Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

Personally, I like Baldwin as an actor, but I also watched his interrogation and they did not ask him if he put the bullet in the gun and he was certainly someone who had privacy to do so. seems a bit odd to me. If that was Trump, or any of his supporters that would not only be asked, it would be assumed. so why did they not ask Baldwin?

What does Trump have to do with anything related to this case?

Baldwin has said that he didn’t know the gun was loaded. Given do you think his answer would be if asked whether or not he personally put a bullet in the gun? Use your noggin’.

Trump has nothing to do with, surprisingly you agree. it’s a point. Baldwin has a history, and I believe has been arrested before, for violent behavior. this isn’t Mary Poppins we are discussing. he also had the opportunity to privately slip a real bullet, ironically into the chamber, behind a closed door. then, he comes blasting out of the door, unscripted I might add, and blows someone away.

yet, he was never asked if he loaded the gun. I find that irresponsible by any investigator. he is a great actor, no doubt, did he put on a show of diversion to the female cops?

why was he not asked the question that virtually anybody in that situation would have been asked?

“Baldwin has said that he didn’t know the gun was loaded. Given this what do you think his answer would be if asked whether or not he personally put a bullet in the gun? Use your noggin’.”

I am the biggest supporter of Israel there is.

His answer would be the same answer everybody gives, innocent or guilty, when asked that question, but investigators still afk it. why? because body language is important

here is the other thing. he said that when he fired the gun it felt like a blank. that’s a blatant lie. ain’t nobody on earth who has fired a loaded .45, who says it felt like a blank. there’s a monster kick to that weapon, as you can see when he fires it. so why make that comment?

He said that he didn’t know the gun was loaded. That’s going even further than saying that he didn’t load the gun. He did answer your silly question, you just don’t understand that he did somehow.

Negative, he proactively offered that tidbit possibly in an effort to dodge being asked the question. it’s different psychologically when you are put on the spot, which is why every investigator would ask, except these. still doesn’t answer why he said he felt no kick?

Wrong. You can find multiple people guilty of the same crime. The armorer’s defense was it didn’t matter whether she loaded the wrong bullets, no death would have occurred if Baldwin wasn’t stupid and pointed a gun at someone, with the hammer pulled back, and with his finger on the trigger.

They probably already knew the armorer loaded the gun. Plus, Baldwin already admitted that he committed involuntary manslaughter during the interrogation.

- he said he knew it was a real gun

- he said he would never point a real gun at someone and pull the trigger because it is dangerous

- he did it anyways

Baldwin will have much better representation which by default will make the verdict uncertain. However, they showed some outtakes at trial of the fateful rehearsal and his finger was clearly on the trigger.

The facts and the law are pretty much stacked against Baldwin. Like saying goes, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if the law is in your side, pound the law. If neither, pound the table and Baldwin will have the best table pounders in the business.

Plausible, however, it still begs the question why Baldwin would say it felt like a cap gun. In no way does pulling the trigger on a loaded .45 feel like a cap gun. that thing would dang near kick right out of your hand if you thought you were shooting a cap gun. A lot of uncertainty unless he always has a firm hold. he is a big dude but a .45 is no joke

The law is on his side. The prosecutors would need to show gross negligence which they can't when the failure was chiefly that of the armorer, as the verdict against her confirms. Carelessness or mere negligence (not gross negligence) on his part would not be enough for criminal culpability because the system required the armorer ensure the gun was harmless and the director assured the set it was indeed so. He was entitled to rely on those safeguards. It is only if those processes were not in place that Baldwin's actions could be judged by a higher standard of care. To find him guilty of gross negligence would be to demand the same standard of care of that which was required of the armorer (and the director, who pleaded guilty), whose job it was to ensure the gun was safe. That isn't the job of an actor given a stage prop that he was assured was safe.

No, he very specifically said that he DIDN'T pull the trigger. You are well aware that he said that, but you decided to lie about it. Why did you decide to lie about what he said?

Give it up. You spent months claiming that you were positive that Baldwin would never be charged, making up all kinds of laws that you claimed backed you up. But you were wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And yet here you are, still making up things as if you're a legal expect, when you clearly are not.

I have made nothing up. Since you have not responded to any point I made it is apparent you have no idea how the law is applied in cases like these. If you did you could produce arguments with a basis in law but you don't and you can't. You should just wait for the verdict because that might be the only part you understand.

The law is most certainly not on Baldwin’s side. The “system” on set does not supersede state and local laws. There is no statute in New Mexico law that says Actors are absolved of handling guns without due care or circumspection.

Here’s New Mexico case law dealing with Involuntary Manslaughter with a Firearm :

State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). It’s a 70 year old case but it is still perfectly valid law unless superseded by another case or legislation, which it hasn’t been.

The relevant part for the Baldwin Case:

“It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted”

You have argued that previously and I referred to the comments of a former judge and legal experts who say it is going to be uphill for the prosecution to make Baldwin criminally culpable.

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm as a stage prop, are not directly analogous to the handling of a fire-arm in other settings. We have seen that the armorer and the director have both been found guilty for failing to observe the necessary duty of care that resulted in the camera woman's death. It was their job to ensure the gun wasn't loaded with real ammunition - which they failed to do - and the director assured the set, including Baldwin, that the firearm was harmless. Their failure was therefore determined to be the cause of death. If they had done their job the camera-woman wouldn't have died. If it is determined that Baldwin simply acted on their assurances, as he was entitled to do, then he is not culpable - unless his own actions are deemed to have been grossly negligent - "without due caution and circumspection", in other words. That will have to be proven.