So, Alec Baldwin would rather not face charges in the shooting death of Halayna Hutchins, which probably is obvious. However, he's got better arguments about this than most, and so we're going to review the hearing together.
I also think this lawyer misrepresented the standard and the testimony of the armorer at the trial. The armorer testified that he checks the gun IN FRONT OF the actor, and then the actor may not need to check it themselves. The requirement for the actor is to have demonstrated that the gun is safe. Baldwin didn’t ask anyone to check the gun for him, he didn’t witness any check of the gun. He just accepted the gun with the phrase “cold gun.” And then did nothing else independently to check the weapon. So he violated any sense of proper procedure in ensuring that he had a safe weapon because he didn’t make the armorer demonstrate that the gun was “cold.”
Just because one person has a duty to prevent harm does mean no other person shares that duty. If my wife has a duty not to starve the kids to death, it doesn’t negate my own duties to my children.
He also didn't apply any additional gun safety standards to handling the gun, like the fact that he pulled the trigger. They were not setting up a shooting shot. They were setting up a shot where he was simply point the gun at the camera. He showed irregard for the one safety class Hannah gave before shooting began. If he had the gun wouldn't have gone off. They were both to blame.
The armorer said that it was okay if an actor did a check or didn't do a check, it didn't matter because the armorer checked it with another person by that point. I don't remember any testimony that the actor needed to prove it was safe. Can you link and timestamp that?
i think him being loosey-goosey with that one wouldn't matter if we didn't also have footage and testimony as to his ongoing lack of concern with safety on set. and anyway, as if anybody was going to go, "hey, you sit down and listen to the refresher on gun safety or else, Literally Alec Baldwin!"
I still think the judge was padding her ruling by making the prosecution jump through a few high hoops-- she knows this defense isn't going to roll over and neither will an appeals council--but you're right, we're not at zero for the case to be dismissed.
I was on set doing a job related to safety/advocacy in MX. I had a fight with an armeror and another department head i worked closely with because i was insisting that they not aim the guns at the actors. They took offense to that, but they did it. I left set feeling terrible, but the next day this story broke and the armorer and trainer were very excited to show me all the safeties they had in place. Also for some reason people on set totally forget that horses are thousand pound prey animals. They tend to so some really irresponsible things around horses so i have no doubt that there are many more accidents related to horses.
I think people forget any animal can hurt you if handled improperly, too. Like even the sweetest and best trained dog will bite you if it feels cornered and threatened too much. But yes, I don't doubt that either xD And I'm glad you stood your ground regarding set safety. (and I think those people were too in hindsight xDD)
@@serenetiv truly! They feel like "being trained" suddenly make them a predictable prop, rather than an independent being. They were, it was a really good group down there (part of the reason I felt so bad) and apparently MX has a whole host of extra safety measures with the guns themselves so that's nice
@@1yellowbutterfly679 I wonder how Germany handles guns on set... because we normally have way more restrictions on guns and weapons in general in this country than the US and Germany's favourite TV shows are shows like CSI xD (so cop "drama" or whatever you'd call them.. it's a "Krimi" here.) So there get very many of these type of shows made a year. (there's at least 10 a day running on one channel alone and that's only ones produced in germany, there are a lot of the US and UK ones as well xD) And I don't think anyone died because of the guns (yet) bc sometimes they get some usage and not only screentime in holsters and such xD (probably with the notches someone mentioned in chat, if I had to guess)
@@serenetiv Honestly it depends on the individual. Restrictions on firearms can go both ways. I've found that _most_ people who actually own firearms are respectful and careful around them because they know the dangers, and they have the experience, knowledge, and training on how to handle them carefully. I could make the argument that if Alec Baldwin had been a responsible firearm owner, he'd know to check any firearm and not point a loaded one at any human, let alone pull the trigger. And if the other people on set (e.g. the armorer, but really, anyone on the cast and crew) had more experience with firearms, they would have been more responsible and either not let Baldwin wave the revolver around, or made sure it wasn't loaded in the first place. There's a video out there of Will Smith smacking a pistol away that was pointed in an improper direction, then checking it clear. On the other hand _some_ others get overconfident and start to treat them like toys without giving them the proper respect. You'll find stories of people hurting themselves or their loved ones accidentally. Even range instructors and police officers will have negligent discharges. No amount of experience is going to make such people safe; you need to train it out of them very harshly. I could make the other argument that Alec Baldwin would have been unsafe anyway, considering his attitude towards safety training.
@@grigorsamsa6564 I'm.. confused... to which comment is this going and why is it so long? and what did I say to prompt that? idr.. (nothing against you, I'm just confused, like i said ^^') I think I said I was wondering how germany is handling guns on movie sets? Because we generally have different restrictions, so the movie industry might have different rules? And I made a comment about ppl forgetting animals when cornered can hurt you no matter how well trained?
The fact that I was SO excited to see Morissay and hear her on constant CAPSLOCK says SOMETHING IF ANYTHING about Lally! 😂😂😂 Thanks for this recap Ian and I hope you can sleep before Karen Read continues!❤
Baldwin is guilty! How offensive, arrogant and entitled can one person be?! It’s disgusting and tells me all I need to know about what kind of person he is! I’ll NEVER watch another thing with him in it!
I feel like Morrisy did do something wrong. It sounds like she did make acouple mistakes when presenting the case to the grand jury although it was more out of inexperience with being a prosecutor than malice. I still hope that the trial goes forward but I feel the judge could go either way.
Yes, I think it is likely that the grand jury indictment will be thrown out. The question is will the prosecutor be able to bring the case to another grand jury.
As someone who fought getting on a sleep schedule for ages, Vyvanse works best if you take it at exactly the same time every day and get a schedule going for when you wanna wake up. It's a loooooot easier said than done though. Insomnia is the worst, sorry you're having a rough time, I hope it gets better for ya.
@cindz4618 Vyvanse is lisdexamphethamine, a stimulant. For some people with ADHD, stimulants can help calm the mind and allow sleep. Vyvanse is probably too strong, but caffeine makes me sleepy for the first hour or so.
They're putting a lot of work into this because if it goes to trial he is VERY likely to be convicted. Bleh, he should have taken the deal. So foolish. Not taking the deal did not help one whit with his civil cases.
Hannah absolutely should also have taken the deal. If I were a defense attorney and she walked into my office for a consultation on that case, I would've told her to take the deal *on the spot*. IMO, Bowles failed right off the bat by agreeing to take her case to trial.
@@RayneAngelus I wouldn't be surprised if Hannah or a family member simply dominated Bowles. There was also that other lawyer who mysteriously tried to get off the case (and in a practical sense essentially did). That suggests somebody wasn't getting along.
I do wish the prosecutor had more confidence in her stance and wasn't shrilly being defensive. It really weakens her argument, and based on her fillings she is a great lawyer but she gets very emotional. It doesn't help the prosecution to be angry the defense lawyers are also doing their job. She definitely isn't used to being the prosecutor. Not a job I would want to be fair.
Interesting ... I have a feeling that the defense lawyer speaking at the end didn't help his case. Morrissey is definitely up against stronger defense team this time. I'm glad the judge took this motion so seriously.
As long as he doesn’t have someone directly pissing off the judge and telling him to blame everyone else including the court he will have a better team. I don’t know whom that lady was or why she was there but she shot her friend and/or client with that behaviour
There are two different people, two different failures, two different sets of responsibilities - Baldwin is responsible. Gutierrez is responsible for the opposite behaviour But for both of them there is no fatal negligence. There is no context between X and not X - because the cases are not identical in the foundational responsibility and precise actions of the responsible persons.
Insomnia can be miserable. My best Insomnia relief tips - -stop drinking fluids 1-2 hours before bed. If you have to drink something, I’d recommend an herbal tea. -go for a 1 hr walk before bed. Slow pace. - try sleeping at an incline/propping up your back. - stretching or meditation for 20 minutes before bed.
I actually find drinking caffinated drinks helps me sleep. I think its an ADHD thing, as some stimulants are processed as depressants instead. Which i think is what Runkle implied when he talked about drinking Cola to help him sleep
The gun was in his hand, and his finger was on the trigger. I don't need much more probable cause to expect there's a fair to middling chance he was reckless with a firearm. How many different ways does the Grand Jury need to hear that? I don't actually care who loaded the gun. No one made him point it at people and no one put his finger on the trigger except Alec Baldwin himself.
But it’s not a gun out in the real world. This is a gun on a movie set, and his experience says that they’re not deadly, as a rule. Only presenting another side to the argument. I agree you do not point a gun at anyone no matter the situation.
So... Idk about the las and regulations regarding the grand jury, because they are hard to understand for someone not from New Mexico (or the US in general). I still don't think Morrissey did enough wrong to throw this out. I can't say nothing because I don't understand all this good enough.. But I don't think the charges should be thrown out. It might also be my dislike for Baldwin that's coloring my opinion, though...
Grand Jury rules and procedures are pretty well unknown to most Americans too. Defense attacking the indictment this vigorously is a bit unusual because grand juries are typically seen aa little more than a rubber stamp. The courts aren't typically keen on throwing out a case based on a technicality that likely had no bearing. And if Baldwin's team's arguments here succeed, it could have vast ripple effects on future and past cases. That suggests to me the court is unlikely to throw out the case for this reason but also that Baldwin's team will have set up grounds for appeal.
My hope is that the judge is putting the prosecutor in uer place to show that she has to cross all her t's and dot her i's if she expects to win this case. And wants the time to write a thorough decision to proceed eith the trial. The prosecutor will get caught up if she cuts corners and I'm hoping the judge is teaching her to get her ducks in a row because the defense is playing with different toys than she's used to. 🤞
I know safety protocols weren't followed here but I still think the film industry should make adjustments. For one I think the level of emergency care available should vastly increase the more remote the location.
@@annmoss2 that's the point the more remote the location, the more important it is to have a higher level of emergency care available. Shoots often have fully geared ambulances on standby when shooting stunts or on location when there's a massive amount of extras, like a parade scene. It's not unreasonable to require remote locations to have that level of care.
You mean rather than a biased and corrupt one? Absolutely I would prefer almost any other judge I’ve watched in the hundreds of trials I’ve followed than Bev!
This second guy is great! I wish we would have had this argument to study when I was in college studying to be a Legal Assistant, it takes a good look at exactly how your research and writing should be done.
It is 6 hrs later here in France and your voice often accompanies me in my sleep despite my attempts to stay awake, since you begin at 2:30 AM. We all thoroughly enjoy your recaps. on Baldwin ( and Read , et al ). It looks like the Baldwin case may be dismissed because of a very thorough judge and a botched job by the prosecutor . That is unfortunate because he should have checked the gun and not pointed it at a person So, please get some sleep, cure your insomnia ( see a sleep specialist) after enjoying a refreshing drink in your red Solo evidence cups. We need for you to take care of yourself !
I really don’t understand this NM gj standards. It’s not meant to be THE TRIAL but that’s how it’s being treated. Why even have a grand jury if it requires presentation from both sides?
The whole point of the Grand Jury is to serve as a check against potential malicious prosecution. It obviously needs a serious restructuring, because as it stands in most states in America, the Grand Jury is merely a rubber stamp for whatever the prosecutor says is a violation of law. The New Mexico Grand Jury is completely different from the 'standard' Grand Jury, in that the 'target' of the Grand Jury hearing is given notice and opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence and witnesses for the GJ to investigate. If the grand jury refuses to indict, then the case goes away- no trial. This is supposed to save the 'target' from the rigors of a felony trial, and is supposed to be done with utmost secrecy, to ensure that if the case is tossed by the grand jury, NOBODY is supposed to know that the 'target' was ever under investigation in the first place.
If she had let the witness answer that they weren't the person to ask/that they didn't know then-- maybe-- the jury would have asked for other witnesses that they thought could answer their questions. Any way you look at it, the prosecutor was trying to control the source of information so that it would shade to her benefit. And that isn't her place.
Alec Baldwin has a duty and responsibility to be aware and to check the safe loading condition of the firearm - under SAG Guidelines he has an option to have Hannah perform this physical and complete check in his presence as an alternative to the 'ego' touching the firearm, but he does not have the option to not care. Besides which no one is stating he loaded the firearm, merely recklessly and negligently accepted a pre-loaded firearm 'sight unseen' and proceeded to shoot a person dead.
Agreed, even if you are correct in what you're trying to say the way you give the information can make or break you. I was waiting for a few "like ya know's" thrown in there. Think before speaking and say nothing until you got the thought
SAG allows Alec to observe a complete check in his presence by a competent armourer to substitute for his own personal checking... but not for nothing to substitute for a check.
SAG doesn't write the law and can not prevent anyone from performing their own firearm safety checks when they are handling a firearm. A movie armorer is no different than a gun range safety officer. They are there as an extra safety to prevent people from being negligent. That, however, does not absolve anyone from criminal liability when they are negligent.
I just realized something. Presumably, it's easier to show some kind of harm as a result of an unjust case being brought against something if they have money and/or a lucrative job. How impossible would it be to do the same for someone who was homeless and yet I would think that the most important part of the legal system ought to be to protect those who need help protecting themselves. I know that hasn't generally happened but one would think that perhaps the most important reason to have a legal system is exactly to get justice for those who otherwise couldn't get any.
The gun was *broken* trying to get the hammer to fall from the full cocked position. This is inconsistent with a light trigger pull and shallow detent on the spar and notch. If it had been on a hair trigger then the lightest of taps on the hammer tip and sides would have caused it to fall, and the trigger spur wouldn't have sheared off.
I am watching this on 2x & to say the defense is "animated" is an understatement. I really have to appreciate their ability & passion in presenting these arguments, win or lose.
I prefer the regular ambien versus the cr version. But it does help tremendously. It is good to have another person available incase the wonky side effects show up
How can this be Dismissed' He should have been out on a bond on Pretrial 2 years ago.His Majesty Alec gets the elitist treatment from the Democratic Assassination Bureau, weather the weapon's trigger was pulled or not pulled or Tonker bell tapped it with her magic wand and the gun discharged.' Killing a human being and wounding another. IT WAS IN HIS HAND, any other of us/ the deplorables....in this Land of the Fee home of the Slave, WOULD GO TO TRAIL AND then get at least 18 months in a state prison !!!
I’m not a lawyer. But in my field, talking as much as morrissey is, trying to shift blame for messing up is like digging a bigger hole. Does it hurt the prosecution in the judges eyes? Do we know what was said to the grand jury exactly? It sounds like if NM wants this process to be fair, they shouldn’t be saying it’s going to take time etc, people should be ready to go, not “Their lawyer is helpful, I’m sure they weren’t busy”. That just sounds like someone trying to avoid being accused of not doing their job.
Kari lost it! She didn’t need to do that, the judge knows what’s law and what’s truth. She doesn’t need to address attacks, that’s what they wanted, her to get her feathers all a mess
The NM grand jury is probably the fairest in the country. A grand jury indicts based on probable cause. Most grand juries do not allow the defense to make any statements.
@@jasonvoorhees6152 Each state's grand jury process is different and it depends what you mean by "hear from the defense". In California, for example, the prosecution is required to present exculpatory evidence. You would need to look up each state's process. I don't disagree with you that the grand jury system needs to be overhauled, it is just that the New Mexico grand jury process used in this case is probably the fairest in the country by allowing the defense to provide (not present) their evidence and to make a statement via a letter that must be presented by the prosecutor. However, the task of the grand jury is no different than the task of a judge in a preliminary hearing, which is to decide if there is probable cause for an indictment. In this case, there was. 🤷
Question (if this is seen): I know that criminal charges dismissed with prejudice cannot be reviewed on appeal, but is there a mechanism where a higher court could review the situation and say, "Yo, the court screwed this up. The rest of you, don't do this again"?
If the New Mexico trial gets thrown out, head over to Tennessee instead to meet up and collaborate with EDB! If you were already planning to be in the states, just move your trip to a different one. 😀
Baldwin doesn't have an exculpatory alibi, he was seen doing the shooting, he was holding the smoking gun - he explained how he manipulated the trigger and hammer and pointed the gun at his victim. Baldwin did the thing. You know... the thing, the killing, the pointing and shooting a real gun. Baldwin was on the set of a movie killing a person at the time the death occurred.
If it does get thrown out, it will be without prejudice, correct? Seems crazy to believe it will get thrown out over these technicalities, yet I agree we are at 30%.
It wasn't 'tossed' it was withdrawn, at least in part because the defendant wanted a temporary hold while waiting for the results of the firearms test. Issues with the special prosecutor #1 were not the cause for the withdrawal of the first indictment - perhaps the defence should have not pressed that issue so hard, then it might have been withdrawn for the prosecution errors instead....
We saw Baldwin firing blanks directly at the camera crew. These videos were in Hannah's trial, not Alec's. How much more negligence with Firearms does a jury need ?? Hannah's trial might be a glimpse of Alec being a jerk.
Responsibility of the person in charge. Anyone who watched clips from the set knows how much in charge Baldwin was. Everyone was employed at his pleasure. He abused that position. He was above training, and, being corrected by people who were employed to insure safety. He operated by his own rules. At the time of the incident he was off script without the people present who were supposed to be there. This is one giant people of stature covering their ass exercise.
I've got a counterpoint that may or may not be valid (depending on things I don't know): We're talking about "common sense" with regards to making sure the 7 witnesses the Defense wants available for Grand Jury questioning are actually available... but why is that the Prosecution's job? If they're witnesses the Defense wants present... shouldn't the Defense be on top of making sure they can be? I get that the Prosecution is legally required to furnish them if the GJ wants to ask them questions and so it makes sense for them to verify that ability, but I just think, just like at trial, the Prosecution is responsible for their witnesses being present, and the Defense is responsible for theirs...
It seems like Baldwin is sunk unless his reliance on the armorer could have affected his mental state. The closest factual case seems to be State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (1955) where someone allegedly handed a loaded gun to the defendant and the gun went off as he took hold of the trigger guard and barrel. The defendant argued that the jury should have been required to find that he loaded the gun. The NM Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that: "All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted." State v. Gilliam at 677. The only difference between Gilliam and this case is that Baldwin trusted that an armorer had checked the gun. How can the case be dismissed with prejudice for any reason besides Baldwin's trust in the armorer made it impossible for him to have had the requisite mental state?
Is it possible that Morrissey has a larger case load than Alex's lawyer's? Idk how it works? Maybe she had her sched cleared to devote most of her time this case? Or, maybe Alex's lawyers are juggling several other cases as well? I'm curious to know if any of these factors is at play, and more so, if the judge would ever take such underlying factors into consideration, if she was aware of them? Or if it is her duty to ignore if any human factors are at play and remain strictly focused on the arguments presented?
Do they do that for defense attorneys who are stretched to their limits? Also, pretty sure she is not typically a prosecutor and was assigned as a "special" prosecutor specifically for this case and had her workload either eliminated or nearly eliminated to maximize her time on it.
Vyvanse at night. Oh no. Ohhh nooooo.. Said from experience from an ADHD’er who accidentally took my morning meds at bedtime by accident. I did not sleep. I did get a tonne of crap done though 😂😂😂
@@KelseyDrummer yep! I have a 7 day meds container, top half day bottom half night. I used to use it that way. Right up until I took day at midnight. And the literal second I swallowed I realised. Now I use that for 14 days of morning meds, and I just keep my one night tablet in a complete different room 😂
There wasn't and isn't any *relevant* exculpatory evidence. Baldwin failed to ensure that Hannah cleared his dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded. Baldwin pointed his dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded at the heart of a person. Baldwin manipulated the trigger and hammer of his dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded. The combination of these three failures resulted in the discharge of a live cartridge and the death of one person and the wounding of another. Baldwin is literally left holding the smoking gun, following his reckless negligent behaviour.
That was the armorer's trial. This is Alec Baldwin's trial. The fact that there were live rounds on set doesn't matter. Everyone knows you always assume the gun is loaded.
@@annmoss2 Unless you pay an armororer on a movie set specifically, to do that. Literally. Thats literally legally their job. YOU don't assume shit. They TELL you. Thats the deal.
Alex Baldwin and the armor is guilty for her death. If Alex followed gun safety she would be alive. NEVER POINT A FIREARM AT ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DISTROY even if you think it is unloaded.
@@bobfincher1767* UNLESS* you are on a movie set and have a professional armorer with certifications whose literal job is to do that and you are literally allowed not to. What's up with these mouth breathing incest rejects not THINKING for half a second?
I love this judge! I also feel that Kari may be letting her feelings about Alec Baldwin get in the way of her best judgement. Plus,I still can’t get around some of the shady stuff she did to Hannah. She’s smart but I think she’s going to have a a hard time keeping her emotions in check during Baldwin’s trial and will be up against a much tougher defense team,which I really wish Hannah had had the benefit of.
For insomnia try the channel “get sleepy” or galaxy sounds is another one similar to white noise. Stop all caffeine by 2 pm (hard to do). I drank caffeine till 4 yesterday so looks like I will be up most of the night Been fighting insomnia most of my life and finally been able to get some sleep sometimes 😂😂. I’m also pregnant which probably isn’t your problem so I have to pee 100x a night 😅 those tips are the way I get any sleep also if you can’t sleep get out of bed and try not to worry about the next day. Ok that’s all I got. Thanks for covering the read trial been listening to your coverage when I can’t sleep to distract! ❤❤
How does any of this get away from the undisputed fact that the gun was in Baldwin's hand and the gun had to have the hammer cocked and the trigger pulled when Halyna Hutchins was struck by a bullet from that gun and died?
Because he is innocent until proven guilty. A jury decided if he is guilty. He is brought before a jury in a specific manner to protect his rights and the rights of others, who could actually be innocent. If he is not treated in a manner that protects his rights, then he would be brought before a jury falsely. These details are important to keep the system as fair as possible (granted, much of the process IS NOT fair, but these rules are meant to make it as fair as possible). If his rights are violated, it makes the whole thing go up in smoke, which is why it is so important for the prosecutor to be on the ball. Guilty people can walk free because of bad handling. Which stinks, but it helps keep corrupt court representatives from putting people they want in jail regardless of facts.
Why does Baldwin believe he never pulled the trigger? Witnesses reported that when Baldwin grabbed the gun from the holster, he kept his pointer finger pointing straight forward beside the barrel during the entire firing of the gun. Baldwin goofed, and put his middle finger inside the trigger guard when he grabbed the gun from the holster. Next, he aimed it at Hutchins. He pulled back the hammer with his thumb. Finally, he released the hammer with his thumb. Baldwin expected the hammer block to stop the gun from firing, but with his middle finger inside the trigger guard and gripping the trigger the hammer block was defeated. Normally, he wore a ring on that right hand. The trigger felt the same, so he was not aware of holding down the trigger. Afterward, he immediately put the gun down on the pew before looking at his hand to see the middle finger inside the trigger guard. The real problem was that Baldwin had no permission to aim the gun at anyone at that moment, but he didn't care. He thought that straight pointer finger would make it impossible to fire the gun. No. He needed to go through the standard safety process to get permission before aiming at people.
It doesn't matter zoom or witness in person, if she never tried contacting witnesses... Would have been easy to contact or have him here, is not the same as contacting them prior to the GJ
There is no issue with the gun. It was fully functional on set and when tested. It was damaged during testing and no longer operates in the same manner it did when Baldwin pressed the trigger and pulled the hammer back.... but it had a full cock operating at expected when the trigger was sheared off trying to get the hammer to fall from the full-cock position. The lawyer's argument is going off half cocked.
You can avoid getting feedback if your system has proper audio handling. I have had video conferences with people not having headphones/earpieces and no feedback. Baldwin as an Actor did NOT have even the authority to verify the lack of live ammunition - on a Film Set, that is the Armorer’s job and responsibility. There are some replicas where inspecting the “weapon” would make it MORE dangerous. BUT, Baldwin DID have a responsibility to avoid pointing a firearm in the direction of any person on the set. There are special camera rigs to remove people from the direction a firearm is pointed when it has to be pointed in the direction of the camera lens. And there are special protective guards as well. Lacking these, even with a firearm that cannot shoot real ammo, the movie industry requirements preclude pointing any firearm or replica towards other people. People HAVE DIED in the past from actors doing so. The issue isn’t that Baldwin didn’t check the gun-that is prohibited. The issues are: There was a prior live fire accident on set and shooting was not halted (reckless disregard for human life) There were live rounds on set (this is a NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN situation), this was known, and shooting was not halted. The Armorer was not on set due to her being required to split her time between two jobs. The gun was left on the props cart through a break (again a NEVER LET THOSE HAPPEN situation). Reportedly the gun was used off set for target shooting (again a NEVER DO THIS situation, AND an indication of live rounds on set). The gun was checked by the AD who was not certified as an Armorer. A gun with live ammunition was handed to an actor as a “cold” gun. A gun capable of firing live ammunition was used during a rehearsal rather than a nonfunctional replica. A functioning gun was pointed even close to someone on the set. The reason there are so few deaths on movie sets from real guns is that real guns ARE ALMOST NEVER USED ON MOVIE SETS. And real ammunition is NEVER allowed. The deaths on set are like Brandon Lee (where the same gun was used with a dummy cartridge with a live primer - seating a bullet in the barrel, and then the same gun was used for firing a blank - which is also a no-no. The gunpowder in the blank fired the bullet.) According to film industry rules: Nonfunctional replicas are 90% of the guns on set. Then there are dummy guns that are missing the firing pin. Then there are blank guns that have a blocked barrel, so that live rounds cannot be used. On top of that, guns are never pointed at a person, EXCEPT for nonfunctional rubber replicas. Camera tricks are used to simulate that. And when a gun is pointed at the camera, special things like periscopes and remote camera control are used, and bulletproof shields are used.
There are SO many professions involving safety where you have to rely on other people to have done their jobs to be safe. I do not get why this case should be different. If a doctor had to perform all the related tasks themself to make sure everything was done safely, nothing would be done in the medical profession.
Just a simple search reveals that at least 20 stunt people have died in horse-related accidents, and another result showed 43 on-set deaths since 1980. Which is not that many, and I'm very grateful to see that, though every single one of those is one too many.
I think the defense outlined some arguments that deserved responses and the judge clearly had some tough questions. I largely think they were addressed. I kep wondering why Ms Morissey seemed so defensive then realized that my patronizing misogynist detector zinged an early warning at the introductory defense remarks. Women of certain standing in their jobs all have this for survival and I think sometimes it colors our responses, sometimes counterproductively.
Why was she so defensive? Very simple, the defense accused her of malicious prosecutorial misconduct and lying to the court, without any evidence for that whatsoever. Baldwin's lawyers are unhinged!
In sports terms what the judge was asking was putting Morrisey ‘On her skates’ meaning she was scrambling for balance. She is probably not sleeping well the night after this grllling.
I take caffeine tablets to sleep~ it’s the way my brain is wired. Also, Diet Mountain Dew because I am normal in how I gain weight but not in what stimulates me into action; I am praying you find your 💤💤💤 ‼️ Hugs 🙃b
