Bernarda Villalona, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said prosecutors will have a hard time proving criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin.
"It's going to be difficult as to Alec Baldwin, the actor, because they're charging that he should look and check the gun to make sure that it was dummies but that's not his job," she said. "That's not what he's trained to do... So this is going to be a long fight and Alec Baldwin he has a good chance of beating these charges."
Fordham law school criminal law professor Cheryl Bader said the circumstances of the case "would point to negligence, but the question is, does it rise to the level of criminal negligence, and who is the negligent party?
"The fine line between accident and criminal negligence will be for the jury to draw," Bader said in a statement.
This is a case where the details are going to matter a lot. Baldwin is helped by excellent representation and PR campaign who is hammering to media outlets that he’s just an actor and thus not responsible for gun safety on set. That and he didn’t pull the trigger.
If you notice, not once have I heard from Baldwin’s attorney that he pointed the gun at someone. That is very deliberate as that is Baldwin’s contribution to a cascade of errors that resulted in a death. Better to keep that part quiet. The details that I’m referring to:
- SAG guidelines where EVERYBODY is responsible for safety on set
- SAG rules that state and local laws trump SAG. This means the dumb actor defense doesn’t wash
-SAG guidelines where you ALWAYS assume a firearm is loaded
- SAG guidelines where you NEVER point a gun at someone
- the fact that the shooting occurred during a rehearsal, where guidelines are you use an EMPTY weapon. This is easily checked and takes 5 seconds with that type of gun
- the fact that Baldwin KNOWINGLY accepted a weapon whose chain of custody was broken
- the fact that Baldwin KNEW pointing a gun at someone was dangerous.
-the fact Baldwin PULLED the hammer back on the gun while pointing it at someone. If he didn’t pull it back, it wouldn’t have fired
- the fact that Baldwin was always OFFERED to double check the armorer’s work but REFUSED
- the fact that other actors on set CHOSE to check their guns themselves
Bernarda Villalona, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said prosecutors will have a hard time proving criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin.
"It's going to be difficult as to Alec Baldwin, the actor, because they're charging that he should look and check the gun to make sure that it was dummies but that's not his job," she said. "That's not what he's trained to do... So this is going to be a long fight and Alec Baldwin he has a good chance of beating these charges."
Fordham law school criminal law professor Cheryl Bader said the circumstances of the case "would point to negligence, but the question is, does it rise to the level of criminal negligence, and who is the negligent party?
"The fine line between accident and criminal negligence will be for the jury to draw," Bader said in a statement.
This is a case where the details are going to matter a lot. Baldwin is helped by excellent representation and PR campaign who is hammering to media outlets that he’s just an actor and thus not responsible for gun safety on set. That and he didn’t pull the trigger.
If you notice, not once have I heard from Baldwin’s attorney that he pointed the gun at someone. That is very deliberate as that is Baldwin’s contribution to a cascade of errors that resulted in a death. Better to keep that part quiet. The details that I’m referring to:
- SAG guidelines where EVERYBODY is responsible for safety on set
- SAG rules that state and local laws trump SAG. This means the dumb actor defense doesn’t wash
-SAG guidelines where you ALWAYS assume a firearm is loaded
- SAG guidelines where you NEVER point a gun at someone
- the fact that the shooting occurred during a rehearsal, where guidelines are you use an EMPTY weapon. This is easily checked and takes 5 seconds with that type of gun
- the fact that Baldwin KNOWINGLY accepted a weapon whose chain of custody was broken
- the fact that Baldwin KNEW pointing a gun at someone was dangerous.
-the fact Baldwin PULLED the hammer back on the gun while pointing it at someone. If he didn’t pull it back, it wouldn’t have fired
- the fact that Baldwin was always OFFERED to double check the armorer’s work but REFUSED
- the fact that other actors on set CHOSE to check their guns themselves
You keep repeating the same points you've made earlier while not responding to what legal analysts have said.
However, what your argument boils down to is little more than dismissing as irrelevant the checks supposedly undertaken by professionals whose job it was to do that. A court will not do that. It is central to the case because it changes everything. Your arguments only apply if there was no safety process in place. You effectively put all responsibility for ensuring the weapon was safe on the actor. That wasn't the process and no professional actor would consent to or be expected to undertake that responsibility.
You show how far you are off the mark (so to speak) when you say a gun must never be pointed at anyone when that is exactly what the actor's role may require. In the words of Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge, "The notion that you never point a gun at someone would sort of undo Westerns for the past 100 years."
As another legal expert said above, the case points to negligence but was it at the level of criminal negligence, and whose negligence was it.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
This is a case where the details are going to matter a lot. Baldwin is helped by excellent representation and PR campaign who is hammering to media outlets that he’s just an actor and thus not responsible for gun safety on set. That and he didn’t pull the trigger.
If you notice, not once have I heard from Baldwin’s attorney that he pointed the gun at someone. That is very deliberate as that is Baldwin’s contribution to a cascade of errors that resulted in a death. Better to keep that part quiet. The details that I’m referring to:
- SAG guidelines where EVERYBODY is responsible for safety on set
- SAG rules that state and local laws trump SAG. This means the dumb actor defense doesn’t wash
-SAG guidelines where you ALWAYS assume a firearm is loaded
- SAG guidelines where you NEVER point a gun at someone
- the fact that the shooting occurred during a rehearsal, where guidelines are you use an EMPTY weapon. This is easily checked and takes 5 seconds with that type of gun
- the fact that Baldwin KNOWINGLY accepted a weapon whose chain of custody was broken
- the fact that Baldwin KNEW pointing a gun at someone was dangerous.
-the fact Baldwin PULLED the hammer back on the gun while pointing it at someone. If he didn’t pull it back, it wouldn’t have fired
- the fact that Baldwin was always OFFERED to double check the armorer’s work but REFUSED
- the fact that other actors on set CHOSE to check their guns themselves
You keep repeating the same points you've made earlier while not responding to what legal analysts have said.
However, what your argument boils down to is little more than dismissing as irrelevant the checks supposedly undertaken by professionals whose job it was to do that. A court will not do that. It is central to the case because it changes everything. Your arguments only apply if there was no safety process in place. You effectively put all responsibility for ensuring the weapon was safe on the actor. That wasn't the process and no professional actor would consent to or be expected to undertake that responsibility.
You show how far you are off the mark (so to speak) when you say a gun must never be pointed at anyone when that is exactly what the actor's role may require. This is how a century of Westerns have been filmed.
As a legal expert said above, the case points to negligence but was it at the level of criminal negligence, and whose negligence was it.
Do you still think Baldwin won’t be charged with anything?
You keep repeating the same points you've made earlier while not responding to what legal analysts have said.
However, what your argument boils down to is little more than dismissing as irrelevant the checks supposedly undertaken by professionals whose job it was to do that. A court will not do that. It is central to the case because it changes everything. Your arguments only apply if there was no safety process in place. You effectively put all responsibility for ensuring the weapon was safe on the actor. That wasn't the process and no professional actor would consent to or be expected to undertake that responsibility.
You show how far you are off the mark (so to speak) when you say a gun must never be pointed at anyone when that is exactly what the actor's role may require. This is how a century of Westerns have been filmed.
As a legal expert said above, the case points to negligence but was it at the level of criminal negligence, and whose negligence was it.
Do you still think Baldwin won’t be charged with anything?
Do you still think Baldwin won’t be charged with anything?
Regardless of the charge, there is no way this goes to trial.
If Baldwin can't convince them to drop the charges, then he will eventually do the same thing that the director already did, and plead guilty to a reduced charge that will result in no jail time.
Do you still think Baldwin won’t be charged with anything?
Regardless of the charge, there is no way this goes to trial.
If Baldwin can't convince them to drop the charges, then he will eventually do the same thing that the director already did, and plead guilty to a reduced charge that will result in no jail time.
I agree with this - Baldwin DOES NOT want this to see the light of a courtroom. Hollywood and the various people who work on movies are a fairly close knit group and I’m sure the prosecution will call various armorers/actors who have done similar to testify as expert witnesses to the SAG procedures and where Baldwin violated those procedures.
Normally, the defense would call their own witness to rebut. But, if you were a Hollywood Armorer, would you want to testify as an expert that what Baldwin did was A-OK? I would think it would be career suicide because a studio’s minimum expectation of an armorer is to run a tight ship where all procedures are followed and no accidents happen.
Do you still think Baldwin won’t be charged with anything?
Regardless of the charge, there is no way this goes to trial.
If Baldwin can't convince them to drop the charges, then he will eventually do the same thing that the director already did, and plead guilty to a reduced charge that will result in no jail time.
Yeah. I think there's a misdemeanor he can plead to which has a max 6mo $5k fine. He'll pay the fine and serve no time.
Regardless of the charge, there is no way this goes to trial.
If Baldwin can't convince them to drop the charges, then he will eventually do the same thing that the director already did, and plead guilty to a reduced charge that will result in no jail time.
Yeah. I think there's a misdemeanor he can plead to which has a max 6mo $5k fine. He'll pay the fine and serve no time.
That would be the best result for everyone, and the probable one too. Plea to a misdemeanor, take responsibility, no jail time, big donation/fine to some victim fund.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.