MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > Mickey Rourke declares 'no way in hell' ...

Mickey Rourke declares 'no way in hell' Alec Baldwin should be charged

posted a year ago by Keelai (31975)
4 replies | jump to latest

""Most actors don’t know anything about guns especially if they didn’t grow up around them. Alec didn’t bring the gun to the set from his house or his car, when weapons are involved on a movie set, the guns are supposed to he handled only by the 'weapon armor'."

The "Wrestler" star went on to explain, "In some cases the 1st AD might pass a gun to an actor, but most of the time the gun is handed to the actor directly by the 'gun armor'. There’s what armor’s job is on the set. To have an expert around any type of dangerous weapon."

"The actor then has an option of dry firing the gun him or himself to double check. No way in hell should Alec Baldwin be blamed for this unfortunate tragedy. Why ‘the powers to be’ charging Baldwin with this responsibility is terribly wrong. I am sure Alec is already suffering enough over what happened. But to lay a blame on him is terribly terribly wrong."

The former professional boxer concluded his post writing, "With my deepest condolences to Halyna Hutchins, to her family and her friends."
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mickey-rourke-declares-no-way-hell-alec-baldwin-should-be-charged-fatal-rust-shooting

There's a video with an attorney on that link. He said that it's unlikely Alec will be convicted and he should not have been charged. He's the second attorney whom I've heard say the same thing.

[–] TerraFirma69 (1926) a year ago

Here's what Alec should have done: He knows he's going to be pointing this gun and pulling the trigger. He needs to ask the 'armor' (whut?) "is this safe, and how is it safe? Explain it to me, and show me. Let's take five minutes to make it clear to me and everyone else here how this is NOT going to hurt anyone."

It's that simple. He's an adult. He's been in movies with guns before, he can't reasonably be this oblivious without being flippant and ignorant to and past the point of negligence.

[–] BourbonKing (5636) a year ago

And if he did ask and the gun armor gave a thumbs up that all is good, you and the politically driven armchair lawers would just change the goal posts.

[–] Keelai (31975) a year ago

The director gave him the gun. Not the armorer.

I agree with your last paragraph. He knew the correct routine and not to point guns at anyone. There were also complaints on the set about how the guns and bullets were handled. Who was in charge of the set? Why wasn't he/she charged?

And who hired the armorer and why weren't more producers and directors charged? I believe more people should have been charged.

[–] emori (3096) a year ago

Honestly I dont think actors should be charged as it was not their job to check. Remember that its not only A-listers who shoot in movies. Its D-listers, extras etc. Remember any criminal movie. Those people have no idea and authority to check guns.

We have to see all charges. Maybe they do it because he was waving around gun and pushing trigger when situation didnt require it and then LIED about not putting trigger. It was rehearsal, he didnt need to shoot. But he took it out ans started playing.