Read what I was replying to.
[Moderating]
I can’t see any way to read this but as an accusation of trolling. That is not permitted outside of the Pit. That will earn you a Warning. If you believe that someone is trolling, report their post and then remain silent.
You could, by way of analogy, use the same logic to endorse abstinence-only sex education.
“If only they’d have just followed the rules, there’d be no teen pregnancy and no STDs.”
But that’s nevertheless a point I am interested to see the prosecution try and make, because even though the prosecution has already made clear that industry rules aren’t binding as law (eta: here, I am referring to a statement they made pre-trial, which I highlighted earlier in the thread), I do seem to recall there being at least a suggestion that not everyone agrees that the rule in the industry is that the actor has no independent responsibility to verify a weapon is safe (no live rounds inserted) before pointing it at someone. Or even that an actor can point a weapon at someone at all unless it is absolutely required by the production.
It really is an onion layer available to the prosecution:
- Industry doesn’t make laws, New Mexico makes laws, and those laws were violated here
- On top of that, even by industry standards, which the defense erroneously insists deprive an actor of independent responsibility to verify a weapon is safe before handling it around others, Baldwin is culpable because he did not independently verify the weapon was safe before handling it around others.
- On top of that, even by industry standards, which the defense erroneously insists allow an actor to point a gun at someone even when it’s not absolutely required by the production, Baldwin is culpable because he did just that: pointed a gun at someone when not absolutely required by the production.
- Similar argument for pulling the trigger (which I recognize is a disputed fact in its own right and which I think is the absolutely weakest argument to rely on).
From what I could see of the Day 2 trial summary, the prosecution hasn’t yet trotted out an expert or experts to lay out evidence of what they think the controlling rules for mock-gunfighters are. I really do think that will be the definitive issue at trial: what rules should Baldwin have actually followed to avoid criminal liability for negligence?
And of course, strategically, I realize the prosecution might not want to push the full onion, because it might strike the jury as a bit disingenuous to argue “First, you should find him guilty because X. But even if you don’t think X, you should find him guilty because Y. But even if…” and so on. At some point, I can imagine the jury rolling their eyes and thinking, Okay, but what actually happened?
That doesn’t seem to matter in this case because the standard isn’t necessarily if the action was illegal. Cite.
My emphasis.
There is a statute concerning negligent use of a deadly weapon:
My emphasis. This would be a lesser included offense in the charge of involuntary manslaughter.
The question would have to be what constitutes “endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner.” More about that later.
This indeed will be the difinitive issue at this trial.
In the trial for the amorer, they had a a hired gun expert witness who coverned that in detail, and we can expect him to go over the same things.
In Gutierrez-Reed’s trial, the defense was not concerned about Baldwin’s actions so their (extremely poor) expert witness didn’t address this, but this will be the heart of the case.
As I posted back in April;
The gun was drawn at the request of the DP (Halyna Hutchins).
The crew were establishing lighting. I believe it was a comnon shot that zoomed in on the barrel and bullets in the cylinder? It builds suspense for the scene.
They needed dummy replica bullets in the gun. They could be carved and painted wood or plastic. The material doesn’t matter. Blanks won’t work because they have crimped off ends.
I can’t recall detailed testimony in the armorer trial. I am interested in hearing witness testimony to establish if the DP was giving Baldwin instructions.
It’s obviously a crucial point whether Baldwin was unnecessarily handling the gun in a unsafe manner.
It mkes this tragedy more infuriating. Any dumb ass should be able to tell the difference in ****painted wood and a brass bullet. The level of negligence to load a real bullet into a revolver is incomprehensible to me. Dummy rounds don’t need to be very realistic for a camera shot 12 ft away. The camera lens only focuses on the shiny silver tip.
****The bullets you see in a cowboy gun belt are very simple props. The entire gun belt is just a cheap prop. I remember the armorer said several cartridges had fallen out of the belts and had to be replaced. Their set supplier Kenny had more.
I know they also have the dummies that are cartridges with bb’s inside and the primer removed.
“We’ve always done ot this way” is strong in many businesses, alas.
They should ban the dummies with bb’s from film sets.
Mattel included plastic bullets in toy guns for decades. The kids version are orange or white to make it obvious they’re toys.
Plastic bullets could be painted realistically for close-up shots for Westerns.
Blanks are very obvious because they have crimped ends.
I expect industry safety changes have been made as a result of this senseless tragedy.
Who’s going to testify to that?
There were several people in the crew standing close by. I can’t his name but at least one testified in the last trial.
Joel (the director) testified. I remember he didn’t directly observe the gun hand off to Baldwin. He was focused on his own work.
I didn’t follow the last trial super-close. Did they actually testify Hutchins asked Baldwin to draw and point the weapon at the camera?
I can’t remember if they got that specific in the last trial.
Halyna’s assistant DP testified. I can’t recall what he was asked.
I need to look at YouTube. But it isn’t clear which video applies. They’re labeled day 1, day 2 etc.
The Baldwin trial is Live on Youtube. I’ll watch some when I have free time.
I guess the thrust is, that it’s not clear to me if Hutchins asked, or Baldwin proposed (and then did) without objection. Of course, even if Hutchins asked, that doesn’t necessarily exonerate Baldwin. Although if she did, it might explain why the prosecution is so hung up on the “pulled the trigger” part.
The trial is heating up. A retired officer had brought in bullets from Seth Kenney that were associated with the ammo on set.
It got filed under a different case number by the evidence tech. She’s getting grilled. They have a special hearing today.
Seth Kenney’s role in this has always been looked at closely. He claims the live rounds weren’t from his inventory. So far, the police haven’t established for certain. IIRC 5 live rounds were found mixed with the props on set.
There’s a motion to dismiss they’re discussing.
Seth Kenney should testify later today. It required multiple screw ups for this tragedy. Starting with the supplier and then Hannah & Dave Halls.
Wow.
wow what?
Wow! At least so far, that was 15 minutes of pointless testimony.
Pointless? The police suppressed important evidence and hid it under a different case number. The defense learned about it.
The judge will rule on the motion to dismiss possibly be early next week. They’re continuing testimony today while she considers the ruling.
Seth Kenney was CYA. Talking to the cops and claiming he didn’t have live ammo in his set inventory.
I feel bad for the evidence tech. She was just following instructions from her supervisor.
I haven’t been following this a closely as you, but what difference does any of this evidence make? It’s not disputed that there were live rounds there, and a live round was in the gun. I don’t think it’s disputed that Baldwin didn’t know those things. What are they going to learn from looking at actual bullets that’s relevant to his guilt or innocence?
They’re trying to link Seth Kenney as the source of the live ammo. That alone wouldn’t help Baldwin.
But. could this procedural error get the case dismissed? That is what the judge is considering. The ruling will be interesting.
There were errors in this case from the beginning. The path to prosecution took a lot of turns. That doesn’t take the gun out of Baldwin’s hand.