Oh, and it seems that she graduated in 2020 from Northern Arizona University (the one in Flagstaff) with a degree in Cinema and Film Making. Then two years later she is in charge of firearms on a movie set?

No apprenticeship, no specialized training in firearms operation or safety. Just watch dad on Take Your Child To Work Day, is that what happened?

Do we know that she had no apprenticeship or training beyond her BA? If she was truly an un-credentialed ingenue then she isn't alone in bearing some responsibility. Who directly hired her into a role for which she was not qualified? This may be where they go after Baldwin, through his producer / money man role. I suspect there was someone more directly responsible in putting her in that role, however.

Brother-in-law of a DGA member here. In addition to her BA and MA, my sis-in-law did a DGA apprenticeship for two years on movies before being able to hang out her shingle as an assistant director. It's a very hierarchical organization with lots of rules to protect incumbent workers.

quote:

This may be where they go after Baldwin, through his producer / money man role.

I always thought that was the basis. He can’t know, as an actor, what’s loaded into the gun (unless they have evidence that he was involved).

On the issue whether the person who hired her bears responsibility . . . I doubt it. Her accomplished, connected armorer/father got her the job, clearly. And I read that he was also involved and had some other job on the set for this film, though not as armorer.

It would be quite a stretch to attach criminal liability to someone who hires someone who turns out to be bad at their job. Now, if they knew something about her that made her inappropriate for the job (e.g., they knew she was a drug addict), yeah, maybe.

And let's remember, just because Baldwin was a producer does not mean he hired the armorer or knew anything about her.

It also doesn’t mean that he didn’t hire her or know anything about her.

I’m going to go with the assumption that the local prosecutors know more about the evidence than you or I do.

I'm confused. If you hire someone who you know is un- or under-qualified into a particular role that involves things that kill people, and someone does indeed die, don't you bear some criminal responsibility for a death?

If I hire my nephew to drive a tour bus on windy mountain roads knowing that he does not have either training or a license to drive a bus, and the bus goes off the road and kills people, am I not criminally liable at all? Is this just a tort?

@Quirt, there has been a lot of news coverage, and Baldwin has been charged twice. I haven’t heard that he hired her or knew anything about her qualifications. Have you? His culpability is supposedly that he pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

@PianoDad, hiring somebody for a job doesn’t automatically make you criminally liable for what they do. I think you would need something more, like hiring a pedophile to be a teacher without doing a state mandated background check, or hiring a bus driver who has no license.

I don’t see how it is a crime to hire a nepobaby with one film under her belt, especially if you are told daddy trained her personally.

If all you are going on is press reports, I think it’s a mistake to assume that you know all of the relevant evidence. I would assume that a decent prosecutor would not show their entire case to the press, and of course Baldwin‘s team would have no incentive to make bad information public, only the information that supports your point of view. The press reports say that Baldwin was told there was no live ammunition in the gun, but we don’t know if that’s true. We also don’t know what deal the assistant director cut, or what they proferred.

Since none of us actually know the facts, and since you are assuming she got hired in one way, let me assume a different hypothetical. Imagine this conversation:

Baldwin: “I want to hire nepo baby as the armorer. She’s cheap and we need to cut costs.”

Assistant director: “Alec, I think that’s a terrible idea. She doesn’t have enough experience and she’s unqualified. Someone could get seriously hurt.”

Baldwin: “oh, come on. You’re being too dramatic. I’m sure it’ll be fine. I’ll keep an eye on her myself.”

I don’t know that that conversation happened, but you don’t know that her father got her the job. It’s all guesswork. I could also imagine a conversation that went like the following:

Baldwin: “I’m not sure about hiring nepo baby. She doesn’t have a lot of experience.”

Assistant director: “Alec, it’ll be fine. We need her father on another picture. He wants us to do this. I’ll keep an eye on her.”

There’s also a third hypothetical conversation:

Assistant director: “Alec, let me check that gun again.”

Baldwin: “stop being so whiny. Hannah said it’s fine. I’ll check it myself.”

Or, alternate version:

Baldwin: “stop wasting so much time with all these checks. We can’t afford to double and triple check everything. I’ll take responsibility.”

I have no idea whether any variation of those conversations actually took place, but they could have. Or, maybe there were other conversations that I haven’t hypothesized. We won’t know until the facts come out at trial (not in the press).

One thing we do know from the armorer’s trial: the armorer’s team said that her authority was undercut by producers who sought to minimize costs. Interesting, huh? Could Baldwin have been one of those producers?

You are assuming that your understanding of the situation, based on news reports, is correct. I’m actually not making any assumptions, other than the assumption that we don’t know all of the evidence yet. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe all of the evidence is already out there. But, that’s not the way I’d bet.

And, if Baldwin eventually negotiates a plea, we may never know all of the facts.

Nice screenplay.

I also wonder how Baldwin can be charged, but it depends on how the law(s) in NM is written and prior case law. Lots of unknowns.

It does seem a greater leap than the recent conviction of the mom of the Michigan shooter, but again, unknowns.

Baldwin motion to dismiss ... dismissed

This trial may start while we're in Santa Fe next month. Should I attend?

Still don’t understand how the prosecutor gets around the fact that the FBI broke the gun during testing. Then they added some new parts and tested again?

How is the gun admissible to prove it wouldn’t fire unless the trigger was pulled? It’s no longer the same gun.

I can't figure that one out.

The problem is that the defense can no longer prove that the gun could accidentally fire without trigger pressure. But the whole thing would seem to automatically create reasonable doubt in any reasonable juror's mind.

The defense doesn’t have to prove the gun could fire without trigger pressure.

The prosecution has to prove that that particular gun could not possibly fire absent trigger pressure.

They can only prove that by testing with that particular gun. But the FBI broke the gun and then reported they couldn’t say. Then they replaced what broke and tested again.

Nope, sorry. If I were the judge, I would exclude all proof related to testing of the repaired gun.

Yes, I understand that the burden of proof is with the prosecution. But if the defense could show that the (original, unbroken) gun could actually fire off with little or no finger pressure, that would exonerate.