The Off Topic Topic

[grumbler]

I invite you to re-read my posts with a bit more care, my argument is that Balwin cannot separate his brain into Balwin the actor and Balwin the producer as you appear to be doing.  Instead, the evidence seems to indicate the Balwin, the individual who pulled the trigger, knew for certain that the armourer was inexperienced and so he had every reason to be more cautious.

Remember, your comment was that he had no reason for such concern.  That position is not consistent with what has been reported. 

I invite you to back up these assertions of fact with actual evidence.  There's no evidence that Baldwin, actor or producer, had any clue as to who the armorer for the film was, and your attempt to build a case of legal liability would fail even if he did know who it was.

There were twelve names credited with "producer" for the film.  Four were executive producers, who would have done all the hiring, etc.  There was a line producer who supervised hiring and managed the staff on the set.  Six, including Baldwin, were just "producers."  They'd be the people who put together the financing.  They'd not typically know the qualifications of any of the staff, since that was the producer's, director's, and line producer's bailiwick.

You make claims of things "known for certain" which lack even the vaguest actual evidence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yes, we are saying the same thing.  Baldwin had no reasonable basis to conclude the AD had any particular experience or knowledge in declaring the gun safe.  What he did know is that the person who had the responsibility (and on whom the AD would be relying) lacked experience.

Cool:

1. How does Baldwin know Halls (AD) is "inexperienced", specifically, what attributes make Halls inexperienced in the role of AD (which includes primary responsibility for on-set safety)?

2. How does Baldwin know the person on whom the AD would be relying for firearms expertise does not have appropriate experience to do their job?

3. Do you believe that in cases where an actor determines (from a place of themselves lacking specialist experience) that on-set specialists are "too inexperienced", that actor then assumes the normal safety responsibility those specialists hold?

4. Do you think you could find many examples of that being the assumption for how a set works? Do you think the defense will have trouble finding a huge number of examples of that not being the case?

[grumbler]

He was also a producer - you know, the guy who hired the folks working on the project and who made the decision to go cheap.

There is zero evidence that Baldwin hired anyone who worked on the set.  He surely had a voice when it came to who was directing and any name starts, but that was one voice out of many.  Other people were brought aboard whose job it was to hire and supervise crew.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yes, we are saying the same thing.  Baldwin had no reasonable basis to conclude the AD had any particular experience or knowledge in declaring the gun safe.  What he did know is that the person who had the responsibility (and on whom the AD would be relying) lacked experience.

Of course he had a reasonable basis for concluding that a very experienced AD was very experienced.  We have no evidence whatsoever that Baldwin knew anything about the background of Gutierrez-Reed, nor should he have. He was performing as an actor, not a director.

He was also a producer - you know, the guy who hired the folks working on the project and who made the decision to go cheap.

Ah--problem identified. You don't know how producing credits work.

Executive Producer - CEO of the production, while how much they delegate varies, they are ultimately the actual "boss" of any movie. Sometimes a powerful director may hand pick a toady EP and the studio may let said EP know the director is basically in charge (rare, but not unheard of for very famous / powerful directors), but I'd say probably 99% of the time, the EP is the CEO of the movie.

Line Producer - This is the day to day "boss", in corporate terminology the closest might be "COO", this is the person doing most hiring, scheduling, the one who directly oversees most departments etc.

"Producer" - Anyone outside of the EP / LP may literally just be what is called a "vanity" credit. Sometimes given to famous actors as gravy in their contract. Sometimes given to people because they have made personal financial investments in the movie. On most film sets these people are not actually managers of the production and if they do any producing duties beyond the act of appearing as a producer on IMDB, it will be typically something very minor like "publicity", which may just mean them showing up to do an interview with someone.

Baldwin was neither the EP or LP of Rust.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Looking over the credits, Rust (as is fairly common in low budget independent films) has a good number of Executive Producers (4), but most are "money guys", in fact all are money guys from what I can tell.

It then has 6 Producers and 1 Co-Producer, Baldwin is one of the 6 Producers. Looking at their resumes, most of the Producers are either also money guys, the star (Baldwin), the star's personal agent (who would probably have no on set role), and then two guys who have actual experience in production roles in other movies--my bet is one of those guys was in charge of the production:

Ryan Winterstern
Ryan Donnell Smith

Most likely because of all the different funding sources, some of the money-guy EPs had at least some level of involvement just to represent their investment--the set was beset with labor disputes and things of that nature so it is unlikely the money guys could be entirely hands off.

Looking through Baldwin's history of producing, which goes back to 2000, it appears there's only one notable instance where he did "real" producer work, the rest were vanity credits--which is entirely normal.

[crazy canuck]

I invite you to re-read my posts with a bit more care, my argument is that Balwin cannot separate his brain into Balwin the actor and Balwin the producer as you appear to be doing.  Instead, the evidence seems to indicate the Balwin, the individual who pulled the trigger, knew for certain that the armourer was inexperienced and so he had every reason to be more cautious.

Remember, your comment was that he had no reason for such concern.  That position is not consistent with what has been reported. 

I invite you to back up these assertions of fact with actual evidence.  There's no evidence that Baldwin, actor or producer, had any clue as to who the armorer for the film was, and your attempt to build a case of legal liability would fail even if he did know who it was.

There were twelve names credited with "producer" for the film.  Four were executive producers, who would have done all the hiring, etc.  There was a line producer who supervised hiring and managed the staff on the set.  Six, including Baldwin, were just "producers."  They'd be the people who put together the financing.  They'd not typically know the qualifications of any of the staff, since that was the producer's, director's, and line producer's bailiwick.

You make claims of things "known for certain" which lack even the vaguest actual evidence.

Sure, go back and read what was posted as to why the charges were laid.  And they are not my claims.  They are the reason the charges were laid.  So take up your misdirected angst with the people who laid the charges. 

I don't have the powers you think I do.

[Razgovory]

I don't have the powers you think I do.

[grumbler]

Sure, go back and read what was posted as to why the charges were laid.  And they are not my claims.  They are the reason the charges were laid.  So take up your misdirected angst with the people who laid the charges. 

I don't have the powers you think I do.

I've done more than read the posts on why those charges were laid, I've read analyses of the case by actors experienced in this sort of thing, prosecutors, defense attorneys, reporters, and interested laymen.  None of them tell me that Alec Baldwin hired Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.  None of them stated that an actor is reckless if he or she believes the assurance by the AD that the gun contains only dummy rounds, though some actors did say that they personally checked the gun before firing blanks, due to their awareness of the potential for anything in the barrel to be propelled at enormous speed.  None mentioned dummy loads in this context.

So, how about you actually producing the evidence for your claims, rather than saying that I should do your research for you.

[The Minsky Moment]

The New Mexico statute has some weird langugage about mental state for invol manslaughter but apparently the case law applies the usual reckless standard.  That's a high standard for disregard. I don't see how the prosecutor makes that case given the "cold gun" communication.  Seems to me so weak it wouldn't stand on appeal even if they snookered a jury into a conviction.

As I said in the other thread that actually has this incident in the title, the other route is to establish the misdemeanor of negligent use of a deadly weapon.  That's what Halls pled guilty to.  The idea would be that pointing the gun at the camera when there was no filming was irresponsible.  However, my understanding from the reports of the affidavit is that AB was rehearsing a scene involving a "cross draw".  If true, that seems to be a reasonable explanation for handing the gun in that way.  But it could turn on the precise facts and how NM intreprets its negligent use law.

[Admiral Yi]

I wondered if there might be a partisan angle but turns out the NM AG is a Democrat.

[HisMajestyBOB]

[grumbler]

The New Mexico statute has some weird langugage about mental state for invol manslaughter but apparently the case law applies the usual reckless standard.  That's a high standard for disregard. I don't see how the prosecutor makes that case given the "cold gun" communication.  Seems to me so weak it wouldn't stand on appeal even if they snookered a jury into a conviction.

As I said in the other thread that actually has this incident in the title, the other route is to establish the misdemeanor of negligent use of a deadly weapon.  That's what Halls pled guilty to.  The idea would be that pointing the gun at the camera when there was no filming was irresponsible.  However, my understanding from the reports of the affidavit is that AB was rehearsing a scene involving a "cross draw".  If true, that seems to be a reasonable explanation for handing the gun in that way.  But it could turn on the precise facts and how NM intreprets its negligent use law.

The whole reason the director and cinematographer were present at the rehearsal was to see how that crossdraw looked on camera, including when pointing the gun at the camera.  Given that the AD had just assured everyone present that the gun contained only dummy rounds, it's hard to argue that Baldwin following directions was irresponsible.

[Admiral Yi]

Even money says Alec beats the rap.

[DGuller]

Even money says Alec beats the rap.

I think it's much more than 50% likely that he beats the rap, eventually.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's much more than 50% likely that he beats the rap, eventually.

How much more?