectively cancelled and he did much much less.

And, in general I liked Baldwin, this being at the center of this for anyone - if there is any morality or justice - he's gone. There are a million people who are as good, better and more responsible to take over these roles - Hollywood can be a lot more picky and responsible to the people and the law.

reply

I agree that Baldwin was (allegedly) handling the gun unsafely, if he was pointing it at people and pulling the trigger during a rehearsal. And as producer, he did nothing about the known gun safety problem, so he's certainly liable for all kinds of negligence lawsuits.

As for criminal charges, there seem to be several people who *could* be charged, including Baldwin. But that doesn't mean the local DA will choose to prosecute.

reply

Seeing as he was one of the producers as well as the star, I'm more interested in what Baldwin's reaction were to the safety concerns of the crew. I'd be very surprised if he bore much responsibility for the incident itself, but would be much less surprised if he was an enabler for unsafe practices that made it possible. We don't know the answer to either of those questions at this point, however.

THIS ^^^

I'd be surprised if Balwin were held criminally liable for the actual shooting.

But, the entire production team (of which Balwin seems to be the head) will probably be held civically liable.

There's going to be hell to pay ($$$) when all the facts come out and blame is placed in this cluster fuck.

reply

"I'd be very surprised if he bore much responsibility for the incident itself, but would be much less surprised if he was an enabler for unsafe practices that made it possible."

Being an enabler makes him equally responsible to anyone else at fault.

reply

this is what the misinformation super highway does best: spread manure farther, fastest.
and here we all thought instant info would help the world. shame.

reply

It's like having the Star Trek talking computer there to answer all your questions... only its answers are 99.999999% inaccurate.

reply

hahaha yes exactly!

reply

Unlike your delusional fantasy world in which no facts about this incident exist, here in the real world there are some facts, and they are plenty damning. Baldwin pointed a gun at innocent people and fired. The primary rule of gun safety is to always keep it pointed in a safe direction. Hollywood may think that they're somehow above the rules of gun safety, but logically speaking, it doesn't matter what they think. The reality of it is: Baldwin violated a blatantly obvious, fundamental, and primary rule of gun safety and was therefore negligent. If the law is applied correctly (and it probably won't be, because the system is as corrupt as the day is long), he'll be charged with, and convicted of, negligent homicide, which is sometimes called involuntary manslaughter.

reply

He could be totally guilty or negligent homicide, or he may not be. His legal culpability as a producer would also depend on what his exact role in the production was (there is more than one type of producer, and they don't all have the same duties). There is also the question of whether he was asked by the crew to intercede and what he chose to do about it. Did he side with the crew or the director and other producers? Furthermore, if this turns out to be a actual bullet, or if the numerous gun discharges on set (this wasn't the first) were caused by a defective piece going off when not intended, and/if Baldwin wasn't deliberately pointing a weapon at anyone this could drastically alter were he stands legally. Assuming this was a blank bullet, one thing that didn't add up in the L.A. Times story was the claim that the DP was shot in the shoulder, then the projectile passed through into the director. That makes it sound more like a real bullet than a blank. We'll just have to wait and see. Having said that, his dual role as lead actor and producer would certainly have put him in a strong position to correct the issues which lead to the tragedy. What really sucks about this story is that the DP that was killed seemed to have sided with the crew and their safety concerns, but she was the one to die. Let's not also forget that the director had a role in this too. Just because he got injured himself doesn't let him off the hook.

reply

"He could be totally guilty or negligent homicide"

He is, and I already explained why. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be convicted or even charged, because our legal system is full of incompetence and corruption.

reply

You explained why you think he will be found guilty based on incomplete facts that neither of us have. And you may be right. However, the press first needs to get the this story straight. What type of round was used, how many shots were fired, under what circumstances was the gun fired, what exactly was the nature of the injury to the two victims, how closely the other safety protocols were fired, etc.? You know, the basics... before I make any grand pronouncements about what should happen to him. By the way, I wouldn't be the least surprised if he is partly responsible (above and beyond pulling the trigger) for what happened, I just don't know it for a fact yet and am not pretending I do.

reply

"You explained why you think he will be found guilty based on incomplete facts that neither of us have."

What not-yet-known facts could negate his logical responsibility for what happened with the gun that he voluntarily picked up? Had he followed the primary rule of gun safety (failure to do so means negligence), i.e., don't point a gun at anyone/anything that you don't intend to destroy, then no one would have been killed or injured, except in the highly unlikely scenario of a ricochet hitting someone. In fact, a ricochet scenario is the only potential fact I can think of that would help his case, but even then, a ricochet would mean that his gun was loaded with a live round when it shouldn't have been, so he'd still be negligent in that regard.

reply

No one knows how this case will turn out. One thing is for sure, it isn't going to be decided on Movie Chat. Based on historical precedent, the most likely scenario is that the producers of the film ( of which Baldwin is one) will get sued. That's as far out on a limb as I'd be willing to go at this point.

reply

They should teach the actors to check the weapons themselves after being handed a gun, even if told by an "expert" it was safe/unloaded.

reply

I don't think that is the point. The point is that even if he checked it, double and tripled checked it - he should not have aimed it at a person and he should not have pulled the trigger - under any circumstances. Is that unfair to say?

reply

> Baldwin pointed a gun at innocent people and fired.

Exactly - people think because it was movie make believe that this is done all the time as a matter of course, but that is not true. I can't help thinking either AB was rushing things and not being careful, or perhaps he was playing around. If this was done as a real take, there should be video/film of it. Where that ends up is very important.

reply

This is not a courtroom and we are free to speculate. Also, we have this one fact.

1) Alec Baldwin consciously and willingly pointed a loaded gun at an employee and pulled the trigger.

Even if he didn't know the gun wasn't loaded with live ammunition (and we can't be sure that's the case), what psychopath points a gun loaded with blanks at an employee?? Alec Baldwin, that's who. As a gun loaded, either with live ammunition or blanks, weighs considerably more than an unloaded gun, he had to know there was something in there. It fits a pattern of behavior with him as he has demonstrated a pattern of uncontrollable anger over the years. That is why it isn't too much of a stretch to think he wanted this woman dead for whatever reason and thought he would try the "accident" excuse used in the Brandon Lee case.

reply

He very well could have been showing everybody how he wanted the scene to play out. "So I'll point the gun like this," and then bang it went off.

reply

Perhaps, but how did a live round get in the gun? Even if it was a blank, you don't point a gun loaded with blanks at a person and pull the trigger either. So much doesn't add up.

reply

Some of y'all are dense in the head!!! He mostly likely pointed the gun at the camera while she and other dude were standing on each side of the camera. They were rehearsing a scene!

reply

Industry rules (and basic gun safety) dictate that a gun whether loaded with live ammo or blanks, is not to be pointed at or discharged in the direction of a person. Alec Baldwin has been in Hollywood a long time. Why the fuck was he pointing the gun at the victim and why the did he pull the trigger? Even if he didn't know the gun had a live round (doubtful), he broke every rule of gun safety on the set.

reply

STFU

reply

Such an eloquent and well thought out response.

You fucking rope smoker

reply

You're talking about mainstream journalism for the last six years.

reply

Those kind of people are what are called...JUDGMENTAL ASSHOLES. They are assholes in their everyday life. We have a lot right here at moviechat...

reply

Yeah we do

reply