Opening statements were made Wednesday in the involuntary manslaughter trial for actor Alec Baldwin, with prosecutors showing body cam videos of first-responders at the scene and painting Baldwin as a reckless person with little care for safe gun handling.
“The defendant takes [the gun] out quickly the first time pointed—and you will hear witness testimony who will tell you the first time he does it his finger is on or around the trigger,” Special Prosecutor Erlinda Johnson told the jury. “He does it again. Takes it out very fast, points it, and once again you will hear testimony that his finger was on or around the trigger. And the evidence will show that that third and fatal time, he takes it out once again, fast, cocks the hammer, pointed straight at Mrs. Hutchins and fires that gun.”
Johnson further told jurors: “It’s simple, straightforward. The evidence will show that someone who played make believe with a real gun and violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety is the defendant, Alexander Baldwin.”
Defense attorneys, on the other hand, blamed the shooting on the armorer on the set, saying Baldwin should be found innocent. In fact, they said he had no idea there was live ammunition anywhere around.
“This was an unspeakable tragedy,” attorney Alex Spiro told the jury. “But Alec Baldwin committed no crime. He was an actor. Actor playing the role of Harlan Rust. An actor playing a character can act in ways that are lethal, that just aren’t lethal on a movie set. These cardinal rules, they’re not cardinal rules on a movie set.
Spiro focused much of his argument on a number of questions that have yet been answered, including why the live bullet was even on the set, why the armorer placed it in the gun and why the head of safety didn’t notice it.
“None of it speaks to whether Alec knew or should have known those things,” Spiro said. “He didn’t. No one on that set did. It was not foreseeable.”
Baldwin is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the shooting of Hutchins, a charge the movie’s armorer, Hanna Guiterrez-Reed, was found guilty of back in March and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Hutchins was killed in October 2021 when Baldwin pointed a “prop gun” at Hutchins and pulled the trigger. The shot also injured the film’s director, Joel Souza.
Baldwin has said the gun fired accidentally after he followed instructions to point it toward Hutchins, who was behind the camera. Baldwin said he was unaware the gun contained a live round and that he pulled back the hammer—not the trigger—and the gun fired.
Also on Wednesday, Baldwin’s attorney questioned the first witness in the case, Nicholas LeFleur, a former Santa Fe County Sheriff who arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting. Answering the attorney’s questions about whether he perceived the shooting had been intentional, LeFleur said, “I wouldn’t say there was no intention. I don’t know the individual’s intentions, but his demeanor was sad. Upset.”
The trial will continue on Thursday with more witnesses set to be called to the stand. If convicted of the charge, Baldwin could face up to 18 months in prison, the same sentence handed to Guiterrez-Reed.
Blame the armorer is what incompetent azzhats do. There he was fiddling around pointing the gun here and there and didn’t think to take the 5 seconds it takes to verify a revolver safe before pointing it at a woman target and pulling the trigger…pathetic.
“Earning $85 an hour from home sounds like a dream! How do you manage your time effectively between day and evening shifts? It must be a rewarding yet challenging experience! ” Explore the cutting-edge strategies that redefine success”
Here ➜➜➜➜➜ https://conservativeglobe0.blogspot.com
how do you recommend actors verify the safety of a gun loaded with realistic looking ammunition? seems more logical and effective to rely on the armorers to provide safe movie props to the actors because that is the job of the armorer. the job of the actor is to point the prop at a human being and pull the trigger.
fpppf…Knowing YOU are going to point a firearm at some innocent individual and if YOU were the kind of person who weighs the what-ifs YOU first use your eyeballs and spend a few seconds looking for a Big Fat lead projectile or point it at yourself and pull the trigger. When you go into a Gun Store and look at a firearm do you stand there like a dumbfuk and take it for granted the weapon is safe because there are Gunsmiths and counter personnel all around? The best thing for azzhats like you to do is sit down, stfu and learn something that might save another person and keep you out of court, jail and from making dumbfuk lame excuses.
you nailed it
here’s the deal is that on set they called it a prop gun which means it’s not firearm. if this was a military range and someone got shot because there was a mix of live and say Sim rounds the RSO of the range would be in trouble and not the person handed a magazine with one live round in it.
i’m sorry i just can’t understand what you are trying to say lol! point the gun at yourself and pull trigger to see if loaded on a movie set??? okay deb go for it lol!!
“how do you recommend actors verify the safety of a gun loaded with realistic looking ammunition?”
Simple – The actor opens the action, empties the rounds out, inspects each round for a hole drilled through the side of the cartridge case, then shakes each round to see if they can feel-hear the sensation of a ball-bearing rattling around inside the cartridge case. The actor can then peer down the barrel to see if anything is obstructing the barrel (If that were done on the set of ‘The Crow’, Brandon Lee would still be alive)…
Especially in a work environment like a movie set, safety is EVERYONE’S responsibility on that set. You can trust, but verify things are as they should be…
It’s not pathetic – it’s New Mexico!
I live there, a stupid, corrupt, crime ridden $h!t #o!e.
He’ll get away with just a token fine and no jail time – Soros won’t
allow one of his pet anti gunners put away.
They’ll argue the armorer is the guilty one and she’s in jail already, so nothing to see here and
leave poor Alex alone (you bullies).
As I stated in yesterdays post above – nothin’ gonna happen to the golden liberal anti gun guy. Didn’t even get the token $5K fine. New Mexico is a place to be avoided if you are not one of the elites.
Defend your life if you are attacked and they will hang you if you aren’t ‘connected’. Have to protect yourself or a loved one from a so called ‘new commer’ and expect to get slapped as a hate crime added to your jail time.
What an ugly corrupt place thia has become.
“I didn’t know it was loaded!” and “It just went off!” is not a defense.
It doesn’t work to get you out of a child support obligation.
It most certainly doesn’t work to get you out of criminal responsibility either.
The burden of proof is even higher in criminal court.
if his armorer didn’t have an email sent to everyone after the last incident she is a moron. Also, i would be recalling any training course he took if I were the prosecution
“Also, i would be recalling any training course he took if I were the prosecution”
The prosecutor has witnesses who observed that training, and how Baldwin was inattentive during that training…
Baldwin’s irrational hatred of all things guns and those of us who own them is the exact reason this happened. He simply couldn’t bring himself to take a safety course and thus violated all 4 rules. He continues to blame everyone and everything other than himself. Not one single one of us would ever accept a gun without personally verifying its condition. That simple lesson is clearly beyond his capability to accept. I think it should be first degree murder.
I must update my thread.
Actor Alec Baldwin, a gun control activist who shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza with a live round from a gun during filming of the movie “Rust,” is the son of a high school riflery coach.
Baldwin’s father, Alexander Rae Baldwin, Jr., who died at the age of 55 in 1983, “was an expert marksman in riflery” who was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps.
Which makes his crime all that much worse.
let’s take a step back and think about all the different types of firearms used in movies. it’s unreasonable to expect the actors to be proficient in all those arms and ensuring the safe condition. that’s the job of the armorer. sure, armorers could teach actors the 4 rules of firearm safety but what is the point when they are, by definition, going to violate all those rules when filming a scene where they are pretending to shoot someone?ensuring the firearms are in a safe condition on a movie set is the job of the armorer. if an armorer hands the actor a loaded gun and says the rounds are inert the actor will have to trust that armorer. what else can the actor do if the scene calls for pointing that firearm at a person and pulling the trigger? actors by definition repeatedly violate all real world firearm safety rules. i don’t like baldwin’s ideas about gun rights but he will be acquitted.
As the shooter maybe but as the chief executive on this movie set who repeatedly bullied the armorer, made it impossible to do her job safely and.correctly, and dismissed her from the set at the time of this incident and by rights took.over that responsibility himself that changes everything. Baldwin was not just “some actor doing what he was told by the armorer.” He was in charge of this shit show and must take responsibility when that shit hit the fan under his watch.
Guilty.
good points, tesla. that all makes sense holding the producer responsible. lots of comments here attack him as an actor and i believe that is misplaced. if he had control over the armorer he could be culpable through doctrine of vicarious liability.
I can’t remember who it was (possibly Ian Runkle?). But I remember one commentator making the — valid — point that AB has a huge problem here.
Normally in these kinds of things the low-level person (in this case, actor) and the high-level person (in this case, executive producer) kind of point the fingers at each other. Bad policies/inadequate procedures/lax enforcement vs. lazy employee/didn’t follow rules/you were the one holding the gun.
In this case AB is literally both of those people. So that makes it really hard for him to escape responsibility.
Pointing fingers at the already-convicted armorer is just about all he’s got. It’s not a terrible strategy, actually.
I still think he’s going to jail for 18 months.
” if an armorer hands the actor a loaded gun and says the rounds are inert the actor will have to trust that armorer.”
Wrong, there were actors on that movie set who personally checked the guns that were handed to them before their scenes.
Baldwin couldn’t be bothered to take less that one minuet of his precious time to check for himself the gun he was handed had no live ammunition in it. His blatant disregard for the safety of others is why he is currently on trial in a criminal court.
Hopefully, the jury will find his arrogant, self-serving ass guilty of murder and send him to the gray-bar motel to get his anus reamed out on an hourly basis by an angry man who remembered all the hateful things he has said in the past about gun owners… 😉
“without personally verifying its condition“
So how would he tell the difference between a dummy round that has a realistic projectile in the case, designed to look exactly like a live round for camera close-ups of the firearm and an actual live round?
You take each round out and shake it. Dummy rounds have a BB in them. When my LGS hands me a gun he checks and shows me the chamber is empty. When I receive the gun from him it is never pointed at him or anyone else in the store. And if you want to pull the trigger you do it in a safe direction.
again, those are great armorer tactics but make no sense for actor protocols. it would be weird if an actor is live on set emptying the magazines and trying to shake each round to figure out the status. much more logical and effective to put this on the armorer, which is his job. plus the idea of safe director and finger off trigger does not apply to a movie set where the scene may call for pointing a firearm at a human being and pulling the trigger.
That may very well be the case.
But the actors still aren’t supposed to actually point he guns at anyone. Even blanks are dangerous.
The camera guys work the angles to make it look right, but if proper protocols are followed you should a) not be within 5 miles of a live round AND b) be fully capable of shooting the entire movie with nothing but live rounds, and still no one gets hurt.
Yes it’s possible. No laws of physics need to be broken.
“So how would he tell the difference between a dummy round that has a realistic projectile in the case, designed to look exactly like a live round for camera close-ups of the firearm and an actual live round?”
Simple – The actor opens the action, empties the rounds out, inspects each round for a hole drilled through the side of the cartridge case, then shakes each round to see if they can feel-hear the sensation of a ball-bearing rattling around inside the cartridge case. The actor can then peer down the barrel to see if anything is obstructing the barrel (If that were done on the set of ‘The Crow’, Brandon Lee would still be alive)…
Especially in a work environment like a movie set, safety is EVERYONE’S responsibility on that set. You can trust, but verify things are as they should be.
Other actors took that time, Baldwin didn’t…
Alec Baldwin admitted he cocked the hammer but denied pulling the trigger.
He was told to draw and point and he was not told to cock the hammer or pull the trigger.
Had he merely followed stage directions the tragedy would not have happened.
The article said he pulled it 2 times without incident, but the 3rd time he cocked the hammer and if he had his finger on the trigger as reported in the first 2 draws, then it is easily deduced as to why the gun fired.
He clearly established a habit of placing a finger on the trigger and there is no reason he did not do so on the 3rd draw. It is simple mechanics/physics for when he pulled the gun the 3rd time the extra pressure to cock the hammer was made easier with the finger on the trigger.
Regardless of how the court ruled, Knowing I was holding the gun would make the rest of my life miserable working on my conscious the rest of my days.
“He was told to draw and point and he was not told to cock the hammer or pull the trigger.” do you have a source for this assertion? if so, the prosecutors case is a bit stronger.
fppf, I know my point was based on assumption. To me it doesn’t make sense for a director etc to instruct an actor to cock or pull the trigger since that is a natural action/function. But, during a rehearsal the direction of “draw the gun” would not mean draw, cock and pull the trigger depending on the sequence of the scene at the time. Checking for position of pointing does not mean a cock of the hammer or pull of the trigger is necessary. The prosecution has a point of argument if they can illustrate that the direction was to simply draw and point. Assuming the first 2 draws did not call for the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled then what was the rational behind Mr Baldwin cocking the hammer and having his finger on the trigger with emphasis more on cocking the hammer since he denied pulling the trigger.
To answer your question, no I do not have a source; however, it seems the prosecution could question those on set and find someone who heard the commands. Plus if a protocol could be established as to how things are done as they relate to directions spoken to actors, even though history of past actions on sets does not prove what happened on the Rust set it would establish perhaps a standard procedure. As I tried to explain earlier the scene would dictate what the actor actually did upon drawing the gun. There are scenes where guns are drawn and not fired. If this was a scene called for the gun to be fired, it seems totally unnecessary for the direction to be draw, cock, shoot since the actions in a scene dictate the actions of the actors including shooting etc E.g., the director surely would not say to an actor: open the door, walk in the room, approach the lady on the sofa etc This is speculation on my part for I have never worked on a movie set and am only making comments as to what may or may not have happened. The entire event is sad to say the least.
“however, it seems the prosecution could question those on set and find someone who heard the commands.”
There’s video evidence on the set of the boss, Baldwin, yelling at crew to hurry up and reload, time is wasting.
Sounds to me like Baldwin got exactly what he asked for, and is now about to pay for it…
No, not really. He said he had his thumb on the hammer and just released it. Based on the FBI inspection and testing, just releasing the hammer will not cause it to fall; the gun remains cocked. The gun was in perfect working condition. Therefore it seems he did not lower the hammer, for one (which would have prevented firing), and for two, you can’t lower the hammer on an 1873 Colt without pulling the trigger. The trigger pull on these guns is very light, especially when you take the pressure off the sear by holding the hammer back (and is probably why he believes he did not pull the trigger).
“The trigger pull on these guns is very light, especially when you take the pressure off the sear by holding the hammer back (and is probably why he believes he did not pull the trigger).“
Correct.
It will come down to the question if Baldwin was justified and reasonable in his ‘reliance’ upon the expert the production company had hired to ensure the firearms were safe on set.
Even in a scene where an actor is shooting at someone, the direction the gun is supposed to be pointing is not directly at the other other actor, for safety reasons.
What they were doing is called ‘blocking’ the camera shot, planning where the actors would be located, and what they would be doing. He wasn’t pointing the gun directly at the camera, he was aiming off to one side of the camera lens.
That happened to be where the cinematographer was standing.
Even if the shot didn’t kill her, she would be in a wheelchair for life, as the wound channel passed through her spinal cord.
Other actors on that set personally checked the guns they were handed, Baldwin couldn’t be bothered.
And a beautiful young woman is dead because of it… 🙁
I hope I’m wrong but he will probably walk. The armor judge said she alone was responsible for the tragedy, along with getting crucial evidence not being admitted. Wonder how much money this is costing him, I’d like to see attorney bill.
If it was a suicide rehearsal would he have checked the gun then?
what exactly does it mean to check a movie set gun? they may be loaded with dummy rounds that look exactly like live ammunition. if the scene calls for pointing that gun (which is loaded with what the actor is told are dummy rounds), at another human being and pulling the trigger that is what the actor must do. how would the actor verify the fake realistic rounds are actually live rounds? such movie set safety protocols reside with the armorer.
Fake rounds with bullets have no primers and/or they rattle when shaken because they have little pellets inside instead of powder. Some dummy rounds have wax plugs instead of bullets; these are often not used with revolvers in shots where you see the front of the cylinder, but are often used where there is a shootout and they want to show the gun powder smoke. So to answer the question, it is very easy to check rounds.
“Fake rounds with bullets have no primers and/or they rattle when shaken“
Has evidence or testimony been presented to substantiate that statement or is that just speculation on your part regarding the dummy rounds on the ‘Rust’ set?
“Has evidence or testimony been presented to substantiate that statement or is that just speculation on your part regarding the dummy rounds on the ‘Rust’ set?”
That’s a movie set industry standard, no gunpowder, a hole drilled through the side of the metallic case so pressure cannot build up to drive the bullet out of the barrel.
When loaded in a revolver, you cannot see the hole in the side of the case or the primer, all that can be seen is the bullet seated in the cartridge case…
Oh, lookie here!!! Our fake liar, MajorLiar, has decided to take a break from trying to defend his senile pedophile of a mumbling moron of a pResident, and instead flex his . . . complete lack of knowledge of law, firearms, and Hollywood!!! (*snort, chortle, guffaw*).
MajorMistake, in addition to common sense (a quality of which you are wholly devoid) Hollywood actually has long-standing, published, and well-known procedures and standards for on-set safety in handling firearms (the various guilds, including but not limited to SAG-AFTRA, the Director’s Guild, etc. publish and regularly update these . . . you complete moron).
Now, “Rust” was a ‘non-Union’ production (which is further proof of Alec Baldwin’s COMPLETE hypocristy; he is a long-time member of both SAG-AFTRA, AND the Director’s Guild, so shouldn’t be DOING ‘non-Union productions’ – but apparently his profits are more important than his principles. Kinda like you, eh???), but there is this legal concept called ‘standard of care’ or ‘standard of practice’ or ‘best practices’. Even a non-Union production follows such standards, because failure to do so becomes prima facie proof of at least negligence, if not gross negligence.
Alec the @$$hole was both an actor AND a producer, AND a Guild member (two different Guilds, at least) . . . and apparently cut corners, for the sake of his budget. He’s a negligent, arrogant moron (again, like unto you!! Strange, innit, how you Leftist/fascists are alike in your lack of principles???), how was LEGALLY responsible (as a producer) for on-set safety. He is allowed to DELEGATE some of those functions (to, for example, the on-set armorer), but he REMAINS responsible for the reasonableness of that delegation, and for exercising reasonable diligence to insure that the persons to whom he delegates those direct responsibilities are ALSO exercising reasonable diligence, capisce????
We already know you are an ignorant moron; no need to prove it again. But I guess, compared to continuing to carry water for your Senile Pedophile, it probably looks easier to carry water for one of your idiot Hollywood leftists.
Does it ever embarrass you to continue to confidently argue the most errant idiocy as if it were revealed truth?? Or nah?? Or maybe, hard as this is to believe, you really ARE as stupid as your posts. Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s been reported that they were known to have been shooting off-set but on the leased property, even though the lease forbade
live shooting due to proximity to livestock (it was working ranch/rangeland).
Are you gonna tellme the executive producer living in a trailer on set was unaware that there was any of this going on under his stuck in the air nose?
But yeah, he’s probably going to walk.
those facts make the prosecutors case stronger if there evidence baldwin knew or should have known there was live ammunition on set that was shot from movie prop guns on set. do you have a source for this claim?
Variety, CNN, US News, trial transcripts from armorers trial, testimony from armorer’s father, need we go further?
And what does your new “fppf” moniker stand for, Miner ?
“And what does your new “fppf” moniker stand for, Miner ?“
Gosh darn it, you got me!
All right, I’ll tell ya, FPPF stands for…
Federation of Philippine Photographers Foundation
Oh, I would have sworn it was “Fifth Persona of Fake Poster”
Oops, my bad, vlad, dacian, jsled, miner….. fppf
…Fucking Phony Posting Flatulance
The responsibility lies with the person who loaded the gun…period.
So, in this case, the responsibility belongs to the armorer…who is in charge of all things related to firearms on movie sets INCLUDING making sure actors are following safety guidelines. Blanks and live ammo look very different and it’s impossible for anyone with more than 2 working brain cells to confuse the two. She screwed up…big time.
“Blanks and live ammo look very different“
It was different from a blank, it was a dummy round designed to look real for camera close-ups of the firearm. If you watch the video of an earlier rehearsal, the frame is filled with the firearm and Baldwin’s face, if there were wax loaded blanks in the cylinder it would’ve been obvious to the camera.
Blanks are not loaded with wax…if they were, the wax would be a dagerous,if not dealy, projectile. With blanks. The end of the case is crimped…making it look very different from live ammo.
In the case of dummy rounds used in movies/TV…those are made from previously fired brass. So they basically a rubber bullet in an empty case with a clearly dented primer…again easily distinguishable from live ammo in both appearance and weight.
The armorer is the person on the movie the movie set that oversees all things related to firearms…including insuring there is no live ammo on set and loading weapons appropriately for each scene.
The armorer failed to do their job…end of story.
No rubber bullet, a real bullet seated in the case, that has a hole drilled through the side of the case so pressure cannot build up…
I have been saying from the onset that the defense is going to argue that actors are paid to act in and it is not their responsibility to check every thing. Mere speculation, but one would think that even though they may not be required to check things that they would want to be alert as it pertains to their safety and others. Hence, even though the armorer’s job description is different than the actor’s it does stand to reason that a responsible actor would “make sure” things are safe especially a deadly weapon…..gun.
The prosecutor should check the actual scene and determine what actions were required of the actors.
baldwin was not just an actor in this movie. He was management as well. He was responsible for all aspects of this film, including the armorer.
Ah NO Hush! Alec Baldwin was the executive producer. HE was responsible for everything that went on including hiring an inept,high & careless gal as Armorer. My wife still has a SAG card & corroborated my statement. Unless one understands that basic fact all this speculation is moot🙄
@jwm and former water walker: Yes of course and I know Alec Baldwin was the Executive Producer. My comments were meant to be taken as his actions relate to an actor only. At the time he was functioning as an actor, but that, in my view, does not relieve him from responsibilities relating to safety. His responsibility certainly extends to the entire production.
We are all in agreement and I apologize for a lack of clarity in my comments.
“HE was responsible for everything that went on including hiring“
So you believe Alec Baldwin read the applications/resumes and conducted the interviews of all the employees of the production company?
Interesting position.
There is no doubt the production company is civilly liable for the damages and injuries, but here again Alec Baldwin was ‘relying’ on those who put themselves forward as an ‘expert’ and accepted compensation based on their claims of expertise.
Yes as “the management” on the set, yes I’m sure he read everything. That involved him signing the checks. That paid for everything involved in producing his film.
“That involved him signing the checks. That paid for everything involved in producing his film“
So he signed all the payroll checks?
And all the hiring and firing?
And was the main actor, with dialog in every scene?
Busy guy.
MajorMistake,
Dude, sit down. You’re embarrassing yourself (or would be, if you were capable of embarrassment). Google ‘respondeat superior’, and do a little research on the doctrine of executive responsibility. YES, you total moron, ONE of the risks you run, for the (questionable) privilege of being a producer or executive producer is that you DO become responsible, overall, for what happens on-set. Do producers often delegate, for example, interviewing and hiring actors, or armorers, or stunt men, or extras? Oh, HELL to the YEAH! But they REMAIN legally responsible, you complete, drooling quarter-wit.
(*SMDH*) Sit down, MajorMistake; you’re drunk and stupid.
“I have been saying from the onset that the defense is going to argue that actors are paid to act in and it is not their responsibility to check every thing.”
That’s what they will argue, but the video evidence of Baldwin being a demanding asshole on the set telling everyone to hurry up and reload to run the scene again is going to be very problematic to overlook by the jury.
Baldwin was the boss, and ultimately responsible for the production.
A beautiful young woman is dead because Baldwin couldn’t be bothered to do what many other actors on that set did, checking for themselves what was loaded in their guns.
If I were Baldwin, I’d be scared shitless karma was about to bite him in ass bigtime in state prison.
He better watch the teeth when blowing his new cellmate… 😉
It’s sad that a great actor is encumbered by this matter and unable to participate in the betrayal of his president.
Nor portray the next president on SNL.
This situation reminds me of the final episode of the Perry Mason television series. In Episode 271, THE CASE OF THE FINAL FADE OUT, a fatal shooting occurs during the filming of a television show. The shooting is allegedly with one of the prop guns. Jackie Coogan, aka “Uncle Fester”, is the prop master and therefore a suspect. I don’t recall who the guilty party is. However; someone exploited the opportunity to commit murder with a firearm hoping that it would be mistaken for an accident.
While the property master of the RUST production is a drug addict, she wasn’t the person who pulled the trigger. She isn’t even the last person to handle the gun before Alec Baldwin got a hold of it. Did anyone have any motivation to murder the deceased woman?
This episode is a treat because Earl Stanley Gardner played the judge
“…she wasn’t the person who pulled the trigger.”
It was her armorer’s cart where live ammo was found, she holds some responsibility, if not the majority of the blame. She’s in state prison for the next year-plus for her part.
Baldwin was the boss. The buck stops with him. All he had to do was to do was what many other actors on that set did, check for himself.
But, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I look forward to someone answering the question. “How did live ammunition get on onto a movie set???”
And why did “management”, that is Alec Baldwin, allow live ammo to get on HIS MOVIE SET, and then stay on the set once he discovered it???
then stay on the set once he discovered it???“
When did Baldwin discover there was live ammo on the set before the ND?
And for some reason prosecutors cant tell the jury he was the producer and boss. But they all know it already i am sure.
At some point it will come out Alex didnt attend safety classes or listen to advice. It comes down to responsibility.
“And for some reason prosecutors cant tell the jury he was the producer and boss. But they all know it already i am sure.”
They can’t not know it, even if they are told to ignore it. The jury pool is local, and this has been heavy in the local news cycle since it happened. Including the picture of the dead woman.
So that will be in the corners of their minds in jury room, and motivate them to hold him accountable for her family’s loss… 😉
I’ve sat through 2 days. Baldwin’s team is going on and on about the scene, the body cam videos and basically putting the cops on trial.
it’s a typical trial of words and motions. In the end it comes down to was he responsible or not. I think it possible the jury may hold him liable.
Us regular folk would be convicted.
‘Us regular folk’ can’t afford the fortune he is now paying to defend him in that courtroom.
When the facts aren’t on your side (he was holding the gun that murdered her), you deflect as much blame as possible and try and confuse the issue in the minds of the jury.
I’m hopeful the jury will see through that and do the right thing…
Yep, dropping the hammer on a real person using a real gun is just plain criminal. If you are too unfamiliar with handling a real gun to safely use it, spend the money to buy or rent a look-a-like. These are commonly owned by Hollywood prop companies and rented out for use by felons who work in the film industry and aren’t allowed to touch a real gun or ammo.