The problems are, it was a real gun, he pointed it directly at 2 people and he did pull the trigger according to investigators. That seems reckless, movie or not.

He needs jail time

So Hispanic armorer held responsible but white actor with a history of violent outbursts (see phone messages to ex-wife & others) gets out of it? What a surprise.

@charliefoxtrot5001

12 күн бұрын

3 people were charged. ALL of them were offered the same plea deal. Only 1 took it. The "Hispanic armorer" didn't and was more concerned with her "modeling career". Baldwin didn't take it either and his trail is far from over. His "history of violent outbursts" would be inadmissible in court.

@denvan3143

10 күн бұрын

@@charliefoxtrot5001 how do you know his history has no bearing on what happened? Do you have an interesting idea about reality, that you can exclude part of it by putting it in quotations. Walk off the Grand Canyon and defy “gravity” while you’re at.

@charliefoxtrot5001

10 күн бұрын

@@denvan3143 Criminal law is very specific about which evidence is admissible and which is not. It depends on the crime that is being alleged. In Baldwin's case, it is a crime of involuntary manslaughter. This means he negligently handled a fireman and killed a person due to that negligence. The NM jury instruction that lists the core elements of the alleged crime can be found by googling NM 14-231. Baldwin's history of violent outbursts do not provide any evidence for proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, it would poison the jury pool and either lead to a mistrial or a successful appeal. The prime example of a recent high-profile case is the overturning of Harvey Weinstein's NY conviction based on exactly this problem. That the armorer is or is not Hispanic had no bearing on her case or Baldwin's case either. Again, using descriptive wording that is irrelevant to the facts is prejudicious.

All he did was point a gun at a person and pull the trigger .. without making sure it was blank loaded while running a budget grindhouse film where he cut corners everywhere..

@user-tj4ks3uh6f

14 күн бұрын

Without making sure it wasn't loaded you mean.

@micheleh5269

13 күн бұрын

This hearing is about whether the prosecutor conducted the grand jury hearing legally. The defense is not allowed to call, question or cross examine during grand jury. Only the prosecutor. And the prosecutor prevented the witnesses from answering questions by the grand jury 20 times. Among other things

@GilmerJohn

13 күн бұрын

@@micheleh5269 -- Well, while in practice the prosecutor controls a grand jury the jury members can ask anything they want. One reason the grand juries have become rubber stamps for corrupt prosecutors is that corrupt judges don't properly inform them of their duties and rights.

I completely agree that baldwin wanted to shot someone. This is like a person speeding they don't want to have an accidents or injury a person but they do and get charged for it. Baldwin needs to be charged with the crime.

There's no testimony that the actor is required to participate in the safety check ... hmmm. That's the entire basis for this case from Day 1. Just 2 minutes before she said that, she said that it's not true that an actor has no responsibility once the gun is in his hand. So what exactly is she arguing? That an actor is not REQUIRED to participate in the safety check between the armorer and the First AD, but he is REQUIRED to do his own safety check after taking possession? That doesn't make any sense.

I think there are primary safety protocols and secondary protocols. The primary protocol is 1) No live rounds on set, 2) Armorer loads/checks gun, 3) First AD verifies. The secondary protocols are 1) point gun slightly away from actors, 2) Keep finger off trigger, 3) Don't pull trigger while pointing directly towards someone, 4) Use protective shields when needed, etc.. But the important distinction I think people miss is that there are also 2 modes of operation of a gun: 1) Gun empty/inert, and 2) Gun loaded with blanks. Common sense would dictate that while secondary protocols are always a good practice when practical, they are also not necessary or able to be 100% absolutely strictly adhered to at all times when the gun is empty. If the gun is loaded with blanks, the reason to not point it directly at someone is to prevent injury from the flashing and percussion of the gun when it goes off. It ISN'T to protect against death from a live round being accidentally loaded into the gun. Likewise, if the gun is truly empty, having been properly verified, there should be no reason to need to point it slightly away from those in the line of fire at all times (though still a good practice if possible). It also would be completely unnecessary to set up protective shields if the gun is truly empty. That would be downright silly. It would be unrealistic for an actor to remain on the same DefCon 5 alert level when handling an empty gun as they are when handling a gun loaded with blanks. The actor would have no reason to believe there is any danger. And finally, if the gun is accidentally loaded with live rounds, pointing it slightly away from those in the line of fire would in no way be sufficient to ensure safety (depending on distance, no one could guarantee such a condition). Protective shields would be insufficient (they aren't bullet-proof and even if they were, the bullet could ricochet off it). It would be an accident waiting to happen for which all bets are off. I know gun owners quote Cooper's Rule. I know all about it. But I also think gun owners have this relatively simplistic, almost Neanderthalic view of gun safety that goes something like "Us here. Deer there. Gun point toward deer. Gun not point toward us." Well duh. Surely a movie set is different than that. People are standing all over the place, guns are changing hands on a frequent basis, and multiple takes of each scene are being filmed. Surely it is much different than deer hunting.

@dinasaidso

13 күн бұрын

Well said

@denvan3143

10 күн бұрын

It is a requirement that a firearm used in a scene is never to be pointed directly at an individual but slightly to the side with appropriate camera angle that makes this in detectable on screen. That is not an option, that is a stipulation of Course S of Contracts and services as well as verbal instructions that were given to Alec Baldwin during safety training during the _Rust_ production. That aside, there are two factors to consider: certainty and probability. If it is taken as certain that a firearm is loaded with live ammunition until the person handling it confirms otherwise then the probability of injury due to a negligent misfire is reduced to zero. If, as was the case with Alec Baldwin, the certainty is that the firearm is not loaded with live rounds without checking the firearm the probability of injury or death is considerably above a zero probability. Alec Baldwin stated the fatal incident was “one and 1 trillion. That is not the case. Evidently, the revolver contained one live round; that increased the probability to 1 in 6.

@kdietz65

9 күн бұрын

​@@denvan3143 Can you point me to Course S of Contracts and Services. That would help. You're the only one who mentions it. I think the reason for gun pointed slightly to the side is because of blanks loaded into the gun, not to act as a last-ditch effort to prevent a tragedy in the event a live round has been accidentally and unknowingly loaded. Image if AB had pointed the gun to the side, and a bullet went whizzing past Halayna's head. You think everyone's just gonna stand around high-fiving each other talking about how great the rock-solid safety protocols worked? No!!! Everyone would be horrified and say "What the eff just happened?" They'll say, "Holy crap, we're lucky someone didn't die." And then AB would say, "Oh, no, no, no. Give me some credit here. It wasn't luck. I made sure to point the gun off to the side." No, I don't think that's the way it would happen. If a bullet goes whizzing past someone's head, the proper response would be to stop immediately, drop everything, and call the union representative to figure out next-steps.

This judge , um, um, don’t think she has control of this situation , ummm 🙄

I want to make sure that the jury gets the most accurate information, and that's why I'm going to present ONE single witness from the movie industry who, when asked the right question the right away, agrees with us that Baldwin messed up.

@micheleh5269

13 күн бұрын

Is exactly right

@charliefoxtrot5001

11 күн бұрын

That is how grand juries work! The prosecution gets to pick and choose the expert witnesses to make the case, not the defense! Hearsay is allowed too. The grand jury indicts based on probable cause, not on a guilty verdict. Baldwin is still considered innocent and can use the trial to present his own expert witnesses to refute the prosecution. What Baldwin's defense is arguing here is that they want the grand jury to be a trial, which is utter nonsense. The irony is that Baldwin's defense had the opportunity to present their own expert witnesses. Their problem was that the grand jury wasn't interested in that.

@kdietz65

11 күн бұрын

@@charliefoxtrot5001 Hi there! It's us again, eh? Nice talking to you again. It is one-sided, I agree with that. I'm not a lawyer anywhere, much less in New Mexico, so the finer points of all of this are not something I can say too much about. The argument the defense made in the hearing is that when the prosecution presents a witness that says one thing, they're required to present any other witnesses they have that would negate it. That's what they said at the hearing. I don't know. Surely there are industry experts that will disagree on this, so I don't know how the legal system goes about making sense of that at the grand jury stage. How much is okay to leave to the trial phase, I just don't know. I agree the grand jury isn't the full trial. It's only probably cause. We agree on that. Thanks for your thoughts.

@kdietz65

11 күн бұрын

@@charliefoxtrot5001 Oh one more thing. When I made that statement, I wasn't so much commenting about the finer points of grand jury hearings, but I was expressing in an exasperated tone a sense of personal incredulity that the prosecutor is merely acting as a seeker of truth and her only goal in the grand jury was to make sure the grand jury had as much information as it needed to make their decision. Oh give me a break. Am I to believe that the prosecutor is acting merely as a dispassionate truth seeker at this point? She has a vested interest in this. I think she has obviously developed some personal angst against AB. Plus, she has an economic interest in this. I presume the longer this goes on for, the more she gets paid. I assume she's making at least as much on this as she makes in her regular defense work, and maybe this is providing a steadier paycheck for her. Or perhaps she's in it for the fame and notoriety. She'd probably be happy to have the judge dismiss the case, so she can refile it, and keep the money rolling. I'm speculating of course, I don't know what motivates her. I find it very difficult to swallow that she is in this merely to uncover the truth. Had she been a true truth-seeker she would have sought out opposing views within the industry and presented at least one opposing view to the grand jury, whether the law requires her to do it or not. I cannot believe that there is universal agreement out there within the movie industry about the way this is all supposed to work. Bryan Carpenter himself seems to hold somewhat conflicting views within his own mindset. How much more opposing views would we have if we actually asked different people about it. I also find it very interesting that the prosecution seems to have dropped all of its prior associations with Steve Wolf, who in my view, is a complete wacko. How about bringing in Dutch Merrick? How about some other armorers of his caliber?

@charliefoxtrot5001

11 күн бұрын

@@kdietz65 Yes, the grand jury process is extremely one-sided, hence the famous words of former New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Solomon "Sol" Wachtler, who said that district attorneys could get grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich". Ironically, he was later convicted of serious crimes. The prosecution is required to present relevant exculpatory evidence in the NM grand jury process, which is quite unusual. That, however, does not mean that the defense's witnesses offer relevant exculpatory evidence or have to be presented by the prosecution. This was a major point of the prosecution in the hearing. Relevance in a grand jury is based on probable cause, not guilt. If Baldwin's defense team arguments were held by the court, then most people would never get indicted, as there would always be someone with a differing opinion. For example, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's expert witness would testify that someone else was ultimately responsible for checking the firearm, thus she would never have been indicted in the first place.

Jailtime!

It's becoming clear that the "state" wants Alec to skate. First the prosecute a woman who was an employee of the shooter for somehow NOT letting Alec have access to the firearm. She is going to jail. Now Alec can get away with saying it's all the convict's fault. Were the state serious, it would have prosecuted the shooter first. Once that conviction was in the bag, they could go after others. This is a corrupt state with corrupt officials.

@micheleh5269

13 күн бұрын

14:45

Is Morrisey actually admitting that AB's actions were not the proximate cause of death? That's a dismissal.

@jonathanmontgomery5178

14 күн бұрын

She said he shot someone and that the person who was shot died as a result.

@kdietz65

14 күн бұрын

​@@jonathanmontgomery5178 Quoting starting at 57:12 "In addition to doing that we presented this grand jury with lots and lots of exculpatory information about Ms. Guitierez's failure, about the source of the live rounds ... that is the proximate cause. The proximate cause issue that the grand jury absolutely needed to hear about and understand is Ms. Guitierez put a live round in the gun, and Mr. Baldwin didn't know that there was a live round in the gun. That's proximate cause. ... It goes directly to the proximate cause jury instructions." Okay, now I'm really confused. If the jury needs to find proximate cause, and the prosecution agrees that AB's actions weren't the proximate cause, why is this prosecution being pursued? That does sound like it at least verges on a bad-faith prosecution.

@jonathanmontgomery5178

14 күн бұрын

@@kdietz65 I think the point she is making is that she presented to the Grand Jury the evidence that the defense wanted the grand jury to see and that the defense believes is exculpatory on the issue of proximate cause - namely, evidence about the armorer’s role in loading the weapon.

@kdietz65

14 күн бұрын

@@jonathanmontgomery5178 Yes, I agree. I think that is the point she is trying to make. It's just that in the course of making that point, she basically concedes that AB's actions aren't the proximate cause. Not quite sure what to make of that.

GUILTY!!!!!! LIFE IN PRISON!!!!!!!