The guns are supposed to be secured when the armorer isn't with them.
Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.
- Thread starter Kenny Phillips
- Start date
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
Not sure how that's relevant at this point.
It speaks to responsibility and the armorers failure to do her job. If she really wasn't securing the weapons when she wasn't around then I would expect that to be part of Alec's defense.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,827
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
You know for sure what the policy was for guns on-set? I don't work in the industry, so I'm not sure what typical procedure is, and what safeguards are usually in place when the primary armorer isn't available.
Pretty crummy defense. If I were a juror, that argument would sink him. Why would AB the actor be handling a gun without the armorer present, and why would AB the producer tolerate an armorer who didn't secure the guns?
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
For which she was already found guilty. As I said, I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point.
If Alec's lawyers can show that the responsibility was hers, that makes it harder to say it was his. Yes, multiple people can be culpable. But if the error was as fundamental as weapons laying around uncontrolled and that the reason armorers exist is because actors aren't SMEs then it's going to be very hard to get him convicted of anything. That she has already been convicted and, IIRC, given the max penalty is probably a note in favor of where the responsibility lays.
I guess you don't buy it, but the argument is that actors can't be trusted. That's why armorers exist.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
I take it you didn't follow the Armorer's trial very closely.
The union rule is that an armorer must be on set whenever a weapon is being used and it must be secured when it is not. Rust, IIRC, was at least partially a non-union set. But those rules will likely be pointed to as setting convention even if the union wasn't involved.
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, you and Lindberg making it about me is getting pretty old.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Whose union?
AEA. The actors union.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
My point is that you mis-state and misunderstand so many elements related to this that any conclusion or theory you provide is highly suspect. You then argue (from ignorance) whenever anyone tries to correct you.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
So armorers are responsible for following actors’ union rules, and actors are not?
No, I don't buy it, because you also told us...
AB the actor knows that rule, and AB the producer was responsible for ensuring the armorer was present whenever weapons were to be used.
Yes, that's likely an argument that the prosecution will make.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I can’t imagine a juror in their right mind accepting that argument.
Me neither, I think Alec is going to be acquitted. Though, given the judge throwing the book at the armorer, it wouldn't surprise me if he accepted a misdemeanor plea agreement if the prosecution puts it back on the table. That would be very practical compared to having a felony on his record and the side effects it brings with it.
Sounds more like an argument for the defense.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
I think we're talking past each other and that I read your note differently than intended.
I'm saying that I would expect the prosecution to present a case that because the union rules specific gun security, that Alec should have known better *even if* the armorer had failed at her job.
Though I suppose it's not "even if" anymore. She's been found guilty, so it's "even though".
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
So you ARE saying that it is not the responsibility of an actor to comply with the rules of the actors’ union.
I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation.
That doesn't mean I can't also guess what the prosecution will argue.
Apparently you're talking about the armorer's trial, which is over. I'm talking about AB's trial, which will be in July.
I'm talking about Alec's trial. I would expect the prosecution to bring the union rules in as evidence that he should have known better.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
And you avoid a direct question that has nothing to do with any of that.I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation.
That doesn't mean I can't also guess what the prosecution will argue.
Last edited:
I thought you were asking if it was the actors responsibility to follow union rules about guns. No?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes, I was, and you did not answer that question.
Sure, I did. You just didn't like it because it wasn't a "yes" or "no" answer.
What I said was, "I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation."
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I suspect ABs argument will be based around the same lack of English comprehension you’re exhibiting.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,574
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
But are they required to know anything about their own rules? I can know very little about printers, but if the rule is "Don't touch a printer," and I break that rule, my knowledge of printers is irrelevant.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Why can't across y be trusted? Is it because they tend to behave recklessly?
Hmmmm...... If they can't be trusted with firearms, why should we trust them with anything else?
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,711
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
I thought he was also a (executive) producer which means he had a lot more responsibility than just an actor reading some lines.
Another ad hominem. Gotta love PoA...
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I figure since you chose not to provide relevant answers, that relieves me of the responsibility of providing relevant discussion.
Yep. I'm guessing that's an argument the prosecution will use.
And the defense will likely counter that with something that points out that armorers exist for a reason, and it's not because actors can be trusted with weapons. And, further, even specialized staff, the armorer, wasn't enough in this case which demonstrates further that it's totally unreasonable to expect actors to know what to do.
Recklessly from ignorance, yes.
Yes, I expect the prosecution will make that argument also. And, if Alec does manage to get a plea deal, this line of argument will probably be the reason why he accepts it.