Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

SoonerAviator said:
But the armorer wasn't even on-set when this occurred, was she? How does the armorer check a weapon when they weren't present? Wouldn't that have stopped production if the rule was in place? Lots of holes in that swiss cheese.
Click to expand...
The guns are supposed to be secured when the armorer isn't with them.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Not sure how that's relevant at this point.
Click to expand...
It speaks to responsibility and the armorers failure to do her job. If she really wasn't securing the weapons when she wasn't around then I would expect that to be part of Alec's defense.
 
172andyou said:
The guns are supposed to be secured when the armorer isn't with them.
Click to expand...
You know for sure what the policy was for guns on-set? I don't work in the industry, so I'm not sure what typical procedure is, and what safeguards are usually in place when the primary armorer isn't available.
 
172andyou said:
If she really wasn't securing the weapons when she wasn't around then I would expect that to be part of Alec's defense.
Click to expand...

Pretty crummy defense. If I were a juror, that argument would sink him. Why would AB the actor be handling a gun without the armorer present, and why would AB the producer tolerate an armorer who didn't secure the guns?
 
172andyou said:
It speaks to responsibility and the armorers failure to do her job. If she really wasn't securing the weapons when she wasn't around then I would expect that to be part of Alec's defense.
Click to expand...

For which she was already found guilty. As I said, I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
For which she was already found guilty. As I said, I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point.
Click to expand...
If Alec's lawyers can show that the responsibility was hers, that makes it harder to say it was his. Yes, multiple people can be culpable. But if the error was as fundamental as weapons laying around uncontrolled and that the reason armorers exist is because actors aren't SMEs then it's going to be very hard to get him convicted of anything. That she has already been convicted and, IIRC, given the max penalty is probably a note in favor of where the responsibility lays.
 
Half Fast said:
Pretty crummy defense. If I were a juror, that argument would sink him. Why would AB the actor be handling a gun without the armorer present, and why would AB the producer tolerate an armorer who didn't secure the guns?
Click to expand...
I guess you don't buy it, but the argument is that actors can't be trusted. That's why armorers exist.
 
172andyou said:
If Alec's lawyers can show that the responsibility was hers, that makes it harder to say it was his. Yes, multiple people can be culpable. But if the error was as fundamental as weapons laying around uncontrolled and that the reason armorers exist is because actors aren't SMEs then it's going to be very hard to get him convicted of anything. That she has already been convicted and, IIRC, given the max penalty is probably a note in favor of where the responsibility lays.
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't follow the Armorer's trial very closely.
 
SoonerAviator said:
You know for sure what the policy was for guns on-set? I don't work in the industry, so I'm not sure what typical procedure is, and what safeguards are usually in place when the primary armorer isn't available.
Click to expand...
The union rule is that an armorer must be on set whenever a weapon is being used and it must be secured when it is not. Rust, IIRC, was at least partially a non-union set. But those rules will likely be pointed to as setting convention even if the union wasn't involved.
 
172andyou said:
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, you and Lindberg making it about me is getting pretty old.
Click to expand...

My point is that you mis-state and misunderstand so many elements related to this that any conclusion or theory you provide is highly suspect. You then argue (from ignorance) whenever anyone tries to correct you.
 
172andyou said:
I guess you don't buy it, but the argument is that actors can't be trusted. That's why armorers exist.
Click to expand...

No, I don't buy it, because you also told us...

172andyou said:
The union rule is that an armorer must be on set whenever a weapon is being used and it must be secured when it is not.
Click to expand...

AB the actor knows that rule, and AB the producer was responsible for ensuring the armorer was present whenever weapons were to be used.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I can’t imagine a juror in their right mind accepting that argument.
Click to expand...
Me neither, I think Alec is going to be acquitted. Though, given the judge throwing the book at the armorer, it wouldn't surprise me if he accepted a misdemeanor plea agreement if the prosecution puts it back on the table. That would be very practical compared to having a felony on his record and the side effects it brings with it.
 
Half Fast said:
Sounds more like an argument for the defense.
Click to expand...
I think we're talking past each other and that I read your note differently than intended.

I'm saying that I would expect the prosecution to present a case that because the union rules specific gun security, that Alec should have known better *even if* the armorer had failed at her job.

Though I suppose it's not "even if" anymore. She's been found guilty, so it's "even though".
 
172andyou said:
I'm saying that I would expect the prosecution to present a case that because the union rules specific gun security, that Alec should have known better *even if* the armorer had failed at her job.
Click to expand...
So you ARE saying that it is not the responsibility of an actor to comply with the rules of the actors’ union.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you ARE saying that it is not the responsibility of an actor to comply with the rules of the actors’ union.
Click to expand...
I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation.

That doesn't mean I can't also guess what the prosecution will argue. :)
 
172andyou said:
I think we're talking past each other and that I read your note differently than intended.

I'm saying that I would expect the prosecution to present a case that because the union rules specific gun security, that Alec should have known better *even if* the armorer had failed at her job.

Though I suppose it's not "even if" anymore. She's been found guilty, so it's "even though".
Click to expand...

Apparently you're talking about the armorer's trial, which is over. I'm talking about AB's trial, which will be in July.
 
Half Fast said:
Apparently you're talking about the armorer's trial, which is over. I'm talking about AB's trial, which will be in July.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Alec's trial. I would expect the prosecution to bring the union rules in as evidence that he should have known better.
 
172andyou said:
I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation.

That doesn't mean I can't also guess what the prosecution will argue. :)
Click to expand...
And you avoid a direct question that has nothing to do with any of that.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Yes, I was, and you did not answer that question.
Click to expand...
Sure, I did. You just didn't like it because it wasn't a "yes" or "no" answer.

What I said was, "I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation."
 
172andyou said:
Sure, I did. You just didn't like it because it wasn't a "yes" or "no" answer.

What I said was, "I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation."
Click to expand...
I suspect ABs argument will be based around the same lack of English comprehension you’re exhibiting.
 
172andyou said:
Sure, I did. You just didn't like it because it wasn't a "yes" or "no" answer.

What I said was, "I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation."
Click to expand...

But are they required to know anything about their own rules? I can know very little about printers, but if the rule is "Don't touch a printer," and I break that rule, my knowledge of printers is irrelevant.
 
172andyou said:
I thought you were asking if it was the actors responsibility to follow union rules about guns. No?
Click to expand...

I thought he was also a (executive) producer which means he had a lot more responsibility than just an actor reading some lines.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
But are they required to know anything about their own rules? I can know very little about printers, but if the rule is "Don't touch a printer," and I break that rule, my knowledge of printers is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm guessing that's an argument the prosecution will use.

And the defense will likely counter that with something that points out that armorers exist for a reason, and it's not because actors can be trusted with weapons. And, further, even specialized staff, the armorer, wasn't enough in this case which demonstrates further that it's totally unreasonable to expect actors to know what to do.

Lindberg said:
Why can't across y be trusted? Is it because they tend to behave recklessly?
Click to expand...
Recklessly from ignorance, yes.

MooneyDriver78 said:
I thought he was also a (executive) producer which means he had a lot more responsibility than just an actor reading some lines.
Click to expand...
Yes, I expect the prosecution will make that argument also. And, if Alec does manage to get a plea deal, this line of argument will probably be the reason why he accepts it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top