If you can't sell the scene using finger guns, you have no business calling yourself an actor IMO.
Alex Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter
- Thread starter thekinggovernor
- Start date
If you can't sell the scene using finger guns, you have no business calling yourself an actor IMO.
TheProwler
OT Supporter
- Aug 18, 2002
- 103,471
damn, that director is a piece of shit. He should have gotten way more than 1 year in prison. that was so reckless
Yeah applying for the permit and not getting it is pretty damming. Clearer case of criminal negligence than Baldwin’s imo. Poor girl had her feet severed. Bet it was painful and gruesomedamn, that director is a piece of shit. He should have gotten way more than 1 year in prison. that was so reckless
TheRightToRemainSilent
Long-Legged Mack Daddy
I hope he does them in donald trump character.
There is less than zero chance that this would be a blip on the radar of fucking tmz or dailymail....but the fact that Baldwin was bad to trump on snl, that is the singular thing keeping this story in the headlines.
Also, not a POL post....just telling you the real reason why we are still reading about this.
- Dec 30, 2004
- 67,458
We sat down with entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell to evaluate the meaning of these criminal charges. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Nadira Goffe: Do we know whether Alec Baldwin is being charged because of his role as a producer on Rust, versus because he was the person who actually discharged the weapon?
Tre Lovell: It’s my understanding that it’s both, from what the prosecutor said.
What reasons are prosecutors giving to support issuing this charge related to Baldwin’s role as a producer?
They’re saying that because he’s a producer, he’s in charge of the production, of set safety, of making sure that there’s enough personnel to be able to govern safety, [that] there’s no shortcuts in spending and corners cut, things like that. I’ll equate it to a premises liability type of situation, just that he was in charge of set safety.
There are other producers on the film. Why is he the only one being charged?
Listen, I think that’s a very problematic argument for the prosecution. First of all, “producer” is a credit. And you can get a producer credit or an executive producer credit for raising money, for making an introduction of a celebrity, for adding something to the film. And when it comes to producers, there are certain producers that have responsibility for the physical production of the film, [that are] in charge of the filming, the shooting, the locations, the editing, delivering and broadcast quality, print, etc. And there are other producers that have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. They just got the credit. And a lot of times you will see Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, superstars like that, they always have a producer credit or an executive producer credit because they’re just an actor in the film. And as part of their deal they want to get a credit.
So it is really presumptuous to just assume that because he’s a producer that he has any responsibility. Being a producer doesn’t mean you’re a partner, and it doesn’t mean you have the title, or level of responsibility, of production—that’s governed through the production agreements, through the operating agreement with the LLC that’s set up for the company, other things like that. I don’t know the details, but there is a strong chance that he’s credited as a producer because he’s an actor and that’s it. You know, sometimes his production company, even if they’re not doing anything, may even get him a banner credit. You just don’t know. But yeah, you really have to see what his role was as a producer to be able to pursue that theory under the prosecution.
As for the actor part, how is it possible for him to be charged if he was told that the gun was a cold gun and wasn’t loaded with live ammo? How much is that his responsibility as an actor?
First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that. What people don’t understand is, the Screen Actors Guild, the union, does not allow any producer, anybody, to use an actor for anything on set other than acting. You can’t use an actor to help decorate, to do lights, to do locations. He or she just can act, and that’s it. And there’s a reason for that, because there are other delegable duties that people have on set and that they’re supposed to do. An actor is required to rely upon an armorer, or any other person on set, who’s an expert, when it comes to whether or not a piece of equipment that they’re using is safe.
I mean, imagine the world we’re in if they were requiring actors to now check equipment! What’s next? What if an actor is driving a car in a scene and the brakes go out and he kills somebody? Are we now going to charge him for criminal negligence? What if he’s using a sword or some other explosive on set that is defective and kills somebody, we’re now going to look at the actor? I mean, this is a slippery slope.
In your opinion, who is ultimately responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins, if anyone?
If anyone, it would most likely be with the armorer. With the one individual who is hired because they’re an expert in firearms, hired for the specific purpose of making sure firearms are safe on set. Before you hand an actor a firearm, to ensure that it’s not loaded, it’s not dangerous, they require you to give that specific description, either it’s “cold” or “safe,” whatever it is, to the whole set. You yell it out, you know, “cold weapon, cold weapon,” so everybody knows it’s been checked. There’s one person that’s in charge of that. That person would most likely be the front person to be responsible.
Then, anybody else that may fall under that umbrella. The assistant director [David Halls], possibly, if he took on that role, if he gave out the gun and said [it was] cold. He’s now assuming that duty of governing safety on the set with respect to the firearm, he may then have injected some responsibility into himself, by doing that [and] assuming that duty. [Halls took a plea bargain with the district attorney and was not charged.]
Then, from a physical production safety standard, there’s usually a line producer or showrunner or physical production person, or company that is in charge of the actual production, the locations, the scheduling, the payroll, the shooting, the editing, they may be responsible if they created a set that is dangerous, you know? I think it would go in that order. But even then it’s not an easy case, and definitely not criminal.
slate.com
Nadira Goffe: Do we know whether Alec Baldwin is being charged because of his role as a producer on Rust, versus because he was the person who actually discharged the weapon?
Tre Lovell: It’s my understanding that it’s both, from what the prosecutor said.
What reasons are prosecutors giving to support issuing this charge related to Baldwin’s role as a producer?
They’re saying that because he’s a producer, he’s in charge of the production, of set safety, of making sure that there’s enough personnel to be able to govern safety, [that] there’s no shortcuts in spending and corners cut, things like that. I’ll equate it to a premises liability type of situation, just that he was in charge of set safety.
There are other producers on the film. Why is he the only one being charged?
Listen, I think that’s a very problematic argument for the prosecution. First of all, “producer” is a credit. And you can get a producer credit or an executive producer credit for raising money, for making an introduction of a celebrity, for adding something to the film. And when it comes to producers, there are certain producers that have responsibility for the physical production of the film, [that are] in charge of the filming, the shooting, the locations, the editing, delivering and broadcast quality, print, etc. And there are other producers that have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. They just got the credit. And a lot of times you will see Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, superstars like that, they always have a producer credit or an executive producer credit because they’re just an actor in the film. And as part of their deal they want to get a credit.
So it is really presumptuous to just assume that because he’s a producer that he has any responsibility. Being a producer doesn’t mean you’re a partner, and it doesn’t mean you have the title, or level of responsibility, of production—that’s governed through the production agreements, through the operating agreement with the LLC that’s set up for the company, other things like that. I don’t know the details, but there is a strong chance that he’s credited as a producer because he’s an actor and that’s it. You know, sometimes his production company, even if they’re not doing anything, may even get him a banner credit. You just don’t know. But yeah, you really have to see what his role was as a producer to be able to pursue that theory under the prosecution.
As for the actor part, how is it possible for him to be charged if he was told that the gun was a cold gun and wasn’t loaded with live ammo? How much is that his responsibility as an actor?
First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that. What people don’t understand is, the Screen Actors Guild, the union, does not allow any producer, anybody, to use an actor for anything on set other than acting. You can’t use an actor to help decorate, to do lights, to do locations. He or she just can act, and that’s it. And there’s a reason for that, because there are other delegable duties that people have on set and that they’re supposed to do. An actor is required to rely upon an armorer, or any other person on set, who’s an expert, when it comes to whether or not a piece of equipment that they’re using is safe.
I mean, imagine the world we’re in if they were requiring actors to now check equipment! What’s next? What if an actor is driving a car in a scene and the brakes go out and he kills somebody? Are we now going to charge him for criminal negligence? What if he’s using a sword or some other explosive on set that is defective and kills somebody, we’re now going to look at the actor? I mean, this is a slippery slope.
In your opinion, who is ultimately responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins, if anyone?
If anyone, it would most likely be with the armorer. With the one individual who is hired because they’re an expert in firearms, hired for the specific purpose of making sure firearms are safe on set. Before you hand an actor a firearm, to ensure that it’s not loaded, it’s not dangerous, they require you to give that specific description, either it’s “cold” or “safe,” whatever it is, to the whole set. You yell it out, you know, “cold weapon, cold weapon,” so everybody knows it’s been checked. There’s one person that’s in charge of that. That person would most likely be the front person to be responsible.
Then, anybody else that may fall under that umbrella. The assistant director [David Halls], possibly, if he took on that role, if he gave out the gun and said [it was] cold. He’s now assuming that duty of governing safety on the set with respect to the firearm, he may then have injected some responsibility into himself, by doing that [and] assuming that duty. [Halls took a plea bargain with the district attorney and was not charged.]
Then, from a physical production safety standard, there’s usually a line producer or showrunner or physical production person, or company that is in charge of the actual production, the locations, the scheduling, the payroll, the shooting, the editing, they may be responsible if they created a set that is dangerous, you know? I think it would go in that order. But even then it’s not an easy case, and definitely not criminal.
You’re Not Imagining It: The Manslaughter Charges Against Alec Baldwin Are Nuts
For one thing, we still don’t know how those live rounds got on set.
meyou
OT Supporter
- Feb 20, 2005
- 100,945
here's how that conversation goes to any sane person
Here's a gun, aim it at that person and pull the trigger
How about you go fuck yourself?
Its your job, do it or you're fired
Fuck off
Uncle Phil
OT Supporter
Because it's normal on a film production to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. The idea is that a weapon expert has deemed the firearm safe to use in this manner.
and the reality is anytime any sane person is going to aim a firearm at someone and pull the trigger, they arent taking someones word for it
- Jun 30, 2003
- 330,640
@///TRASH I just realized something, and I'm curious what you think. How much would this shift the case against him, if at all?
Baldwin went on tv and said, "No no no no no, the trigger was not pulled, I didn't pull the trigger. I would NEVER point a gun at someone and pull the trigger at them, never", but the video shows he did exactly that.
My interpretation of this is, he emphatically states that he knows it's wrong and dangerous to do that. So how far would that go toward proving he acted "without due cause and introspection"? Any at all?
Baldwin went on tv and said, "No no no no no, the trigger was not pulled, I didn't pull the trigger. I would NEVER point a gun at someone and pull the trigger at them, never", but the video shows he did exactly that.
My interpretation of this is, he emphatically states that he knows it's wrong and dangerous to do that. So how far would that go toward proving he acted "without due cause and introspection"? Any at all?
- Jun 30, 2003
- 330,640
Steve Wolf, who was involved in investigations into previous accidental movie set shootings including that of Bruce Lee's son Brandon in 1993, told Fox News ... Anyone who handles a firearm should check the gun, even if others claim to have previously checked it, he said, adding that David Halls – the first assistant director who reportedly agreed to a plea deal in the incident – reportedly announced "cold gun" when handing it to Baldwin.
"Cold gun" means the gun was not loaded with live ammunition, which later turned out to be false as cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot.
Halls' call "should have meant nothing to Alec," Wolf said. "Alec knew that Dave Halls was not his armorer. It'd be no different than, you know, if the mail boy came up and yelled ‘cold gun’ and handed it to him."
"Cold gun" means the gun was not loaded with live ammunition, which later turned out to be false as cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot.
Halls' call "should have meant nothing to Alec," Wolf said. "Alec knew that Dave Halls was not his armorer. It'd be no different than, you know, if the mail boy came up and yelled ‘cold gun’ and handed it to him."
Last edited:
That’s a good question and will be decided by the fact finder. It obviously goes to his credibility. Are there reasons other than constant potential danger for his not ever pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. I’m too foggy to flesh out that argument but that seems like one that could be made. I also have no clue about the rules of crim evidence so I’m sure there’s a lot of nuance im missing
- Jun 30, 2003
- 330,640
Ron
OT Supporter
- Sep 21, 2003
- 157,237