Okay, so I read the whole article. I’m still not seeing what I’m asking for.
What are the specific inconsistencies that you consider “indicia of guilt” rather than the entirely plausible result of stress, trauma, time, and other stimuli to include repeated questioning?
Stress and trauma are relevant immediately after the event. Days, weeks, and now years afterward stress and trauma are not an excuse, and self serving statements that contradict the facts are always indicia of guilt. Again, that’s not enough to convict him on, but it is enough to consider that he is trying to cover up his guilt. There are plenty of reasons why Baldwin may not be convicted, but it’s not because he has acted like a responsible person before and after the incident.
Yeah, you can be stressed out by the continual harassment and legal issues. Not to mention, a couple of us disagree with there being any "self serving statements that contradict the facts ".
Seriously? All people on trial and all the witnesses are equally credible because people can’t always remember things because they are stressed? Get real. When people lie to me and change their story I don’t believe them, if they’re claiming they didn’t so something I assume they did.
I never said that.
Yep. It’s an argument from incredulity and a strawman. You shouldn’t need to use those tactics if you have a good argument.
ASL is very much correct about how human memory works. It’s entirely normal for there to be inconsistent statements and they are not themselves indicative of guilt. They are just indicative that we don’t know which one is correct.
@TriPolar’s dislike of Baldwin is getting in the way of doing a neutral analysis.
That’s Baldwin’s defense in a nutshell. He was taking direction from the cinematographer. He was doing routine work getting the gun lighted and framed in the camera.
You wouldn’t want a bunch of actors checking guns themselves. That would be more unsafe. The armorer witness in the trial said the prepared weapon is handed to the actor just prior to the shot. Then taken away after its completed. The gun should be under the supervision of the armorer the entire time.
That didn’t happen on the Rust set. Hannah was very irresponsible.
I must emphasize, as I believe I have many times in this thread, that the rarity of an event is not by itself conclusive that precautions taken against the event are reasonable (and thus not negligent).
I could literally point a loaded gun at someone a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times (it doesn’t matter) all the while insisting that the safety being on is adequate protection or, worse, “my finger is my safety,” and yet the minute it goes off and kills the person on the wrong end of the barrel I am guilty of manslaughter at best (and arguably murder, because it may go beyond even mere recklessness to extreme indifference to do something like that repeatedly).
The fact that I have done it any number of times before without incident, and only just this once killed someone, does not excuse me from criminal liability because, as I hope we can all agree, my conduct leading up to the event was unreasonable to say the least.
In fact the reason that such would be negligent is primarily because past history has clearly demonstrated that doing such frequently results in the gun going off without intent. History demonstrates clearly the danger of that action, that catastrophic result is not rare. The other part of the equation of course being the lack of any indication to, benefit gained, by the action.
The known extremely low risk or high risk of the adverse outcome is a major factor in any safety practice standard. Indeed of course even infinitesimal risks are non-zero; any incremental risk must be balanced by some benefit gained.
Can an industry set up a negligent standard? No doubt. Who is criminally liable when that occurs? I doubt the shift manager in the factory, for example, would or should be held liable for an adverse event that occurs on their shift when they are following what they have been taught as industry and corporation wide practices, because they failed to conclude that they know better than the experts about something outside of their knowledge base and training.
It’s actually only about a third of the standard. The other thirds are: (1) how severe is that adverse outcomes going to be if it materializes and (2) what would be the relative cost of alternative measures which might further reduce the risk of the same consequence occurring?
It may be that 50 years ago, (1) was the same as it is today and (2) suggested that there were no practical alternatives to, you know, pointing real guns at people for a degree of realism in movies. But I think we may be well past time for that last variable to be reevaluated in light of how technology has advanced (developments in CGI and 3D printing to name just two).
I do not disagree: hence the comment of balancing even infinitesimal risk vs benefit.
I do not dispute that an industry may lag in revision of standards especially in the absence of adverse events to trigger review of policies and practices. (And every industry should have system approaches and practices reviewed when serious adverse events occur, and not only conclude that one person’s negligence is the sole cause.)
I strongly dispute however that a worker in the field is criminally liable for following guidelines that those with greater expertise than they have set up, even if a jury made up of laypeople decides the expert industry guidelines are negligent.
We work as parts of teams. A standard that every member of a team is not to trust the work of other members or the guidelines and standards that they have been taught to follow, at the risk of criminal liability, is absurd, no matter how odious of a person that team member may be otherwise.
I certainly agree that following industry standards should mitigate, perhaps even excuse under most circumstances, a worker’s degree of criminal liability.
But surely there is a tipping point, beyond which just adhering to (perhaps inadequate) safety standards is criminal on its own? The Milgram experiment comes to mind. At some point, the danger must be so incredibly obvious that it shouldn’t matter if someone else standing over your shoulder keeps saying “Nah, it’s fine, go ahead and give him a shock at the next higher voltage.”
Did Baldwin cross that line here, assuming he otherwise followed industry standards? Honestly, I don’t think so, but I also don’t think it’s wrong for the DA to insist on pursuing charges as this might at least serve as a needed course correction for an industry standard that I think might have gotten out of hand.
Here, Baldwin was (per one theory, assuming industry standards in fact allowed it) relying on industry standards to think it was safe to point a real gun at a person, just because it was on a movie set. Something I think any reasonable person otherwise would be aghast at, he was doing because, supposedly, the industry said “Nah, go ahead and point that real gun loaded with something that is actually supposed to look like real bullets at your coworker. It’s cool the twenty-something we’ve got acting as a part-time armorer told the AD to tell you it’s okay.”
I believe myself to be a reasonable person.
If I was taught that there are standards that there is no live ammo anywhere near this set, that a professional has verified that this gun does not have live bullets in it, even though they look like live bullets, and that doing this under this circumstance is safe and my job to do? I would do it and not be aghast.
Hell as a young intern I pushed known poisons into children’s bloodstreams on the assurance of those supervising me that it was part of protocol and trusting that the pharmacy put the right medication in the right amount in the bag and that the nurse who checked the label had done her job.
Did I independently verify this was the best protocol, the lowest risk for the best outcome? Double-check the nurse’s work and the pharmacy?
No. I pushed the med, documented, tried to be friendly and supportive to the child and family, and then went to the next item on my clipboard. No aghast. I deferred to my authorities and did my defined role.
Not very different.
Do you think this defense is compromised if Baldwin did not attend all of the firearms training? Or do you think those are mutually exclusive?
I’m not sure how to ask without it sounding confrontational, but that’s not my intention.
You see that all the time in action or western films.
No.
To me it is two level answer:
I think it helps his case with a jury to demonstrate that he took safety seriously enough to attend what by now should be a refresher course. How much they would read missing the class as being cavalier about safety though is hard to know?
In terms of my own thought process, no. The question that matters to me is if he behaved consistent with usual and customary actions of an actor in similar circumstances, within the range of what they are taught to do as actors handling guns interfacing with the professionals on gun safety on the production team.
My bolding.
The assumption here is that Mr. Baldwin was behaving within industry standards and it’s can’t be swept away like this.
The prosecutors’ case depends on their ability to demonstrate that Baldwin’s actions didn’t follow industry standards. In Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s trial, video evidence was shown and an expert witness, a professional armorer, provided commentary pointing out the dangerous deviations. For example, extras were waving guns around or using guns to point while they talked.
Note that these guns were assumed to “safe”, yet still best practice says you don’t point guns at people unnecessarily.
The expert witness pointed out that typically there are two types of ammo used on sets, dummy rounds which are designed to look like live round but don’t have any gunpowder and don’t have a working primer, and blank rounds which do have gunpowder but don’t have a bullet.
Firing blank rounds can be dangerous and there are circumstances where people have been injured or killed.
Because of this, film industry standards requires actors to folllow specific gun safety requirement, and the prosecution case says that Badwin didn’t follow those.
Durring the Gutierrez-Reed trial a video was shown of Baldwin discharging his weapon, loaded with blanks, in a scene but after the director had called “cut.” According to the expert, none of these were acceptable practices.
In a video by a defense attorney breaking down the prosecutors’ response to Baldwin’s motion to dismiss, the response says that “Mr. Baldwin was inattentive during this [firearm] training and spent time during the training on the phone with his family and making videos of himself shooting the fun for his family’s enjoyment.
The YouTube video shows two videos provided as evidence in this case against Baldwin, allegedly of Baldwin shooting blanks during training while being filmed by bystanders on their cellphones.
The attorney’s reaction.
He goes on to explain that while he isn’t a film armorer, he has spoken to many professional armorers and says this action speaks badly for both Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin.
Back to the response by the prosecution: They continue on to assert that on the day of the shooting, the rehearsal was supposed to only be Baldwin slowly drawing his gun, but he went off script, taking actions contrary to instructions by the director. He pointed the single action army revolver at Ms. Hutchins, cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger. (Baldwin contests these assertions, claiming he was directed to do this.)
The prosecution response lays out a number of other factors which they say contributed to the neglect.
In short, the question if Baldwin acted within accepted industrial standards will be something for the jury to determine. I didn’t read Baldwin’s motion or watch any videos breaking that down, but obviously the defense has their assertions as well.
In the closing arguments of the Gutierrez-Reed trial, the prosecution said that she and Baldwin are both responsible, and this is their theory for Baldwin’s trial.
The Variety article though presents a prosecutor whose case rests not on demonstrating that Baldwin acted outside of industry standards but that industry standards do not matter. His guilt in her mind is based on that he yelled at the crew and is an ass, and his being an ass resulted in a deterioration of safety standards. And that since his statements had inconsistencies he must be guilty, no need to demonstrate what he is guilty of having done. That’s a pretty sketchy theory I think.
Does it? I read the article. Can you quote the part that states that?
Mea culpa. I could have sworn I read the line there with her stating that industry standard for negligence were not what mattered but what counts as negligence in the state. But can’t see it now.
Maybe imagined it. Sorry.