Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Zeldman said:
Sounds good to me.!! I mean once during a race at a small 1/4 mile dirt track in Killeen, TX I intentionally spun the car to the infield to avoid a wreck. The right rear tire peeled off the rim allowing the rim to dig into the dirt, rolling the car one full roll. If that tire had not let go I would have been fine. So yeah, that tire caused me to wreck... :lol:
Click to expand...
I was once so hooked up, after hammering down on corner exit the rear end ripped the whole top link mount out of the chassis. Had the tires been harder or I had less horsepower, I wouldn't have had to run the backup car. And Dad wouldn't have had to take the primary to the shop to fix it that night as we went straight from Wisconsin on Friday night to Kentucky Saturday.
 
This attorney is puzzled by Baldwin's choosing a law firm that specializes in civil cases.

 
Video of the judge dismissing the case, and explaining the reasons for doing so.

 
IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
Click to expand...
The judge mentions several times that jeopardy has already attached to the trial, and says that a mistrial was not possible because there was no 'manifest necessity'. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I assume that the prosecution doesn't get to have multiple bites at the apple because then they could keep trying this ****, and then if they get caught go "Whoops! Guess we'd better try again!"
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
Click to expand...
I too, am not a lawyer, but I believe that it's because of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy, i.e., "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." A lot of former prosecutors have been on TV lately, and from them I have learned that jeopardy "attaches" as soon as a jury is sworn in. That's why starting over again in a new trial is not an option.
 
Palmpilot said:
I too, am not a lawyer, but I believe that it's because of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy, i.e., "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." A lot of former prosecutors have been on TV lately, and from them I have learned that jeopardy "attaches" as soon as a jury is sworn in. That's why starting over again in a new trial is not an option.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer, either, but I don't really think this is a double jeopardy situation. The jury being sworn in is either here nor there. If the trial ends in a hung jury or the judge declares a mistrial, the original jurors are dismissed and the case is re-tried in front of a brand-new jury. No double jeopardy until a jury finds him or her guilty or not guilty.

I think this is more along the lines of the state operating in bad faith, and the concern is that the state is out to "get" the defendant regardless of the legal niceties. No way the defendant can be assured the state WON'T try something like that again, so the judge protects the defendant by dismissing the case with prejudice.

Still not a lawyer, but I am a bit appalled by the Special Prosecutor's actions. All they had to do is notify defendant's consul of the existence of this new evidence, and argue its applicability with the judge. It's like they were getting antsy and trying get things over with as quickly as possible.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Justice denied. However, the prosecution can appeal the dismissal. But I'm guessing they won't.
 
Unbelievable, I do agree with the judge’s decision based what she found out happened. The cop should fired, the prosecutor disbarred. Alec dodged a bullet.
 
There was a long article a few weeks ago in NYT basically saying the prosecutor had not intended to refile charges, but got angry at Baldwin for holding press conferences trying to rehabilitate his public image. If the prosecutor starts personalizing cases and making decisions for reasons other than dispassionate legal analysis, that is a recipe for failure and an amateur move. Local defense attorneys might not catch a dumb mistake but the out-of-town dream team will hang it around the prosecutor's neck.
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
Click to expand...
If the mistakes made were inadvertent, a dismissal without prejudice could have resulted in a new trial. The judge, however, ruled that the mistakes made were so egregious as to indicate an intentional violation of the rules of evidence sharing by the prosecution such that the remedy had to include punishment and the punishment was a dismissal with prejudice. I was not impressed with the evidence technician's testimony on the execution of the search warrant which, among other things, required her to collect any surveillance footage of the premises which she neglected to do. Additionally, she didn't bother to check every box of ammunition as if she had more important things to do which precluded her from doing her job. Taken together as a whole, the state did a **** poor job of investigation and intentionally hid evidence. The idiotic thing is the evidence that was hidden probably wouldn't have mattered or help the defense if it had been disclosed.
 
Witmo said:
Taken together as a whole, the state did a **** poor job of investigation and intentionally hid evidence. The idiotic thing is the evidence that was hidden probably wouldn't have mattered or help the defense if it had been disclosed.
Click to expand...

It does make you wonder.
 
I will be the voice of dissent (again), but what if the actor that pulled the trigger was dirt-poor Joe Unknown? Let's assume Alec Baldwin was only the producer, and another guy was handed a "cold gun" that should've been checked by the armorer? Would this level of attention and desire to have the man hang be present in that case? I suspect that wouldn't be the case.
I'm well aware Baldwin is not liked by this community (and a good part of the general public), for whatever reasons. But at the end of the day, he was on a set where guns were fired as part of the process to make the movie. He was handed a "cold gun" that should've been checked by two other people, one of which was specifically hired for thst purpose. His actions, while not to the standards of responsible gun owners handling live guns on a regular basis, were not the worst. Were live rounds even supposed to be present on the set? I don't think so, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
If I take my car from the dealer after a brake job, am I supposed to inspect every line and every bolt myself before I start driving? If the brakes fail and I kill a pedestrian, is that my fault because I didn't inspect the newly serviced brakes? Yes, maybe I should've exercised caution for the first few miles, but I had pros do that job for a reason.
I can see how an actor without a lot of real-life gun experience might let his guard down. Muscle memory could definitely kick in and pull the trigger without even realizing it (how many of you stick drivers stomped your left foot on the floor searching for that third pedal when you drove an automatic for the first time in a while?), because that's what would happen when the cameras were rolling. That gun was supposed to be cold, not even loaded with blanks. That was the armorer's job to ensure that, first and foremost. And I recall the assistant director was also supposed to check it. Two failures in a row.
Does Baldwin bear some level of fault as the producer? Despite the court's findings, I say he does. They had accidental discharges (of blanks, I think) on the set in the preceding days. Doesn't seem like there was any safety stand-down and tightening of safety processes. That's on him in my book. Was that not done because live rounds were not supposed to be on the set, so the perceived safety risk was lower?
 
AV8R_87 said:
I will be the voice of dissent (again), but what if the actor that pulled the trigger was dirt-poor Joe Unknown? Let's assume Alec Baldwin was only the producer, and another guy was handed a "cold gun" that should've been checked by the armorer? Would this level of attention and desire to have the man hang be present in that case? I suspect that wouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...
The original special prosecutor (a state legislator) sent an email to a friend speculating that conflicting Baldwin would improve her chances for re-election. She claimed to have been joking.

AV8R_87 said:
Does Baldwin bear some level of fault as the producer? Despite the court's findings, I say he does. They had accidental discharges (of blanks, I think) on the set in the preceding days. Doesn't seem like there was any safety stand-down and tightening of safety processes. That's on him in my book. Was that not done because live rounds were not supposed to be on the set, so the perceived safety risk was lower?
Click to expand...
There's no question that Baldwin and his production company are civilly liable for the death. The armorer's failure to keep live rounds out of the weapon, IMHO, does touch on criminal negligence. Otherwise, it does sound like the prosecutor's office was looking for publicity more than justice.

While I thought the charges against Baldwin were a stretch, I was looking forward to the trial to hear the actual conditions where the shot was fired. Rehearsal for a scene, or just playing around?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I was looking forward to the trial to hear the actual conditions where the shot was fired. Rehearsal for a scene, or just playing around?
Click to expand...
That is pretty well established. They were framing a shot, eg positioning everyone and working out their actions relative to the camera prior to filming (or recording, I suppose).

Baldwin's character is surprised and cornered in a church, sitting on a pew. His gun is holstered and 2 men are covering him. They are distracted by a noise. He pulls his gun and points it at them, getting the drop.

Baldwin repeatedly drew his gun and pointed it past the camera. The director and cinematographer were standing behind the camera, looking over the cameraman's shoulder to see how the scene looked on screen. The cameraman said Baldwin was “trying to explain how he was going to draw out the firearm and where his arm would be when the firearm was pulled from the holster."

Probably going for a shot like this:

baldwin.PNG

Or this:


baldwin red october.PNG
 
Regardless of the legalities involved, he was guilty of violating two rules with regard to safe handling of firearms that I learned as a youngster (decades ago). The first is that there is no such thing as an empty gun. The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. He may have skated from a legal point of view, but he is still guilty of mishandling a firearm and as a result an innocent person is dead.
 
Ghery said:
The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy
Click to expand...
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread already, but obviously that is not a rule for actors when following instruction. Not saying Baldwin acted appropriately in this instance, but that rule that I was also taught is not applicable to everyone.
john-wick-.jpg
 
Ghery said:
Regardless of the legalities involved, he was guilty of violating two rules with regard to safe handling of firearms that I learned as a youngster (decades ago). The first is that there is no such thing as an empty gun. The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. He may have skated from a legal point of view, but he is still guilty of mishandling a firearm and as a result an innocent person is dead.
Click to expand...

There are numerous professional situations where guns are pointed at people with no intent to shoot. I have personally done it hundreds of times. Proper control measures ensure the weapons used are in safe condition for such activity.

No human activity is 100% flawless. Mistakes are made, even by the most highly skilled weapons handlers.

seal role player.jpg
 
anyone ever hear of remote camera heads?
 
Bob Noel said:
anyone ever hear of remote camera heads?
Click to expand...

This was a low budget production.They didn't even pay the armorer to work through all the production days when firearms were being used. Some of the days she was paid as a prop assistant.
 
Ed Haywood said:
There are numerous professional situations where guns are pointed at people with no intent to shoot. I have personally done it hundreds of times. Proper control measures ensure the weapons used are in safe condition for such activity.

No human activity is 100% flawless. Mistakes are made, even by the most highly skilled weapons handlers.

View attachment 131337
Click to expand...
Holy ****, Baldwin is a SEAL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top