- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Thanks for letting me know. 
0
Posted on 1/19/23 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The maximum sentence for a 4th-degree felony is 18 months, plus a fine of $5000
CourtTV is saying that if a gun is involved a 5 year mandatory minimum kicks in.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:01 am to Flats
quote:
But if I was an armorer there wouldn't be a functioning gun on the set
It's hard to do with older firearms. You have to find period correct guns and the only ones maybe functioning...
Even my children as young as 5 know to check a firearm. When we go hunting or shooting every single time I drop the magazine and tell them we're clear right?
Everytime they say no. Check the chamber... still a round in there. They all have it down pat but I still do it to them. I'll continue no matter the age.
To many are killed with an "unloaded" gun.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:05 am to thejudge
quote:
It's hard to do with older firearms. You have to find period correct guns and the only ones maybe functioning...
You make an entire movie set and you can't make a prop gun that's going to be filmed from 30 feet away? Or you can't CGI something in for the scenes where it has to fire a blank?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:08 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There is absolutely no question that firearms on that set were handled in a ridiculously-lackadaisical manner. Civil liability is almost a given.
Whether we are talking about Baldwin or anyone else, however, I just have trouble seeing criminal-level culpability here.
This isn't going to be an easy victory. That's for sure.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:09 am to thejudge
quote:
Even my children as young as 5 know to check a firearm.
Yep, my brood as well. Every time, or they lose the right to shoot the gun.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:10 am to shinerfan
quote:Interesting. This may be the statute in question
CourtTV is saying that if a gun is involved a 5 year mandatory minimum kicks in.
quote:so, it looks like there may indeed be the possibility of a firearm enhancement, but I think the prosecutor would have a tough time establishing the highlighted elements of the “brandishing“
NMS 31-18-16
A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by three years ….
D. As used in this section, "brandished" means displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:10 am to Flats
quote:
In military training you aim guns at people all the time, but there are a LOT of measures put into place to negate the risk.
And the whole debate at trial will be how much of that risk wasn't on his shoulders.
The armorer is screwed, but we all knew that. This was 100% her responsibility and someone died.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:10 am to WPBTiger
Mr Baldwin, did you aim the gun at her and shoot?
Yes, it was in the script.
I rest my case. We need this guy in the chamber tomorrow at the break of dawn.
Yes, it was in the script.
I rest my case. We need this guy in the chamber tomorrow at the break of dawn.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The armorer is screwed, but we all knew that. This was 100% her responsibility and someone died.
I wouldn't want to be the person who hired her either.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:12 am to Flats
quote:
You make an entire movie set and you can't make a prop gun that's going to be filmed from 30 feet away? Or you can't CGI something in for the scenes where it has to fire a blank?
You 100% can, and bigger budget movies do this (the CGI gun firings have gotten real noticeable), but I think this was a low budget movie.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:it will be interesting. I do not remember all of the facts, but I think I recall that there were two keys to the weapons locker… One in the hands of the armor and one in the hands of some other person.
The armorer is screwed, but we all knew that. This was 100% her responsibility and someone died.
Apparently, she was not even on set at that time. Can she really be found criminally responsible, if it was some other yahoo who unlocked the locker?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but I think this was a low budget movie.
It ain't now.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:14 am to Flats
quote:
I wouldn't want to be the person who hired her either.
Oh they're all gettin sued or have already been sued.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And the whole debate at trial will be how much of that risk wasn't on his shoulders.
The armorer is screwed, but we all knew that. This was 100% her responsibility and someone died.
Yeah, I go back and forth on this one.
That armorer should have never had that gun anywhere near live ammo and there should've never been any live ammo within 1,000 yards of that set. But, if I was the armorer, once I set that gun up, I wouldn't want some dipshit actor to fool with it and open up the possibility of them dropping a live round in it. Maybe the protocol should have been to load it together so both armorer and actor can verify the ammo/status of the gun.
On the other hand, I believe there are already protocols in place that typically prohibit pointing a gun at a camera with a person behind it. In the end, he still pulled the trigger against common SOP's.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Apparently, she was not even on set at that time. Can she really be found criminally responsible, if it was some other yahoo who unlocked the locker?
Did she give the yahoo the key? As the "armorer" I would think so.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Apparently, she was not even on set at that time. Can she really be found criminally responsible, if it was some other yahoo who unlocked the locker
I mean you can be found guilty of anything, but that would help her defense.
The industry standard (I doubt New Mexico has much of a film industry compared to California) will come into play. If 2 keys for 2 people was standard, it would help her out.
There is going to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that carries weight, like all the references to shooting of that gun off set and after the production day. If she was participating/facilitating that? Not good.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:17 am to upgrayedd
Isn’t his role to pull the trigger? Who gave him that firearm with live ammo?
With that being asked, I’m not a fan of Baldwin
With that being asked, I’m not a fan of Baldwin
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:17 am to Flats
quote:and we find ourselves right back at the distinction between civil liability and criminal culpability.
Apparently, she was not even on set at that time. Can she really be found criminally responsible, if it was some other yahoo who unlocked the locker?quote:
Did she give the yahoo the key? As the "armorer" I would think so.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:20 am to AggieHank86
quote:
we find ourselves right back at the distinction between civil liability and criminal culpability.
Not if the standard can be:
quote:
without due caution and circumspection
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News