>

Why is it that studios and productions continue to use real guns & blanks, even though they can be lethal? Is it just hard to procure non-lethal firearms or less convincing on screen?
Friendly reminder to NOT speak to police without a lawyer present.
Ever. >

Or, ya know, go on national television and blab about it. >

The trick is that once you get the lawyer involved, they will tell you to shut up, your job is just to listen to their advice. >

But what if I'm my own lawyer because the internets told me I can declare my house free and independent so I can declare the trial illegal and invalid? >

That might work, is there a gold fringe on your flag? If so something something admiralty court something something freeman on the land. >

This guy somethings >

He somethings well. >

Here is my question, are all 5 producers being charged or just Alec Baldwin? Because if they don't charge all of them, he's going to get off by passing blame to one of the other producers. >

Yeah this is the part I have a hard time following.  I've seen it suggested that his negligence / culpability is not as an actor rehearsing the scene, but rather as a producer because gun safety on the set wasn't handled properly.  But if that's the case, why aren't the other producers being charged too? >

My understanding from the time of the shooting was that Baldwin specifically was asked by crew members about increasing gun safety on set (which included the armorer herself asking to receive more training when it comes to guns or for someone more experienced to be hired to handle them) and he ignored it.  However I don't have a recent source and would prefer to state this as old info and say it would be best if everyone just waits to learn about the decision making and evidence found that will likely be released soon. >

From everything that has been published, it seems like the armorer actually should take  more of the blame. Live rounds should never have been on the set. Baldwin, needs to take some of the blame, due to his mismanagement of the movie set. Like every accident, there is usually multiple points of failure. I am do not know how you can break it down legally, but the armorer should take 60% of the blame, the director not checking the weapon or calling over the armorer over to check the weapon and Baldwin for mismanagement of the movie set. No one in this chain of events should get off without any repercussions. >

Film dummy rounds are designed to be easily identifiable, both visually and because they have a ball bearing inside them in place of a powder charge. You shake the round and it rattles, before you put it into the firearm.
It’s inconceivable to me that the armorer failed at her job so badly that she put a live round into that firearm. Something else is going on here. >

She may have simply forgotten to remove the live rounds after target shooting with other crew the night before. People forget their own children in cars at times, with disastrous consequences. It's not inconceivable that she forgot to switch them out. >

Nope. Sorry.
You shake every bullet before you put it in the firearm. If she failed to do that she’s negligent.
If she didn’t completely clear the gun before she put it away she’s negligent.
She may not be responsible for the live rounds being on set, but the fact that one got loaded is absolutely on her. >

Nobodys saying shes not responsible. The person you replied to was saying it wasnt necessarily intentional malice and was probbaly just incompetence... as you have also said. >

I just want to know how an actor is supposed to know the difference between fake and live rounds? >

The armorer drilled incredibly tiny holes in real bullets and would hold them up to her ear to shake them and listen to see if they were live.
She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns
Predictably enough, she put live rounds in a gun and took it to set.
There's no way anyone could have reliably known if it was real bullets or not.
Which is why no one else does it that way.
But weeks before the shooting the armorer gave an interview about how she knew better than safety procedures because her dad used to be an armorer. >


She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns

This right here is where the screwup occurred. There is NO REASON for live ammo to ever be brought on a film set. Full stop. This is 100% on the armorer, who was horribly incompetent. >

This is what I was wondering. It doesn't make sense, there's no need for it at all. >

A much more experienced armorer who knew her dad came forward with texts from her.
She was talking about how much fun shooting prop guns with live bullets between takes was.
The other person immediately told her it's a terrible idea and she should never do that.
She replied with basically "lol I'm still doing it, I know what I'm doing".
This was less than a year before the shooting. >

Yikes. That will look bad as an exhibit at trial when it's all blown up on a screen. >

There's a reason when cops showed up Baldwin offered to answer any and all questions and made it clear he was holding the gun.  And also asked the status of the victim.
And the armorer couldn't stop ugly crying about how her career was over and never asked about anyone.
Pretty sure parts of the bodycam has already been released to the public. >

He still would have been wise to shut up. It seems very likely she'll be found guilty, but that doesn't mean he won't be. >

He’s incredibly wealthy and can afford top notch legal representation. I don’t know remotely enough about the incident to comment on it but this isn’t Joe Shmoe with a public defender. >

Based on the facts, I don't see how this charge is legitimate.
Every justification I'm seeing is that "he was the producer" - that's great, but he's not being charged as the producer, he's being charged as the person holding the gun.
Saying he's liable as the producer is an entirely different issue. This is whether he was negligent and reckless while holding what should have been a prop, after being checked by multiple professionals. It's not an actor's job to open up and inspect guns on set. >

From my understanding - the charge of involuntary manslaughter comes from an act of negligence. In this case since he was both the producer - and the person holding the gun - and ostensibly the one to receive firearms safety training he could be held negligent on any of those areas:
The issue is that what should have been a prop, (the blank round in the gun) wasn't. 
The state is attempting to prove that the reason the live round wasn't a blank was due to Baldwin's negligence. His negligence the state argues is due to:
He was on the phone during firearms training.
He failed to perform the mandatory safety check prior to filming.
He failed to enforce mandatory safety checks prior to filming since there were several other negligent discharges on set. >


Industry-wide firearms safety guidelines instruct actors to assume a firearm is loaded with blanks and rely on professional weapons handlers to ensure a weapon is safe.

That's about it regarding Baldwin I'd say >

Not really since he was the producer he was also responsible for hiring a competent weapons handler and maintaining a safe set. There are a decent number of factors at play that make it hard to guess how things will shake out. >

Where does it say that he was in charge of hiring people? There also were other producers BTW, which are not charged according to the article. >

He also lied and said he didn't pull the trigger. >

Misremembering the details of a traumatic experience is not uncommon, though. When it all happens so fast and the results are so shocking, anyone could have memory issues. It's the same reason that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. >

Being held to a higher level of scrutiny than actual cops. >

A lot of weird comments on either side of the fence here (people making really over the top comments about how Baldwin should have handled the gun or checked there weren’t real bullets etc.) but ultimately, if he was a producer of the film he had a responsibility to ensure safety was a priority on set, including proper handling of the weaponry by a trained professional or team thereof. 
Reddit goes insane when a company doesn’t perform their duties, particularly when it comes to safety, and something goes wrong.
A film production is a company. The people running that company should be held responsible if safety wasn’t a priority and someone died. If I had you at my warehouse and didn’t make your safety a priority (or worse, ignored any safety precautions) and you got squashed by an insecure pallet of bricks falling on you, I should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Simple.
I don’t know or care whether Baldwin was responsible or not; hopefully a court will get to the bottom of it. But a mother died and a process like this should take place. He held the gun, but was also a producer. This doesn’t sound undeserved. >


if he was a producer of the film he had a responsibility to ensure safety was a priority on set

I don't disagree but then it has to be asked, why is he the only producer being charged? We don't have all the evidence in the case but it'll be interesting to see why or how the prosecution makes this distinction. >

Because he is the producer who pulled the trigger. >

I dont why thats so hard for people to understand lol >

The nepo-baby prop master shouldn't of taken the gun to smoke weed and shoot live rounds with her friends the night before, then leaves live rounds in the gun. She should be charged. >

Inb4 someone explains proper trigger etiquette even though it’s been beaten to death & doesn’t apply to movie sets… >

Baldwin should have made his own rounds ! >

He could have easily commissioned firearms and ammunition for his set that were non-lethal, but hired an armorer that didn't follow protocol and that ended with someone's death. Hopefully your boss doesn't hire a shit electrician that ends up burning your workplace down, you might get smooth brains that will defend your bosses decisions.