https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2023-10-17/prosecutors-aim-to-recharge-alec-baldwin-with-involuntary-manslaughter-nbc-news
It's probably felt, because of the situation, he needs SOME TYPE of punishment - and the victim some type of justice - for what occurred. I agree.
Hopefully 700 celebrities will sign a letter in his behalf!
Star belong on the silver screen where they can shine and provide entertainment.
Waste of time and prosecutorial grandstanding. No chance for conviction.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I'm sure he doesn't appreciate it. I'm sure it's causing him expense and headache that, at the very least, he deserves for his cavalier attitude about this woman's death. And if he's convicted, even better.
share
The more misery they heap on that asshole the better IMO, but I don't like the waste of public resources just to torment him for a conviction they'll never get.
I think they might this time. We'll see soon enough.
shareThe problem with a conviction is that if they have one person like me on the jury, they won't get it.
I hate this pompous asshole - he's got no redeeming qualities whatsoever - but I just can't convict a guy who's handed a weapon declared safe to handle by a person specifically hired to ensure that just because I hate him.
All you need is one on the jury. I just can't let my personal feelings for this douche make me do something I know in my heart is wrong.
What I do hope is that he pays in some not insignificant way under legal "strict liability" where he's a producer on this film and a person died making his film.
No chance, no, they have more than a strong case against Alec now.
It has been established that the trigger had to have been pulled, no ifs ands or butts…, I give it a 50/50 chance he’s convicted.
It wouldn't matter even if he admitted he pulled the trigger. No conviction.
EDIT: Well, no conviction on the actual accident anyway. They might get him as a producer who hired the incompetent boob as an armorer, but even manslaughter is a tough get for a producer.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how this thing plays out though.
shareSo is this based on a review of the existing evidence, or on some 'devastating new evidence'? Either way, I won't be holding my breath for a conviction.
shareBoth, in that it wasn’t certain that the trigger had to be pulled in the initial charges, which is why they dropped them. Now that it has been established as a certainty, they have a strong case against him, which is why they’ve recharged him.
I give it a 50/50 that he’s convicted.
He's guilty of stupidity, ignorance, incompetence, negligence, and arrogance that resulted in a pointless death. One way or another, he needs to pay something significant in loss of freedom or loss of money. Even when there's a professional armorer present, it's the responsibility of every individual who handles a gun to determine for himself whether or not it's loaded, and to not point it in the direction of other people.
shareI agree 100%
share".. it's the responsibility of every individual who handles a gun to determine for himself whether or not it's loaded.. "
It's not though. Not on a movie set where an actor is handed a gun cleared by two people for a movie stunt where all sorts of real-world safety rules are broken as a matter of movie making. If you want to make a law that puts responsibility and requires gun safety for actors, fine.
Better yet, get all guns off set - no armorer required.
"It's not though. "
Well , we went round and round that merry-go-round back when the event happened, all the gun fans , keen to show off how well trained they are , and how safe guns are if only people followed a few simple rules , were adamant that:
"All Gun Handling Rules Must Be followed On a movie set exactly as they would be outside of one"
My counter position that this is not only impractical but impossible was met with derision.
This is a good summary of what I read back then. Your post cut to the heart of that debate and you and strntzey were on the winning side in my opinion
shareWell his excuses were just not believable. so, he's going to have answer some questions..
shareI am the farthest thing from a fan of Alec Baldwin but there is no way he could think that one of the rounds loaded into his gun would be a live round. Why would he?
shareHe wouldn't. Accidents happen. Stunt people have been seriously injured and have died making movies. Humans are, well, human.
What they should do is not allow real weapons on sets at all. Even if they modified real weapons to not fire by blocking the bore or removing the innards, a real gun can make its way onto a set by accident and end up on the "cleared" weapons table. The guns on the Rust set were declared cold before they were handed to the actors - one unfortunately was not.
They should use 3D printed weapons. They will look just as real on "film" as the real thing but weigh virtually nothing. Even an inexperienced actor will know they're not holding a resin gun if handed a real weapon.
Still, the thought of this keeping that POS Baldwin up at nights is quite satisfying..
I hope he is, because he should be.
🤔
"I hope he is, because he should be."
Why? What you hope for is not relevant in a court of law. If you like or don't like Alec Baldwin is not relevant either.
It was a tragic accident.
Whether he pulled the rigger or not does not seem important. Perhaps because he said he did not pull the trigger. That could just be his faulty memory of an extremely upsetting incident.
He has been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Let's see what happens.