That is a fair argument. However if it can be shown independently that Baldwin was grossly negligent (that is a legal term) then he also becomes a cause of her death that might have been avoided if he wasn't so negligent. The armorer isn't then the sole cause of death. That is likely what the case against him will hinge on.
Baldwin the Producer made Ms. Gutierrez-Reed do two jobs in order to keep production costs down, 1) armorer and 2) props assistant. In movie biz, props assistant is like girl Friday officer worker but much more.
Baldwin, as Producer knew guys all day every day were goofing around on set, firing weapons with live rounds.
Baldwin, as Producer rushed the final scenes, day of fatal shooting because he wanted to get the shooting done while there was decent sunlight. I don't know what State of New Mexico has planned. His payment to victim's family is an admission of civil wrong doing. Let's see what the State has planned. Will State of NM make Ms. Gutierrez-Reed by the only one. Really?
Read about Dr. John Nash and Prisoner's Dilemma. If she never cooperated with law enforcement at time of shooting, she would not be in prison today. The only thing that convicted her were her statements on record.
“Why did you kill that lady? You killed that lady and got no jail time,” she said at one point, referring to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who was killed on the set of Baldwin’s movie “Rust” when a prop gun he was shooting wound up loaded with a live bullet.
Alec Baldwin’s scuffle with a loudmouthed anti-Israel agitator at a New York City coffee shop spilled out onto the sidewalk, new photos obtained by The Post show. An irate Baldwin, 66, was se…
Fair enough that Baldwin was negligent and could be convicted though it seems that if he was negligent enough to be convicted the armorer should have been found not guilty due to being overburdened and being a victim of a non-safety culture established by Baldwin. I still am unsure how reasonably both can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt for the same crime when they had totally different roles.
Fair enough that Baldwin was negligent and could be convicted though it seems that if he was negligent enough to be convicted the armorer should have been found not guilty due to being overburdened and being a victim of a non-safety culture established by Baldwin. I still am unsure how reasonably both can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt for the same crime when they had totally different roles.
They could each convicted if they can be shown to a) have played a causative role in the victim's death and b) broke the law while doing so. The part played by the armorer was in failing to observe necessary safety procedures that were her responsibility. She has been found guilty for that. Baldwin could be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he is proven to be grossly negligent in his own conduct, which relates particularly to his handling of the weapon on the set. He isn't exonerated simply by the fact of the armorer's guilt. He was part of the causative chain in the victim's death. If he was grossly negligent he also becomes liable for her death. Gross negligence, however, is quite a high bar.
I don't necessarily like Baldwin. He seems like a rude narcissist. But no one deserves this kind of harassment. It should be illegal. Free speech should not cover this kind of thing. What a debased human. We need laws against this kind of stalking and harassment.
"It wasn't his gun. It was a stage prop that an assistant director assured him was "cold" i.e. safe. You are another moron."
Taken out of context.
It wasn't his gun. It was handed to him as a stage prop that he was assured was safe. So that is why the armorer has been found guilty, because she failed in her responsibility to ensure the weapon was unarmed and so the assurance given to Baldwin was wrong.
But you aren't interested in the arguments and what might actually happen but only in who is "wrong" or "right". That's because you are a jerk.
100 incorrect posts and now you change your position and get upset.
I haven't changed it. I argued he would never be charged with murder. He isn't. I doubted he would be charged at all - as many local legal experts (including a retired federal judge) also thought. It was a surprise to them as much to me when charges were brought of involuntary manslaughter. However, given that is now the case my interest has been in ascertaining how that will likely play out legally and why the conviction of the armorer won't necessarily let him off the hook. That said, a conviction against Baldwin is not a foregone conclusion. But anything might happen in a courtroom with a jury.
Can a real lawyer out there tell me how Baldwin can be convicted of a crime where someone else has previously been convicted for the same crime? Seems to me all Baldwin's lawyer needs to show is that if the armorer had done her job then no death would have happened.
That is a fair argument. However if it can be shown independently that Baldwin was grossly negligent (that is a legal term) then he also becomes a cause of her death that might have been avoided if he wasn't so negligent. The armorer isn't then the sole cause of death. That is likely what the case against him will hinge on.
His gross negligence was pointing the gun directly at the camera to get the "shot". In movies you see a "fake" shot using a fake gun which producer Baldwin decided didn't look right. Most times you don't see a gun fired directly at the camera, because there is not "artist" need for that. He also decided a CG edit was not in his budget ... he wasn't going to use his money for that. . . . He is the one who demanded using a real gun to get the shot "right" and save him the cost of CG. He wasn't supposed to fire directly at the camera, but he did for the artistic "effect." ... He will be forced to pay a lot more for his artistic blunder that he would have using an unloaded, plugged gun with CGI used to get the "shot."
Alec Baldwin won a victory in his court battle with a man who claims the actor punched him during a fight over a parking spot — when a judge Thursday tossed one of the charges against Baldwin.
That is a fair argument. However if it can be shown independently that Baldwin was grossly negligent (that is a legal term) then he also becomes a cause of her death that might have been avoided if he wasn't so negligent. The armorer isn't then the sole cause of death. That is likely what the case against him will hinge on.
His gross negligence was pointing the gun directly at the camera to get the "shot". In movies you see a "fake" shot using a fake gun which producer Baldwin decided didn't look right. Most times you don't see a gun fired directly at the camera, because there is not "artist" need for that. He also decided a CG edit was not in his budget ... he wasn't going to use his money for that. . . . He is the one who demanded using a real gun to get the shot "right" and save him the cost of CG. He wasn't supposed to fire directly at the camera, but he did for the artistic "effect." ... He will be forced to pay a lot more for his artistic blunder that he would have using an unloaded, plugged gun with CGI used to get the "shot."
That may be argued but I think it will be a bit more complicated than that.