[Bryson]

Again, I don't agree with regards to "who pulled the trigger". The crew members primary job was "make sure exactly what happened doesn't happen."

As a producer, I think it makes more sense.

[psmith2.0]

I think several balls were dropped. Yes, the armorer, whose sole job is to make this stuff safe and where nobody gets plugged, absolutely botched her job, for whatever reason(s)...inexperience, incompetence, laziness, etc. She'll have a year-and-a-half to do some thinking, and decide if this is the career she's after? Just because her old man was a successful, sought after and highly-regarded armorer doesn't mean she magically inherited the skill. She might suck at it. So far, she is.

Baldwin signed off on her hiring, and I assume he can read a resumé (or lack of one, in this case).

Yes, he may get by on the actual shooting part and get snagged/hung up on the "as the producer, you oversaw and signed off on some stuff that maybe should've concerned you and been viewed as red flags. We all wanna save a buck/cut some corners and hassle, Mr. Baldwin, but damn...why did you hire a complete, inexperienced newbie to perform one of the most important jobs on a movie production involving firearms and gunplay?".

Just seems to be some "eh..." and negligence/half-assery going on.

On a Lifetime or Hallmark movie, with no stunts or gunplay, a production can probably get away with that. Nobody's gonna die in those types of movie productions, other than for excessive corniness or whatever.

My concern is someone like Baldwin can afford to hire the Cochrans, Sharpiros, Kardashians and Baileys of the world, who'll proceed to try and make this all about everything under the sun, other than what happened. They wouldn't be putting Baldwin on trial later this spring/summer if they didn't think there was something there to prosecute, or for him to answer to. Maybe it's all just for show, big picture. But I'm not a conspiracy crank, so I'd never seriously say/believe that.

[Matsu]

I didn't spend much time learning the details, but a few things stand out.

The court/judge had access to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's jail calls, and used the apparent callousness of those statements in determining sentencing. Not something I was aware of, just goes to show it's always better to keep your mouth shut, also interesting what, if any, limit there may be on privacy rights/laws concerning those in detention.

Baldwin was offered a pretty sweet plea deal when first charged: something like six months of unsupervised probation for misdemeanor handling of a firearm, a fine of $500, 24 hours of community service, and a gun safety class. Interesting... Maybe he's telling the truth and genuinely believes he acted within expected safety bounds... Maybe his outsized Hollywood ego just wouldn't allow him to admit wrongdoing on any level... Maybe both? Certainly there would be expensive implications for potential civil litigation to follow, but I'm not sure how being convicted of involuntary manslaughter vs misdemeanor handling improves that outlook.

[psmith2.0]

He would've been smart to take that early deal. If he gets the book flung at him in a few months and has to quit knocking up his wife for a few years, he'll wish he had. E! and the other networks are gonna have a field day with that trial. It'll make the "free Britney!" coverage look like the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Any time there's a trial in L.A. County, involving a celebrity, you can always count on a certain number of fans to show up and act like assholes in the parking lot, breezeway, lobby, etc, with all their glittery, typo-laden signage and Chris Crockering it up (hysterical crying and over-amped praise/support for the defendant or subject) for any camera pointed in their direction.

"Leave Alec alooooooooooooone!"

I don't know if Alec Baldwin brings those unhinged drama cases like Britney, Gaga or Madonna seem to, but we'll soon find out. I sometimes think any celebrity is eligible/qualifies. Some people like to cry and carry on with strangers watching. It's less about the celebrity in question than the nutball fans/supporters, after a point.

[Matsu]

One thing’s for sure: we’re all going to learn a lot more than anyone needs to know about movie firearm practices that shouldn’t really exist anymore. Modern special effects should mean it’s irrelevant. I mean come on, the military does live fire because of conditioning and realism in combat. The movies do it because? Realism? You’re fucking actors, pretend already.

[psmith2.0]

Yep. I said that ages ago. None of these doofs are so “method” that they require real guns/bullets to fully inhabit their role. De Niro or Pacino are never gonna agree to take a bullet to the head for a scene to help with the believability. You’re actors, so…act.

If one more person, cast or crew, famous or not, dies on a movie set, from GUNFIRE, I’m just gonna give up on the whole industry and know they’re not serious about things.

In a perfect, sane workd, there would be no need for on-set armorers or gun safety techs because there no chance of an actusl, working firearm being present. Everyone’s supplied with really detailed, realistic resin/wood props that couldn’t fire a bullet if they tried. Noise-making caps? Sure. But nothing that, due to negligence/overlook, could be a real, bullet-firing gun in the hands of any actor, aimed at any other actor or crew member. It’s absurd it even happens. Did you all forget what you’re doing here? You’re basically playing pretend cowboys or cops and robbers. That’s it! Nobody here deserves to die, from a gunshot wound. Rattlesnake bite or horse-trampling? Perhaps, but not a stupid gunshot. The entire industry is built on illusion/pretend, as it should be. No guns needed, nobody’s that serious/hardcore/foolish of an “actor”.

And if you are, then you’re crazy and probably not a good person to have around on set, riling you others with your crazy talk about how real guns/bullets. Beat it, before you get someone killed.