Maybe, but her job was specifically to ensure the gun was safe when it was handed over the actor, so even if Baldwin is facing a sentence, it will likely be less than what Gutierrez received.
Probably in a strict liability sense perhaps he could be found guilty - it was Baldwin's circus. He would share culpability in her hiring surely. I think it's 50/50 Baldwin gets acquitted, and if he does get convicted, it will be a suspended sentence.
It was interesting to read the judge's comments that Gutierrez took no accountability in the accident. Given Baldwin's history, I wonder if he'll be smart enough to screw on a expression of remorse during his trial.
Agreed. First rule of gun safety, always treat it like it's loaded. That's true on film sets. The fact they were shooting a scene involving a gun doesn't change that. There's no reason to point a gun at a crew member like he did.
I think Baldwin has been on enough film sets to know better.
I understand that he may get something by being a producer. But as an actor, if they gave him a gun and they told him the gun was clean, how is it his fault that he had real ammunition?
I had a stepfather who was mostly a western cowboy actor and I would visit him on his film sets often. Every single time he was handed a firearm before he did anything he inspected the gun for things that might be dangerous. Simple gun safety I learned when I was 10 years old. Baldwin should have done this but obviously he didn't.
She should have told the truth. She checked the gun before it ended up in Baldwin's hands and it had dummy rounds in it. Is she supposed to follow Baldwin around while he's handling it and make sure he doesn't slide live rounds into the cylinder?
HE should have hired a person for that important job, based on MERIT not INCLUSION, and then he should have supported HIM in doing his job, instead of allowing people to ignore her.
Good point, maybe they should investigate and make sure there weren't any unhinged angry actors on set who had disdain for female cinematographers telling them what to do.
Well The Armorer is guilty of not doing her job
Alec as a professional who had worked with Similar weapons before SHOULD have checked to make sure the proper loads were used, This is what a smart person would do
Had they shot the scene he would have killed someone
BUT--- And this is where he is guilty
The Gun, a single action Army, was loaded, and he was fucking around, Pulled the hammer back, and let it go before it got to the 1st safety
There is enough tension on the spring to fire the weapon
You don't have to have your finger on the trigger or pull the trigger
And this is where he is guilty. The Gun, a single action Army, was loaded, and he was fucking around, Pulled the hammer back, and let it go before it got to the 1st safety..
Here is something interesting I found on line from Harvard Law Today where they interview retired federal judge Nancy Gertner about this case. This is a partial interview, link follows with complete interview:
HLT: What is Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense? Will his position as one of the film’s producers have an impact?
Gertner: Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set. His status as a producer on the film complicates his obligations to a degree, but as some of the news suggests, many individuals are producers in name only. The question is whether the prosecutor will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clear obligation to check the weapon, which he ignored, whether as actor or producer. He also has an argument that precisely because this prosecution is unprecedented, it violates due process; he would have had no notice of any obligation to independently check the weapon.
HLT: Do you think this case will go to trial, or is there a chance of a plea deal?
Gertner: I don’t think there is any chance of a plea deal. The charges are defensible; I expect Baldwin to defend them.