Alec Baldwin update

[Aguila Blanca]

The worst part about this isn't whether or not Baldwin gets a suitable spanking by his cellmate--it's that the core issue of prevention of a live round making its way onto the set might not be adequately addressed.

You may be right, but I think the incident itself and the continuing fallout have already made the point.

At the outset, I was of the opinion that the armorer, Hannah Guttierez-Reed, was being made a scapegoat. Recently, I read that she had asked the company in Albuquerque that supplied the guns, blank ammo, and dummy ammo if they would send out some live ammo so she (and some of the crew, I guess) could use the prop guns for plinking off the set during breaks. The company's answer was a resounding "No."

The fact that she would even consider allowing live ammo on the set and anywhere near prop guns shows that she was unqualified to be a movie set armorer. The same article also more or less said that Ms. Reed enjoyed chemical substances that are frowned upon by the federal government. That's another strike against her. Despite her baby face, I no longer feel any sympathy for her.

It was known from early on that Guttierez-Reed got the armorer job because every experienced, qualified Hollywood armorer the producers approached refused to take the job due to the low pay and doubling up as a prop assistant. Now that it has been proven graphically what happens when you don't follow the rules and when you don't hire properly-qualified people at an appropriate pay scale -- I doubt we'll see any repeats.

Some directors have already decided they won't use any real guns in their films, that they'll do it all with dummy guns and post-production editing.

 

[44 AMP]

The fact that she would even consider allowing live ammo on the set and anywhere near prop guns shows that she was unqualified to be a movie set armorer. The same article also more or less said that Ms. Reed enjoyed chemical substances that are frowned upon by the federal government. That's another strike against her. Despite her baby face, I no longer feel any sympathy for her.

OK, so you read an article that says she allowed live ammo on the set. That she's a doper and a total ditz. I read an article that said she loaded and handed the gun to Baldwin right before the fatal shooting. I read an article that said she was not present on the set when the guns and ammo were brought to the set. I read an article that said Baldwin was "joking" around and said "how about I shoot you??" then pointed the gun at the victim and shot her.

I read an article that said Hillary was going to be the next President and Trump didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of geting elected....

I read an article.....(insert lie of the day/truth of the moment here)...

What is the truth? WE DON'T KNOW. WE WON'T KNOW. IF/WHEN we get sworn testimony, THEN we will have something we can assume is the truth, unless/until disproven. Until then we simply don't know who did what, when, other than the gun was in Baldwin's hands and fired and a woman died as a result of that. EVERYTHING else is, at this point a matter of conjecture.

And, as you're aware, a drug using total ditz does make an excellent scapegoat....

 

[Metal god]

AB is accurate on this , I did not read a report I watched the interrogation/interview of one of the guys ( assume the head guy ) of the company that supplied the blanks and dummies rounds . He said she asked for live rounds and they declined to provide them . In the 60min story they interviewed the first armorer they asked to work on the movie who declined the job about live ammo on set and he to said Ms Reed ask him for live ammo on set , he also said no . So in my mind it's likely more true then not based on peoples first hand knowledge . Why she couldn't just run down to the closet Walmart or what ever her self I have no idea .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Why she couldn't just run down to the closet Walmart or what ever her self I have no idea .

It appears that she may have done pretty much that. Or had someone do it for her.

Obviously, someone brought some live ammunition onto the set. If it's true that Ms. Reed was asking for live ammo, she is certainly among the "persons of interest."

 

[44 AMP]

Obviously she's a major "person of interest" in the matter, and there's no doubt a lot of things were drastically wrong on that movie location.

She possibly is responsible for what she's being accused of, but lets let the court find out what it finds out before we convict anyone (even Baldwin) in our court of public opinion.

Personally I feel that Baldwin, being the "captain of the ship" is responsible for the accident, both directly and indirectly but lets see what the court says.

 

[RobAndrew]

Assuming it was incompetence....

What if it wasn't??

What if it was simply a test, something they expected to be challenged and thrown out, (in this case withdrawn) I'm sure they'd have been happy to accept it, if it had "stuck", but I feel like it was something done simply to see if Baldwin's legal team would catch it.

Consider this, NOW it can be said that he "won" a victory, which might either create some false confidence, or alternately create the feeling in some people that since he "beat" the gun enhancement he shouldn't be allowed to get off on the other charges.

It COULD simply have been a PR move. OR it could have been an actual error on the part of the DA's staff. I have no way of knowing....

I agree that it was something intentional by the DA. I think it was some kind of "play" on her part. It was too obvious that it wouldn't have stuck, the DA wouldn't have missed something that obvious. Ex Post Facto law prevents just such a thing.

She may be thinking they both DESERVE 5 years (or was it 5 years + the 18 months?), and just wanted to make the point?

Anyways, looks like it's going to trial at some point. Pre Trial hearings were last week and both nitwits pleaded Not Guilty. The DA tried to take Hanna's guns away and the Judge denied the motion. Hanna is armed.

 

[44 AMP]

The DA tried to take Hanna's guns away and the Judge denied the motion. Hanna is armed.

I wonder if they was just SOP, or not. There has been NO mention anywhere I've seen or heard stating or even implying that Hannah was a credible threat to anyone. and have heard that she has received threats...

Personally I make a huge distinction between someone facing charges due to negligence or incompetence resulting in harm and someone deliberately and intentionally causing it.

Also, tis a sad fact of modern life that, with modern communication tech, anyone who has any accessible information (including your phone and especially any social media) will get threats, from some wackjob out there, somewhere.

Also, I've always found it odd that people seem to think taking aways someone's guns removes the threat. IF someone is such a level of threat that guns need to be removed, WHY Is that person still allowed to have their car, their money, and the freedom to be in public?

In other words, why take away one specific item and leave them with others that can be used to do harm, and the ability to get more??

If the intent is there, a tool will be found. And, if its not, why worry about tools?? Is it JUST PR??? Do something that LOOKS like you care and are protecting the public??

 

[44 AMP]

Latest round of Baldwin in the news, his attorney told a judge that the state had destroyed the gun used.

Spokesman for the state said the gun was not destroyed, and was available in evidence for the defense to review.

and also said this,

Brewer said the firearm had sustained damage to internal components during the FBI’s functionality testing, but that it “still exists and can be used as evidence.”

Now, what I'm wondering is, WHAT kind of "functionality testing" would/did the FBI do that damaged internal components??

Any ideas??

Am really hoping it wasn't something like "well, the 15th time we hit cocked hammer it failed and the gun fired" kind of thing.

Just what could they possibly have done, intentionally, or otherwise to damage "evidence" in testing?? Isn't that one of the things you aren't supposed to do, destructive testing of potential evidence??

Guess we'll have to see what part(s?) of the FBI report gets entered into evidence at the trial, and so becomes public knowledge....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's sad to realize that the FBI used to be considered a premier law enforcement agency. In recent times they seem to be more like a cross between the Keystone Cops and the Three Stooges.

 

[stagpanther]

I see the hand of the Deep State at work. File this one under conspiracy # 234,756,879,635.

 

[s3779m]

I see the hand of the Deep State at work. File this one under conspiracy # 234,756,879,635.

I think you nailed it. I find it hard to believe the FBI could not test a gun without damaging it.

 

[ocharry]

well boys i dont have a dog in the fight,but if it were any of us normal people out here in the real world my bet is they would have already locked the door and tossed the key in a muddy ditch

my thoughts are that he never see's the inside of the grey bar hotel

big fine maybe, maybe

i just dont have any faith in the system anymore

ocharry

 

[HiBC]

I wonder if the statue of "Lady Justice" has tears leaking out from behind her blindfold.
When the penalty for owning a "brace" stashed in a shop spare parts drawer,along with a legal AR pistol,amounts to "constructive possession" with a penalty of years of hard time on a fed prison (no crime of violence required)

And actually killing someone through ignoring safety policy may well result in similar penalty to returning a library book a few days late.As Halyna's death may prove to be.
(And yes,even Baldwin deserves due process and a verdict . )

The time honored principles that make our Justice System among the most fair on Earth are being,or have been, usurped.

Do YOU trust the DOJ, FBI, ATF, ? Does Lady Justice peek to see what you look like?
I can't source it right now but I have read the entire Vietnam war resulted in over 50,000 US Troops KIA . (Not counting those lost since the war ended).
Is it true Fentanyl is killing 100,000 sons and daughters a year in USA? A YEAR? (not a War)
Yet in my state,at least until recently, you could "concealed carry" enough Fentanyl into a dorm or concert to kill more people than a "hi-cap Assault Rifle" and it would be a non-arrestable misdemeanor.
What is the score, gun death versus Fentanyl Death?

We ought to stop media and social media lynchings.

AND IMO, What does it mean when Walmart decides to shut down and clear out of a city or state due to a non-functional Justice system?

 

[JohnKSa]

I see the hand of the Deep State at work. File this one under conspiracy # 234,756,879,635.

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor --Robert Hanlon

I find it hard to believe the FBI could not test a gun without damaging it.

Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. Cipolla's First Law. --Carlo M. Cipolla

The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. Cipolla's Second Law. --Carlo M. Cipolla

1. In any organization you will find qualified people who are stupid and who do stupid things.

2. What possible interest could the Deep State have in making it a little less likely that an aging actor doesn't do jail time?

3. If the Deep State, with all its resources, did, for some bizarre reason, feel like it was in their best interests to keep Baldwin's sentence to a minimum, why wouldn't they do something a lot more likely to serve that interest (whatever it might be) than just damaging the gun? They could have the gun disappear entirely or just tell the DA to drop the charges and focus on the armorer exclusively. If they can control people in the FBI, why not the NM DA?

 

[Metal god]

IDK how much you guys have been following this case but Baldwin has a REALLY good lawyer . One of the most resent discoveries was the gun enhancement charge which adds a mandatory 5 year sentence had to be dropped. Baldwin’s lawyer realized the statute had changed for an 18 month period . The shooting happened inside that 18month period .

So the state is left with only reckless manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of 18 months . It’s my understanding that people convicted of the crime often only get probation and the max fine . Based on the law and crime he is being charged with , it seems very possible he will not do any jail time . This leads me back to a question I had awhile back . Where is the charge for shooting the director and reckless endangerment charge . He not only shot the director as well he must have endangered the camera man as well . It just seems to me there is at least two other charges he could be facing if not several more if they wanted to ???

 

[44 AMP]

It just seems to me there is at least two other charges he could be facing if not several more if they wanted to ???

I'm sure the folks in the DA's office know more about their business than I do, but I'm pretty sure some charges are not being brought because conviction involves proof of intent. And in this case, with the situation being what it is, I think that some things are not being charged because while possible, conviction is unlikely.

The simple fact is that Baldwin believed he was not holding a loaded gun. He had been TOLD so by the person who handed it to him. Convincing a jury that he is responsible, because the gun was in his hands when it fired is one thing, convincing the jury that he intended harm, or "recklessly endangered" the crew is a different matter.

Baldwin's lawyers can, and will say anything they think will help their client. Remember that, even in the courtroom, THEY are NOT under oath.

I have seen reports where his lawyers said the gun was broken (so their client isn't responsible for what happened), and that they said the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it.

Yesterday the news said one of his lawyers claimed the gun had been destroyed by the state. The State responded, saying this was not true, they had the gun, and the defense could see it if they so chose....

Which brings me to another question, the condition of the gun, NOW, as opposed to the day the accident happened, and what, IF ANY bearing its current condition has on its value as evidence??

IF the FBI "damaged it during testing", that should have no bearing on its value as evidence. UNLESS it can be proven that the gun was in a damaged condition when the authorities took possession of it. Then it would become a matter of IF the damage prior to the gun being taken into evidence was sufficient to cause the accident, and whether or not subsequent damage from testing can be determined to be separate from the damage the gun is claimed to have had when the shooting occurred.

The lawyers will, no doubt claim it matters, but they could also claim that the Twin Towers jumped infront of those airplanes that day in September. Doesn't make it a fact....

 

[JohnKSa]

The defense is entitled to have their experts examine the gun in the condition it was at the time of the incident to determine if some defect or idiosyncrasy of the gun could have contributed to the negative outcome.

If that isn't possible, if the gun has been altered in ways that might affect the testing outcome or is missing, then, if the defense chooses to claim that the gun fired spontaneously, the state may find that claim much harder to rebut--in fact, they may not be allowed to dispute the claim or present any of the testing evidence.

 

[44 AMP]

The defense is entitled to have their experts examine the gun in the condition it was at the time of the incident to determine if some defect or idiosyncrasy of the gun could have contributed to the negative outcome.

In this case its possible, but I can see circumstances where the defense cannot examine evidence in the condition it was in at the time of the incident.

Such as cases where a gun has been recovered after years underwater, totally rusted and inoperable. If there is evidence tying the now nonfunctional gun to a crime, that's enough in court, USUALLY.

IN this case, IF the defense claims mechanical malfunction and the prosecution claims otherwise, then the condition of the gun at the time of the event matters. Condition of the gun at present could only matter if it obscures the condition of the gun at the time of the event. Doesn't it???

Clearly it fired, killing one and injuring another. It hit people when it fired because Baldwin pointed it at them. That is not in dispute.

Just about everything else seems to be. I'm really looking forward to what will be sworn testimony in court. And, I'm going to rewatch My Cousin Vinney....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have seen reports where his lawyers said the gun was broken (so their client isn't responsible for what happened), and that they said the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it.

I think I remember reading the exact same thing about the Saturday night special Mrs. McCloskey was waving around in St. Louis when the mob came stampeding through their private, [formerly] gated community.

 

[JohnKSa]

If the prosecution got to examine the gun in the condition it was at the time of the incident and use the results of that examination/testing against the defendant, the defendant is entitled to the same opportunity to examine the gun in the condition it was at the time of the incident to rebut any claims made by the prosecution.

Imagine that you are the defendant. The state claims that you shot someone negligently. You claim that the gun malfunctioned and that it went off without you ever pulling the trigger and the ricochet hit them. The state takes the gun away from you before you get the chance to test it, THEY test it and says you are a liar.

You ask to see the gun so you can rebut their claim but they say that they broke it while they were testing it so now any testing you would do would not be useful in rebutting their claim.

Or it turns out that you discover they repaired the gun before they did their testing.

What would you say? What would you do? Would you think it's fair for them to alter evidence before doing their testing on it, or after they've gotten what they want to out of it so it's no longer useful to you? Would you think it's fair for them to use what they gained against you when you were denied the opportunity to do your own testing?

Such as cases where a gun has been recovered after years underwater, totally rusted and inoperable.

In the case where neither the defendant nor the prosecution gets to see the evidence in the condition it was at the time of the incident, neither one has an unfair advantage.

If there is evidence tying the now nonfunctional gun to a crime, that's enough in court, USUALLY.

If the goal is tying the defendant to a crime by showing a gun he possessed was used in a crime, then yes, it would be enough to show that the gun used in the crime was once possessed by the defendant.

That's not at issue here. Nobody is disputing that the gun was once possessed by the defendant--he's on VIDEO holding the gun. He's not claiming that he never held it. He HAS claimed that it went off and that he didn't pull the trigger. The prosecution had their experts examine the gun and said that can't happen. If they are going to try to use that information against him to convict him:

1. They will need to show that when they examined the gun it was in the same functional condition it was at the time of the incident. If the gun was damaged or altered after the incident but before they tested it, how could they show that their test results related to the incident?

2. Allow the defense to have their experts examine the gun in the same condition that it was in at the time of the incident so they have an opportunity to rebut the claims of the prosecution. If they can take the gun, do their tests and then mess the gun up or "lose" it before the defense gets to do their own testing, that would allow the state to essentially manufacture evidence against a defendant with impunity.

If they can't do those things, then they probably won't be allowed to use that information in the prosecution.

IN this case, IF the defense claims mechanical malfunction...

Baldwin claims he didn't pull the trigger. That pretty much eliminates the 'IF' in your sentence.