I am no great fan of Alec Baldwin as a person, although he is certainly a good actor. But I have had trouble with his being blamed for that shooting that killed a woman. Do they really think it's his fault? What good is it to blame someone who certainly did not shoot her deliberately; he wouldn't have been that stupid.
But this morning after doing some googling, I found what sounds like a valid reason that he might be blamed when he has his day in court. Don't put too much stock in this. I found it on Reddit. But it does make sense, and I'll do some more googling about it later.
Baldwin was in charge of the entire movie. Instead of hiring an EXPERIENCED armorer, he chose the totally inexperienced daughter of one he had worked with before. Instead of letting her do her job, Baldwin was in and out of those guns every day. He allowed multiple crew members to goof around target practicing between takes with perhaps every single revolver on set. Finally, and this is the big one, Baldwin made no differentiation between a revolver that was going to be used in a scene to fire a blank and a revolver that was going to be used to fire an actual projectile into a prop such as a wooden door in a scene. Basically every Western since the 1930's would keep these in two different locked boxes with permanent labels on them...one of course saying "no live rounds EVER."
f I were a lawyer I would argue that Baldwin used his total power over this movie to systematically REMOVE all of the standard procedures of firearm safety on a movie set. I would get zoom video depositions from every retired armorer on every Western and Gangster film to firmly establish what gun protocol ALWAYS happens. Baldwin isn't being charged for what he did in the five minutes before this tragic death happened. Baldwin is being charged for what he did in the hours, days, and weeks before the death. He's worked on a hundred movie sets and it's going to be very hard for his lawyer to claim he was ignorant rather than willfully careless. Part of that is who he hired for the most important job on the set but even more is how he deliberately undermined how that worker would want things done if given total autonomy over the guns.
Finally, I've found something that makes sense. We'll see what happens. One mustn't forget that a human life was taken from a very young woman.
Like you, I had a hard time blaming the man until this post and the subpost you included. It really does sound like reckless endangerment and/or involuntary manslaughter.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense now. I was wondering the same thing. He is a good actor, but the general public have no knowledge of him as a person. Most actors have huge egos and that would explain him wanting to be in charge of every single aspect, rather than relying on the person to do their job. The woman he chose to be the armorer was probably in awe of him and afraid to demand his obedience to the rules. She should have quit when he revealed his recklessness. Her father probably would have and not put up with shenanigans from Baldwin. Too bad he won't just admit his culpability and deal with the outcome. You know, like another egostistical madman with many court dates in his future.
ReplyDeleteAmen, sister!
DeleteThanks for the explanation. I wonder if more will be revealed?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like he is responsible if all that is true.
ReplyDeleteYes, this all makes sense when you see it from that angle. It is so tragic that a man's ego cost a young life.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting perspective. If that is true, that explains culpability very well.
ReplyDelete