Alec Baldwin shooting: Lawyer suggests potential sabotage on ‘Rust’ set.

[Bob from Florida]

"The judge agreed the state improperly disclosed evidence to the defense and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again." (emphasis Duke's)

Wow. Well, I guess none of us get our questions answered.

His lawyers are probably disappointed because that can’t make any more money on any appeals.

 

[Sal1950]

It was said that live rounds are brought in to train actors prior to shooting for them to learn the real action of guns.

I would hope they at least learned their lessons here, No live ammo on the set EVER, PERIOD.
If the actors need training, send them to a safe, properly controlled training range, not a movie set.

Age Verification - NRA

Or make them join the Army and go thru basic training to learn how to properly handle a weapon.
(This is my rifle, and this is my gun,
this one's for fightin, and this one's for fun".

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It is any person who handles any gun:
Responsibilities
Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.

And that all by itself would end the use of guns in film

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Once it's been inspected by your own self AND you have kept it on your own person or within your own sight at all times, no you would not need to inspect it for every take.
If it left his control, then yes, he should visually inspect the ammo before using the gun in a take.
NOT DOING THAT ENDS UP WITH THE CURRENT RESULT.

And this would have applied to the 12 year old kid on the set of Megalopolis?

 

[Ron Party]

The judge essentially held the prosecution intentionally and deliberated withheld (read: suppressed) potentially exculpatory evidence. Sadly this is not an isolated case. Evidently winning is sometimes more important than due process. Where's the emoji for head exploding? I'm not sure how it works there, but I wonder if such a finding by the court results in a referral to the State Bar of New Mexico.

 

[kemmler3D]

Well, I guess none of us get our questions answered.

I kinda think we all did. He was definitely not responsible for what happened, as many in the thread have argued (about). If there was any chance he could be found guilty, the case could have been dismissed without prejudice or declared a mistrial. This is the judge saying she sees 0.0% chance he was guilty.

 

[Duke]

The judge essentially held the prosecution intentionally and deliberated withheld (read: suppressed) potentially exculpatory evidence. Sadly this is not an isolated case. Evidently winning is sometimes more important than due process. Where's the emoji for head exploding? I'm not sure how it works there, but I wonder if such a finding by the court results in a referral to the State Bar of New Mexico.

It's not clear to me exactly how the ammo the prosecution knew about and had seen, but did not turn over to the defense, was potentially exculpatory evidence. None of the articles I read articulated why, or if they did, it went over my head. Do you understand why?

 

[Ron Party]

It's not clear to me exactly how the ammo the prosecution knew about and had seen, but did not turn over to the defense, was potentially exculpatory evidence. None of the articles I read articulated why, or if they did, it went over my head. Do you understand why?

I do not, mainly because I don't know the first thing about guns, live rounds, blanks... I hope to keep it this way too!

 

[Petrushka]

Things like this are why bystanding is such a dangerous sport.

 

[kemmler3D]

Do you understand why?

I don't think the article I read said this, but I assume: The live rounds (including the fatal one) must have looked exactly like the dummy rounds, thus ending the argument that Baldwin was responsible for checking for live rounds, etc. This must have been the final remaining leg of the prosecution's case.

It sounded like the judge looked at the rounds and immediately dismissed the case... if so, it must have been pretty obvious just by the look of them.

 

[Petrushka]

And that all by itself would end the use of guns in film

You haven’t read much of the thread. Most movie guns are inactive props.

 

[Ron Party]

If there was any chance he could be found guilty, the case could have been dismissed without prejudice or declared a mistrial. This is the judge saying she sees 0.0% chance he was guilty.

I don't see it that way at all. It could just as easily be explained by the fact this is the second time he was charged and, as such, the judge views a third time as a bridge too far. Now if the judge issues a written decision explaining the ruling...

 

[EJ3]

And this would have applied to the 12 year old kid on the set of Megalopolis?

I generally don't watch movies and haven't had a TV since 2007.
Never heard of Megalopolis.
Must not have been a big hit at Movies 8 in Saipan.

 

[Sal1950]

It's not clear to me exactly how the ammo the prosecution knew about and had seen, but did not turn over to the defense, was potentially exculpatory evidence. None of the articles I read articulated why, or if they did, it went over my head. Do you understand why?

I don't really see where that would make any difference except in the eyes of the litigators.
I do imagine the bullet was removed from the body of the shot party, what more would be needed?

 

[Sal1950]

I generally don't watch movies and haven't had a TV since 2007

You must be awful lonesome. LOL

 

[Doodski]

I don't see it that way at all. It could just as easily be explained by the fact this is the second time he was charged and, as such, the judge views a third time as a bridge too far. Now if the judge issues a written decision explaining the ruling...

Yes, repetitively testing to the failure point is not realistic nor fair.

 

[kemmler3D]

I don't see it that way at all. It could just as easily be explained by the fact this is the second time he was charged and, as such, the judge views a third time as a bridge too far. Now if the judge issues a written decision explaining the ruling...

Hmm, good point, fair enough.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You haven’t read much of the thread. Most movie guns are inactive props.

1. I have read most of the thread. Actually almost all of it
2. I’ve worked on movie sets for over forty years, you think I’m going to be educated on gun use on sets by this thread?
3. Most movie guns are indeed inactive props. When you gave 20 back ground players playing cops and they all have guns. Those are inactive props.
Has nothing to do with guns used by actors that are featured and are used to fire on set.

Again, you have never been on a set. I’d bet you were utterly unaware of any on set safety protocols before this incident. Clearly you were unaware of all the work and negotiations that went into the new protocols after Brandon Lee was accidentally killed.

In effect what you are saying is we have collectively been doing it all wrong and just getting lucky for the past 3+ decades, we really needed to put the final responsibility on actors and further just plain forbid any real gun ever being pointed or used at all on a film set.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I generally don't watch movies and haven't had a TV since 2007.

That actually makes a lot of sense

Never heard of Megalopolis.

It’s not out yet. Which makes it a post 2007 movie. So flying under your radar

Must not have been a big hit at Movies 8 in Saipan.

We wait to see.

 

[kemmler3D]

His lawyers are probably disappointed because that can’t make any more money on any appeals.

They'll get plenty of business from having their client walk away from such a high profile prosecution. I don't know a lot, but I do know things don't usually get dismissed with prejudice.