I agree, mike is saying did he check the gun, that makes no sense..I'm sure he wasn't turning the gun around and looking at the actual bullets, he has no clue what the difference is between live and blanks by looking at them IN THE GUN..its all on the armorer

@@noahh2338 Exactly

Just to also say, if Alec had opened the chamber on a cleared gun and looked at the ammo in any way, it would have taken the gun cold and the gun would have had to immediately be cleared again by the firearms expert because he handled it improperly. It was probably against his training to check the rounds, because that would have resulted in delays.

@@jamessinclair2584 Sounds plausible. I have been on only one movie set in LA and nowhere near the props. LOL

​@jamessinclair2584 that would make sense if he went to any of his firearms safety training lol didn't it come out during his pretrial that he never went to any training because his fame would have been a distraction? Something like that? Either way, i don't think he is criminally responsible.

The case should never have been brought. They tried to make a name for themselves. A prop gun was discharged while filming a movie that someone put live rounds in. Prosecutor hid the fact that they destroyed the gun. Now why would the gun in a murder case be destroyed?

It wasnt a "prop" gun, it was a fully functional leathal weapon that was handled recklessly... however the prosecutor and police hid information and the case was properly dismissed. ​@@KNByam

​@@shelleycoles1587it's suppose to have been a prop gun cuz movies real it's portraying real ife

​@@user-je4es5lj4vWut? And most movies don't use 'prop guns' anymore. They use actual firearms with blanks.

​@shelleycoles1587 A prop gun is a real gun. It was to have blanks. Do you, really, expect an actor to have awareness of what a blank looks like compared to a live round? I mean, it seems like there should be some sort of person who is an expert at this making sure only blanks are loaded in the prop gun. Let's call them an ammunition expert. Let's also call them Hannah Gutierrez....... Dot..dot...dot...

Bingo.

Exactly. What is so hard to understand about that?

@tracybowser4724 Umm, what?

@@lisahinton9682comment must have been made mid-naughty adventure.

​@@lisahinton9682At this point I'll take a crack at it.. "Every attorney when they see the prosecutor take the stand: 'Oh no, that wasn't a good idea'"

How do you think he's able to be habitual and still rack up these many new charges? They keep letting him out. They'll let him out again. Soon.

@diannmurphy2010 You meant "...could NOT care less." Just think it through, Darliing. If you have an IQ of at least 93, I am certain you'll figure it out.

@WonderWhatHappened Umm, "supposed to," you meant. But that was pretty funny, your comment.

😂😂

He showed his bias with that comment. He clearly didn't care about procedure or evidence. He just don't like the guy and want him jailed.

The armorer did NOT hand Alec the gun. The assistant director did.

​@@MBuckyNo, The Head Security of Production handed the gun to Baldwin.

@@MBucky I'm not sure that is relevant to the actor's duty of care. There is someone there whose whole job is to ensure the safety of the firearm...and that person isn't the actor, nor the A.D., for that matter.

They have policy for the regulation of access to phones for prisoners in segregation. It isn't the jailer's decision. Somebody higher up the chain likely dropped the ball.

Phone privileges were probably denied due to his history

Don't be too angry at the courts, Michigan's legislature has passed laws that make holding someone with unaffordable or no bonds very challenging. Their hands are often tied and have to issue bonds that are affordable to the specific defendant. See: MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED CHAPTERS 760 TO 776. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 765. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-BAIL CHAPTER V. BAIL. Sections 765.1 - 765.28.

@@undecidedmiddleground5633 Well Politicians are definitely a problem. So I believe there is a guy in MI who has 17 DWIs. One Lady has 97 court cases before a Judge finally put her in jail. That's not because of policies that Corrupt Worthless politicians set. It's because the Judges and Prosecutors let these Criminals keep going on and on. If you look at the penalties for DWIs they are actually crazy. Years in jail. Thousands in fines yet this guy has 17 DWIs. That's not because of the Politicians it's because of the courts not holding anyone accountable. ?????

@@charlesdobbs4570 Don't get me wrong, I should have started by agreeing with you. One of our most demotivating aspects in law enforcement is seeing the revolving door of criminals being released or getting one sweetheart plea deal after another. I arrested far too many idiots with charge after charge and just being released because the courts don't consider driving while license S/R/C or DUI to be violent crimes. Ask the people I've seen peeled out of their cars because they were hit by a DUI or reckless driver with multiple priors how violent the crime felt. And, they never carried insurance, so you get 🪛trying to piece your life back together.

@@undecidedmiddleground5633 It's cool. Just talking which seems Alot of people can longer do. Be Safe.

@@charlesdobbs4570 No worries, my overall issue is that legislatures getting into bonding like that is just making it harder for DAs to hold people on bond so not ALL of the anger should be on the courts. There's enough stupid to go around, though. 😆

Exactly.

Baldwin only worked with the armorer for 3 weeks, not months. He was a producer on the film which means he was responsible for that armorer being hired. A live round should not have been anywhere on that set. He irresponsibly pulled that trigger, he claims he didn’t. That test that destroyed that gun proved that the gun couldn’t discharge without the trigger being pulled.

People are saying he should have checked but from what I understand its NOT the job of the actors to check guns and they're even discouraged from doing so for fear that they'll mess something up due to their lack of expertise compared to the armorers.

​@@ASchwa29it seems to me that his alleged negligence as a producer (running a sloppy set, etc.) is entirely separate from his alleged negligence as a performer. I've also read that while, yes, basic gun safety requires a shooter to always check, etc., in practice on a Hollywood set, actors rely pretty heavily on the armorers to ensure safety.

@@EbonMaster Yeah, I think this is basically right, though I'm not 100% up on the case. If there's an issue about Baldwin it's about not maintaining the industry standards of care on the set as a producer. Which BTW I'm still unclear on. Producer tiles can mean "guy in charge" to "courtesy title to the writer of the first draft in 1992, so he won't sue us" and anything in between. Was Baldwin a "real" producer?

Congrats on the new job!

#1, WRONG!

@@seantimmons5900 ha I didn’t even know I could edit my remarks! I guess I’m Elmo-fied 😂

Of course he wouldn't. The whole thing is ridiculous

Why would he do it on purpose? It was a stupid case to bring.

There were reports early on that he was taking it with him and firing live ammo after hours. And that he had live ammo in his prop gun belt, the theory was he mixed them up coming back to set.

They already convicted the prop person. Why go after Baldwin again?

​@mikerose9313 Reports, yet none of that was substantiated. Prosecutor kept evidence away from the defense. A Prosecutor calling herself as a witness shows any jury that they were not on the up and up.

Did you read the title of the stream?

The rich have better lawyers--you've never come across this? Unless you're DJT of course. But we all know what happened there.

…and politicians…whoop$ie $ame thing.

The professional armour who placed the live ammo into the gun and who is responsible for all weaponry on set, was found guilty at trial and serving 18 months in prison.

What exactly do you feel that Baldwin did wrong?

I agree, except I think maybe they could have brought some kind of charges against Baldwin (and others) in his capacity as a producer for negligence leading to death. It sounds like the set was unsafe and many people spoke up about it but nothing was done. Holding him responsible in his capacity as an actor is like charging a NASCAR driver with manslaughter because the pit crew didn’t put a tire on right and it flew off and killed somebody.

@@l337ath3ist good analogy. And correct. And I agree - he’s probably culpable of some sort of negligence. Creating a hazard. OSHA violation. Dangerous work environment. Or the same kinds of charges a CEO gets when they ignore the fact that their staff is mislabeling food. Something like this. But manslaughter is ridiculous. I’m stunned anyone argues against this. Including Mike.

I agree with the first comment and the two subsequent replies. Does anyone really believe Baldwin or anyone else wanted to actually shoot someone, much less kill them? Also why in gods name are there LIVE rounds on a movie set? Baffling. The entire prosecution seems like it was done because Baldwin is rich and famous and the prosecution that put him in jail would become famous overnight. I do think there could be a civil remedy against Baldwin and from what I understand Baldwin has already made a hefty multi million dollar payment to the deceased's family. I'm still baffled why live rounds are on movie sets in the 21st century. Having said this I've not kept up with this trial at all and don't even know why this went to trial. So maybe I'm full of it but I still don't know why there were live rounds on a movie set and why this was ever a criminal charge.

@@presterjohn9088 from memory I think they were using live rounds on occasion to hunt snakes on set. Which of course is ridiculous. And further - if that’s really what live rounds are being used for, ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS ACCOUNT FOR THEM FORMALLY. That’s literally the only job of the armorer. But yes you’re correct. Its baffling. Well beyond stupid. One could maybe stretch an argument and say if he knew about live rounds ahead of time, perhaps scrub the set, destroy all the ammo, buy and replace, fire the armorer, etc. it’s a stretch but some degree of negligence based on those could maybe be the only logical charges. Everything prosecutors did here was ridiculous. And to cap it off, the special prosecutor was so upset about the withholding evidence issue that she quit today. Literally this morning. Yet people are still so lost as to think he should be charged. It’s beyond ridiculous

Yep! That's what happens when a prosecutor withholds evidence.

I mean, that’s quite literally what bond is and what it is for. It’s like saying “incarceration will keep you locked up” - obviously that isn’t strictly true - people do get out - but that’s the point of incarceration. The point of bond is an incentive to behave and participate prior to being determined guilty (or not).

@@poke0003 incentive, yes. A "stick", no. Most of these folk are so broke adding more debt means nothing.

The manufacturer did that? Or there were people around the movie set that would take a handful of bullets out of the box, not use all of them, and not being careful what box they put the bullets back into? I'm not saying I know, I just have an opinion about which seems more likely to me. *of course" neither should ever happen.

@@suepongallo from my understanding the manufacturer/supplier of the bullets shipped them that way. some real rounds were in the batch and were not supposed to be. does that make it 100% their fault probably not but the fact that they suppressed that mistake

@@suepongallo they are still at fault for not being more carful. it does not mean they are not guilty but violating the duty of evidence discloser or brady act for better terms calls into question all of their evidence

Exactly. It was BS and a waste of taxpayers' money. Have it settled in civil court. It seemed more political.

@@KNByam Going after those on trumple thinskin's retaliation list I suspect...

Her career is over.