I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
There is no excuse for having a loaded weapon on a movie set.
These are actors and actresses who are not gun specialists. The people,in charge of weapons are responsible for the loaded weapon. Stupid to even charge Baldwin.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
👍
RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
100% correct. There are many different types of producers. not sure if he was given the title to sweeten the deal, or if it was his production company that set it up but, regardless there is 0 percent chance he would have had any real kind of set oversight. It would take the prosecutor 15 minutes to figure that out. Never understood why he was charged. This is a tragedy and feel so bad for Halyna and her family. It should have never happened.
Quote:
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
👍
RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
Predictable that someone would be disgusted by prosecutorial misconduct? It's awful. If not caught, it prejudices the right of a defendant to a fair trial. If caught in this instance, it jeopardizes the right of the victims to obtain justice. The case should have been decided by a jury on its merits. It should not have been decided because a prosecutor neglected their ethical duty
RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
Not sure what you are saying. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer or weapons supervisor was found guilty. Please go check your news sources and report back.
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
It doesn't take a high-powered legal team to know that the prosecution can't hide potentially exculpatory evidence. But it often takes a high-powered legal team to find out what evidence the prosecution has hidden.
As I noted above, this hidden evidence is also likely relevant to the case of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the movie, who was convicted in April. Her team didn't find it.
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
it's called disclosure dickhead.
Thank you Mona Lisa
RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
Predictable that someone would be disgusted by prosecutorial misconduct? It's awful. If not caught, it prejudices the right of a defendant to a fair trial. If caught in this instance, it jeopardizes the right of the victims to obtain justice. The case should have been decided by a jury on its merits. It should not have been decided because a prosecutor neglected their ethical duty
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
It doesn't take a high-powered legal team to know that the prosecution can't hide potentially exculpatory evidence. But it often takes a high-powered legal team to find out what evidence the prosecution has hidden.
As I noted above, this hidden evidence is also likely relevant to the case of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the movie, who was convicted in April. Her team didn't find it.
i think i read that her team knew of the actions that ended up being considered withholding evidence but elected not to bring it up because they didnt see value in it. though obviously now they will revisit that.
from what i gathered from initial reports this actually seemed like a pretty innocuous mistake from the prosecutor, who herself took the stand to defend that she had made a judgement call that whatever the excluded evidence wasnt relevant since it was in a different state and was never at the film location. think it was real bullets or something.
this was a weird case that always seemed to stupid to bring - it seems clearly like some kind of freak accident and if anyone was negligent it was almost certain to be a production worker responsible for the weapons, not an actor. the only good that can come from any of this is learning something/fixing what wrong such that it never happens again.
with the exponential rise of amateur productions (youtubers and the like) the amount of accidents on sets from true negligence is a lot higher than anyone realizes and has been going back at least a decade. i was around 1 such case about that long ago that was stone cold negligence on everyones part and even though it got a ton of media attention and had a major studio tangentially involved it was civil the entire way. nobody died but 1 guy came real close.
from what i gathered from initial reports this actually seemed like a pretty innocuous mistake from the prosecutor, who herself took the stand to defend that she had made a judgement call that whatever the excluded evidence wasnt relevant since it was in a different state and was never at the film location. think it was real bullets or something.
It actually is a very bid deal. The prosecutor said after the dismissal that "There is absolutely no evidence that any of that ammunition is related to the incident involving Ms. Hutchins." But that's for a jury to decide, not for the prosecutor to decide.
Also it came out that the prosecutor was present when the evidence was filed under a different case number. From the NYT:
Quote:
Ms. Morrissey said she had not realized that the evidence had been put under a separate case number, but under questioning by the judge, Cpl. Alexandria Hancock, the lead investigator in the case, said Ms. Morrissey had been present for the decision.
from what i gathered from initial reports this actually seemed like a pretty innocuous mistake from the prosecutor, who herself took the stand to defend that she had made a judgement call that whatever the excluded evidence wasnt relevant since it was in a different state and was never at the film location. think it was real bullets or something.
It actually is a very bid deal. The prosecutor said after the dismissal that "There is absolutely no evidence that any of that ammunition is related to the incident involving Ms. Hutchins." But that's for a jury to decide, not for the prosecutor to decide.
Also it came out that the prosecutor was present when the evidence was filed under a different case number. From the NYT:
Quote:
Ms. Morrissey said she had not realized that the evidence had been put under a separate case number, but under questioning by the judge, Cpl. Alexandria Hancock, the lead investigator in the case, said Ms. Morrissey had been present for the decision.
That is simply shocking, IMO.
is it? genuinely asking because it seems to me like there has to be some form of prosecutorial discretion or else cant any defendant say anything is evidence that they werent given and try to get off on prosecutorial misconduct?
i guess what im unclear about is if the ammunition in question was never on the set and had nothing to do with the accident, what exactly is exculpatory about it? genuinely asking because i havent seen anyone explain that.
and am certain that she did not make this decision without being truly disgusted. One of the prosecutors resigned during the trial yesterday.
Always felt that this was a grandstand move by the local DA--who just won re-election overwhelmingly.
Expect the defense in the earlier case for the armorer to seek to have that verdict tossed as well.
The families of the two victims were not going to get justice by seeing these two individuals imprisoned. They still have civil suits and undoubtedly will recover even though that too will be a hollow victory after a horrible tragedy.
and am certain that she did not make this decision without being truly disgusted. One of the prosecutors resigned during the trial yesterday.
Always felt that this was a grandstand move by the local DA--who just won re-election overwhelmingly.
Expect the defense in the earlier case for the armorer to seek to have that verdict tossed as well.
The families of the two victims were not going to get justice by seeing these two individuals imprisoned. They still have civil suits and undoubtedly will recover even though that too will be a hollow victory after a horrible tragedy.
Wow...I know nothong about this local politic situation and was sure from the very start that this was about getting reelected...what a shame
This was not an innocuous mistake by the prosecutor.
There is no discretion. It's not a judgement call. If anything is remotely potentially exculpatory, you are obligated to turn it over. This is drilled into every prosecutor.
The violation of that obligation here was so blatant that one of the (uninvolved) prosecutors resigned when the State didn't voluntary dismiss the case upon learning of it.
of both the timeline and the issues involved,
How Alec Baldwin’s Defense Set the ‘Rust’ Actor Free: ‘It Was Incredible Lawyering’ - ( New Window )
its amazing they spent so much time (likely) over prosecuting this and still havent found the answer to the only real question of consequence - how did the bullets get to the set and into the gun?
baldwin's lawyer is a big name and i guess so for a reason. he recently made some blunders on behalf of another big client of his (musk) but here it seems like he very shrewdly read the room and realized he had a case just waiting for a straw to break the camels back.
I may be simple-minded, but I can't imagine how live ammunition
How could the armorer allow it?
And not recognize it in her hand??
And then put it in the pistol???
Insane and tragic beyond words.
I dove into this a bit when it first happened.
The gun Baldwin was holding was a single-action, western-style revolver. The scene he was rehearsing had him stand, draw his pistol and aim it at the camera. For this, the gun had to be loaded with dummy rounds so that when the camera looks down the barrel of the gun you can see that there are bullets in the chambers.
A dummy round looks exactly like a live round. The space where the gunpowder would be on a live round is supposed to have several BBs in it so you can shake it and tell that it's a dummy round. It's also supposed to have small marking on back of the the primer cup.
The armorer is supposed to check each round and make sure it's a dummy when they load the gun. Obviously this didn't happen. I assume that since there aren't supposed to be live rounds on set, she just assumed they were all dummy rounds and didn't check. Or possibly someone else loaded the gun, which is not supposed to happen.
So the question remains, how did the live rounds get mixed in with the dummy rounds? There are two theories here.
The first theory is that some of the stunt people "borrowed" some of the guns from the set to go plinking and left live rounds either in or near them when they returned them.
The second theory, which ties in with the missing ammunition that appeared in court yesterday, is that the vendor that supplied the dummy ammo messed up and mixed in some live rounds.
the pee-on who was responsible for the gun's safety goes to prison, while the idiot that pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger gets off. Nothing like celebrity privilege.
the pee-on who was responsible for the gun's safety goes to prison, while the idiot that pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger gets off. Nothing like celebrity privilege.
the pee-on who was responsible for the gun's safety goes to prison, while the idiot that pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger gets off. Nothing like celebrity privilege.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
Not sure what you are saying. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer or weapons supervisor was found guilty. Please go check your news sources and report back.
I'm agreeing with you. I was just pointing out what the other guy said was wrong.
RE: RE: RE: RE: So is the actor supposed to check the gun
Do you think he would’ve checked it if the scene called for him to shoot himself?
That’s not a thing: shooting yourself with blanks can be deadly.
I know that but there’s been plenty of scenes in movies with self inflicted gun shots. I was just curious if this scene called for that, if he would’ve done exactly what he did.
Baldwin was reckless with the gun. That we know. Now I don’t see why there
can’t be a civil suit. I think enough proof is there
for the family to win. Allow all evidence, and even go through
the prosecution misconduct. I think the family still wins here.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
There are a different set of facts?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
There are a different set of facts?
Yes. Partial sets of facts are still facts. Incomplete set of facts are still facts. biased set of facts are stuill facts.
RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
"3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger?"
The script called for him to point the gun at the camera and fire it. That's what he did. The person who was killed was the cinematographer who was behind the camera. There are a lot of questions about this case but this isn't really one of them. He pointed the gun at the camera and, tragically, the woman's job was to be behind the camera. Your question makes it sound as though the camera wasn't there and he just pointed the gun at the woman.
RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
#1 & #2: Abject failure of armorer and assistant director to follow correct protocols.
#3: The scene about to be filmed involved him making a quick draw while cocking the gun and pointing it at the camera. The director was crouched behind the camera ensuring it was lined up correctly. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger. There’s little doubt he did, but it doesn’t take a lot of force to pull the trigger on that gun while cocked. Simple mistake to make on the fast motions he was doing.
#4: There were several live rounds discovered on set; I believe the fatal round was the only one loaded in the gun.
Gun safety rule: these don’t apply on Hollywood movie sets. Filming gun play scenes involves pointing guns at people and pulling triggers. You’ve undoubtably watched hundreds of movies and TV shows where this was done. Multiple safety protocols exist to prevent the tragedy that occurred. All were broken
RE: RE: RE: RE: Embarrassing and career-killing for those prosecutors.
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
#1 & #2: Abject failure of armorer and assistant director to follow correct protocols.
#3: The scene about to be filmed involved him making a quick draw while cocking the gun and pointing it at the camera. The director was crouched behind the camera ensuring it was lined up correctly. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger. There’s little doubt he did, but it doesn’t take a lot of force to pull the trigger on that gun while cocked. Simple mistake to make on the fast motions he was doing.
#4: There were several live rounds discovered on set; I believe the fatal round was the only one loaded in the gun.
Gun safety rule: these don’t apply on Hollywood movie sets. Filming gun play scenes involves pointing guns at people and pulling triggers. You’ve undoubtably watched hundreds of movies and TV shows where this was done. Multiple safety protocols exist to prevent the tragedy that occurred. All were broken
I don't recall if there were charges filed then.
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
Quote:
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
👍
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
Quote:
In comment 16552670 robbieballs2003 said:
100% correct. There are many different types of producers. not sure if he was given the title to sweeten the deal, or if it was his production company that set it up but, regardless there is 0 percent chance he would have had any real kind of set oversight. It would take the prosecutor 15 minutes to figure that out. Never understood why he was charged. This is a tragedy and feel so bad for Halyna and her family. It should have never happened.
Quote:
Wasn't it his movie though? It wasn't just him being an actor.
He was one of 13 producers. Actor-producers tend to be limited to the creative side, with little to no operational responsibility.
The prosecution intended to argue he was responsible in his capacity as a producer. The judge ordered them to show evidence to that, and when they could not barred that line of argument.
👍
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
Predictable that someone would be disgusted by prosecutorial misconduct? It's awful. If not caught, it prejudices the right of a defendant to a fair trial. If caught in this instance, it jeopardizes the right of the victims to obtain justice. The case should have been decided by a jury on its merits. It should not have been decided because a prosecutor neglected their ethical duty
Quote:
In comment 16552672 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
Not sure what you are saying. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer or weapons supervisor was found guilty. Please go check your news sources and report back.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
Dragging Baldwin thru the mud to make a name is shameful.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
Quote:
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
it's called disclosure dickhead.
It doesn't take a high-powered legal team to know that the prosecution can't hide potentially exculpatory evidence. But it often takes a high-powered legal team to find out what evidence the prosecution has hidden.
As I noted above, this hidden evidence is also likely relevant to the case of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the movie, who was convicted in April. Her team didn't find it.
Quote:
In comment 16552799 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
And now the armorer's conviction might get thrown out as well.
This sort of thing happens all the time but most defendants don't have the resources to hire a high powered legal team to make sure their rights aren't being violated.
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
it's called disclosure dickhead.
Thank you Mona Lisa
Quote:
In comment 16552672 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
lol so predictable
Predictable that someone would be disgusted by prosecutorial misconduct? It's awful. If not caught, it prejudices the right of a defendant to a fair trial. If caught in this instance, it jeopardizes the right of the victims to obtain justice. The case should have been decided by a jury on its merits. It should not have been decided because a prosecutor neglected their ethical duty
Sorry, my bad, I read your post wrong.
Quote:
You didn’t even a high powered legal team here. Anybody who’s watched My Cousin Vinny knows the Prosecution has to provide the defense all evidence in advance.
It doesn't take a high-powered legal team to know that the prosecution can't hide potentially exculpatory evidence. But it often takes a high-powered legal team to find out what evidence the prosecution has hidden.
As I noted above, this hidden evidence is also likely relevant to the case of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the movie, who was convicted in April. Her team didn't find it.
i think i read that her team knew of the actions that ended up being considered withholding evidence but elected not to bring it up because they didnt see value in it. though obviously now they will revisit that.
from what i gathered from initial reports this actually seemed like a pretty innocuous mistake from the prosecutor, who herself took the stand to defend that she had made a judgement call that whatever the excluded evidence wasnt relevant since it was in a different state and was never at the film location. think it was real bullets or something.
this was a weird case that always seemed to stupid to bring - it seems clearly like some kind of freak accident and if anyone was negligent it was almost certain to be a production worker responsible for the weapons, not an actor. the only good that can come from any of this is learning something/fixing what wrong such that it never happens again.
with the exponential rise of amateur productions (youtubers and the like) the amount of accidents on sets from true negligence is a lot higher than anyone realizes and has been going back at least a decade. i was around 1 such case about that long ago that was stone cold negligence on everyones part and even though it got a ton of media attention and had a major studio tangentially involved it was civil the entire way. nobody died but 1 guy came real close.
It actually is a very bid deal. The prosecutor said after the dismissal that "There is absolutely no evidence that any of that ammunition is related to the incident involving Ms. Hutchins." But that's for a jury to decide, not for the prosecutor to decide.
Also it came out that the prosecutor was present when the evidence was filed under a different case number. From the NYT:
That is simply shocking, IMO.
Quote:
from what i gathered from initial reports this actually seemed like a pretty innocuous mistake from the prosecutor, who herself took the stand to defend that she had made a judgement call that whatever the excluded evidence wasnt relevant since it was in a different state and was never at the film location. think it was real bullets or something.
It actually is a very bid deal. The prosecutor said after the dismissal that "There is absolutely no evidence that any of that ammunition is related to the incident involving Ms. Hutchins." But that's for a jury to decide, not for the prosecutor to decide.
Also it came out that the prosecutor was present when the evidence was filed under a different case number. From the NYT:
Quote:
Ms. Morrissey said she had not realized that the evidence had been put under a separate case number, but under questioning by the judge, Cpl. Alexandria Hancock, the lead investigator in the case, said Ms. Morrissey had been present for the decision.
That is simply shocking, IMO.
is it? genuinely asking because it seems to me like there has to be some form of prosecutorial discretion or else cant any defendant say anything is evidence that they werent given and try to get off on prosecutorial misconduct?
i guess what im unclear about is if the ammunition in question was never on the set and had nothing to do with the accident, what exactly is exculpatory about it? genuinely asking because i havent seen anyone explain that.
Always felt that this was a grandstand move by the local DA--who just won re-election overwhelmingly.
Expect the defense in the earlier case for the armorer to seek to have that verdict tossed as well.
The families of the two victims were not going to get justice by seeing these two individuals imprisoned. They still have civil suits and undoubtedly will recover even though that too will be a hollow victory after a horrible tragedy.
How Alec Baldwin’s Defense Set the ‘Rust’ Actor Free: ‘It Was Incredible Lawyering’ - ( New Window )
Always felt that this was a grandstand move by the local DA--who just won re-election overwhelmingly.
Expect the defense in the earlier case for the armorer to seek to have that verdict tossed as well.
The families of the two victims were not going to get justice by seeing these two individuals imprisoned. They still have civil suits and undoubtedly will recover even though that too will be a hollow victory after a horrible tragedy.
Wow...I know nothong about this local politic situation and was sure from the very start that this was about getting reelected...what a shame
The violation of that obligation here was so blatant that one of the (uninvolved) prosecutors resigned when the State didn't voluntary dismiss the case upon learning of it.
How Alec Baldwin’s Defense Set the ‘Rust’ Actor Free: ‘It Was Incredible Lawyering’ - ( New Window )
its amazing they spent so much time (likely) over prosecuting this and still havent found the answer to the only real question of consequence - how did the bullets get to the set and into the gun?
baldwin's lawyer is a big name and i guess so for a reason. he recently made some blunders on behalf of another big client of his (musk) but here it seems like he very shrewdly read the room and realized he had a case just waiting for a straw to break the camels back.
How could the armorer allow it?
And not recognize it in her hand??
And then put it in the pistol???
Insane and tragic beyond words.
How could the armorer allow it?
And not recognize it in her hand??
And then put it in the pistol???
Insane and tragic beyond words.
I dove into this a bit when it first happened.
The gun Baldwin was holding was a single-action, western-style revolver. The scene he was rehearsing had him stand, draw his pistol and aim it at the camera. For this, the gun had to be loaded with dummy rounds so that when the camera looks down the barrel of the gun you can see that there are bullets in the chambers.
A dummy round looks exactly like a live round. The space where the gunpowder would be on a live round is supposed to have several BBs in it so you can shake it and tell that it's a dummy round. It's also supposed to have small marking on back of the the primer cup.
The armorer is supposed to check each round and make sure it's a dummy when they load the gun. Obviously this didn't happen. I assume that since there aren't supposed to be live rounds on set, she just assumed they were all dummy rounds and didn't check. Or possibly someone else loaded the gun, which is not supposed to happen.
So the question remains, how did the live rounds get mixed in with the dummy rounds? There are two theories here.
The first theory is that some of the stunt people "borrowed" some of the guns from the set to go plinking and left live rounds either in or near them when they returned them.
The second theory, which ties in with the missing ammunition that appeared in court yesterday, is that the vendor that supplied the dummy ammo messed up and mixed in some live rounds.
Another BBI dumb cunt moron.
Actors are not supposed to check their weapons. That is not their job. The armorer is supposed to be responsible for gun safety.
Quote:
that is handed to him or not? Was that ever clarified? Just curious.
Actors are not supposed to check their weapons. That is not their job. The armorer is supposed to be responsible for gun safety.
Do you think he would’ve checked it if the scene called for him to shoot himself?
Do you think he would’ve checked it if the scene called for him to shoot himself?
That’s not a thing: shooting yourself with blanks can be deadly.
Quote:
the pee-on who was responsible for the gun's safety goes to prison, while the idiot that pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger gets off. Nothing like celebrity privilege.
Another BBI dumb cunt moron.
Quote:
that is handed to him or not? Was that ever clarified? Just curious.
No, but a responsible person never points a gun at another being and pulls the trigger. In this case they weren't even shooting a scene.
Seriously, I answered all of this just a few posts back.
Quote:
In comment 16552754 kcgiants said:
Quote:
In comment 16552672 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
Not sure what you are saying. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer or weapons supervisor was found guilty. Please go check your news sources and report back.
I'm agreeing with you. I was just pointing out what the other guy said was wrong.
Quote:
Do you think he would’ve checked it if the scene called for him to shoot himself?
That’s not a thing: shooting yourself with blanks can be deadly.
I know that but there’s been plenty of scenes in movies with self inflicted gun shots. I was just curious if this scene called for that, if he would’ve done exactly what he did.
can’t be a civil suit. I think enough proof is there
for the family to win. Allow all evidence, and even go through
the prosecution misconduct. I think the family still wins here.
Quote:
In comment 16552672 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
There are a different set of facts?
Quote:
In comment 16552754 kcgiants said:
Quote:
In comment 16552672 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 16552647 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Simply inexcusable that the families don't get justice because of prosecutorial misconduct. Agreed it should be career ending for them
The gun safety person who was tried earlier was found guilty and iirc the person was sentenced to 18 months jail time.
You gotta review your choice of news consumption if you aren't getting relevant important facts. May be switch to other news sources so you can get opposite facts. At least that'll even things up. The wiki page has the details in the first section. Much better source of facts that 90% of news outlet
There are a different set of facts?
Yes. Partial sets of facts are still facts. Incomplete set of facts are still facts. biased set of facts are stuill facts.
Quote:
I used to be one. I never understood how prosecutors could risk their reputation and career just to win a case. Their lives and freedom aren't on the line. As we used to say "no one at this table is goin to jail".
Honestly, for anyone who has been on a set in their lives would know it’s not on the actor. There are so many things that have broken down before the gun ever got to him. I can’t believe they even charged him in the first place. All it would take is to ask the question “what is the protocol for a gun being on set”
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
The script called for him to point the gun at the camera and fire it. That's what he did. The person who was killed was the cinematographer who was behind the camera. There are a lot of questions about this case but this isn't really one of them. He pointed the gun at the camera and, tragically, the woman's job was to be behind the camera. Your question makes it sound as though the camera wasn't there and he just pointed the gun at the woman.
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
#1 & #2: Abject failure of armorer and assistant director to follow correct protocols.
#3: The scene about to be filmed involved him making a quick draw while cocking the gun and pointing it at the camera. The director was crouched behind the camera ensuring it was lined up correctly. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger. There’s little doubt he did, but it doesn’t take a lot of force to pull the trigger on that gun while cocked. Simple mistake to make on the fast motions he was doing.
#4: There were several live rounds discovered on set; I believe the fatal round was the only one loaded in the gun.
Gun safety rule: these don’t apply on Hollywood movie sets. Filming gun play scenes involves pointing guns at people and pulling triggers. You’ve undoubtably watched hundreds of movies and TV shows where this was done. Multiple safety protocols exist to prevent the tragedy that occurred. All were broken
Quote:
Ther are puzzling questions. 1. What was a live round doing on the set? 2. How did a live round get in the gun? 3. Whatever possessed him to point a gun at the woman and pull the trigger? 4. Was there only one live round in the gun and that's the one that happened to be in the chamber ready to be fired? Basic gun safety rule, never point at anyone, loaded or unloaded, unless you intend to shoot them. IDK,lots here just don't make sense.
#1 & #2: Abject failure of armorer and assistant director to follow correct protocols.
#3: The scene about to be filmed involved him making a quick draw while cocking the gun and pointing it at the camera. The director was crouched behind the camera ensuring it was lined up correctly. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger. There’s little doubt he did, but it doesn’t take a lot of force to pull the trigger on that gun while cocked. Simple mistake to make on the fast motions he was doing.
#4: There were several live rounds discovered on set; I believe the fatal round was the only one loaded in the gun.
Gun safety rule: these don’t apply on Hollywood movie sets. Filming gun play scenes involves pointing guns at people and pulling triggers. You’ve undoubtably watched hundreds of movies and TV shows where this was done. Multiple safety protocols exist to prevent the tragedy that occurred. All were broken
Too many unfortunate incidents for me.
one thing that annoyed me was seeing a picture of Baldwin on the phone during a safety briefing.
one thing that annoyed me was seeing a picture of Baldwin on the phone during a safety briefing.
Wasn’t supposed to be blanks - was supposed to be dummies.