LIVE! Alec Baldwin Trial Day 1: Opening Statements + Initial Witnesses
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- #lawyeryouknow #alecbaldwin #rustshooting
View the entire Alec Balwin playlist here: • Alec Baldwin
Chapters:
00:00 Welcome
0:50 Intro
1:10 Judge Opening Jury Instructions
4:00 Prosecution Opening Statements
19:50 Q&A
23:05 Defense Opening Statements
33:17 Q&A
34:40 Defense Opening Statements - Cont.
41:28 Q&A
43:00 Defense Opening Statements - Cont.
48:30 Q&A
49:43 Defense Opening Statements - Cont.
53:50 Q&A
54:42 Witness Testimony Begin
55:33 Detective Nicholas Lefleur - Direct Examination
58:00 Detective Nicholas Lefleur - Cross Examination
1:00:24 Q&A
1:01:27 Cross Examination Cont.
1:06:35 Q&A
1:07:45 Re-Direct Examination
1:09:50 Lt. Timoteo Benavidez Testimony
1:12:37 Deputy Joseph Lujan Testimony Summary
1:14:04 Conclusion
🔴 Do you or someone you know need to speak to a real lawyer about a wrongful death or personal injury case? Please reach out to our firm and we will make sure to answer your questions or find someone who can. Our consultations are always free and confidential. You can call our firm at (727)441-9030 or email us at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com.
✅ For business inquiries contact me at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com
✅ Let's connect: www.tragoslaw.com/
Twitter - @LawyerYouKnow
Instagram - @tragoslaw
Facebook - @LawyerYouKnow
TikTok - @LawyerYouKnow
✅ Join our email list here - bit.ly/33lV3Mb
✅ Get your Lawyer You Know merch here - bit.ly/LYKMerch
✅ Become a LYK Channel Member Here - bit.ly/3OecDDD
SUPERCHATS & DISCLAIMER - 1. Superchats read out are not to be taken as my opinion nor endorsed by me. 2. Questions are answered on best efforts based on my knowledge and jurisdiction. 3. This content is for adults only and may contain themes that some individuals find triggering, offensive or disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised. This Video is protected under copyright laws and used under fair use. The views and opinions expressed in this video are personal and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer, or company. Assumptions made in the analysis are not reflective of the position of any entity other than the creator(s).
🔴 NOT LEGAL ADVICE - Zábava
Your recaps are the best for those of us that cannot sit through hours of trials! We actually get down to earth, experienced based commentary! 🤙
I totally agree!
Same
Peter, you should write a book or teach a class on how to gracefully respond to critics. You are the master.
He's very gracious
Totally agree. Class act.
Agree!!
35:20 you skipped the 911 call where the caller said it was the DAS fault it was just about to be Said if you let it okay a few more secs lol 😂
35:50 Peter you skipped the 911 caller saying on recording that it was the da responsibility to check the gun and she used some choice words. It was a big part of defense opening imo✨
Hello from S.C.! No clue how you’re able to keep up with all of these trials! Daybell, Read, Baldwin, etc. i enjoy watching your coverage. So thorough and insightful! Thanks for all that you do!😉
Plus he has a day job and a family 😳
@@BP-nc7zn - I know! He’s unreal! I work full-time and have a family and can barely keep up just listening! A big thanks to his family for the time that he spends providing us with updates, but it seems that he’s mindful of his family time which is admirable as well!
35:20 you should have let the 911 recoding play just a few more seconds. Caller literally said it was the m fking DA responsibility to check the gun. I think it was the best part of the defense opening. Maybe next live you can talk about it or play it.
Multiple streams a day sometimes! Peter is a master at his craft and in life
Just basically wrote the same thing less eloquently. He seriously must have the time management skills of a god. My brain cannot fathom how he can do so much. Seems like a wonderful family man and still does full time lawyering! I’d need an assistant to be 1/2 as productive!
I thought I wouldn’t be interested in following the AB trial but decided to give your Day 1 a try. Your recap turned out to be quite interesting and now I will definitely listen daily to your recaps. Not because I am interested in AB but because I’m interested in the process and how the facts are presented.
You’ve made it interesting by
I was the same way. I enjoy learning and pretending I am a juror to see if I come to the same conclusion at the end. Plus Peter makes law interesting!!
Same!
Peter's recaps are the absolute best!
Peter has the best recaps if you don't have time to watch the whole trial.
If anything I think the Hannah G trial is likely to be more interesting. It was pretty good.
As an actor and someone who has been on a lot of sets, it’s nuts to me that people think that actors can or should check their guns after both the armorer and 1st AD have declared a gun “cold”.
Point being, when I’m shown a gun as an actor, the 1st AD shows me the gun loaded with dummies and says “they’re dummies” and I believe them, cause they’re the expert, I’m not.
And the bottom line is THERE IS NEVER A LIVE ROUND ON A MOVIE SET. It’s inconceivable. There’s no reason for Baldwin to even consider that as an option.
@@GrahamSkipper thank you!! that is what I cant get over...WHY were there live rounds on set????
Exactly!!! People saying he should have "checked" the gun are insane, how does an actor check for a live round?!
Not even the armorer in this case knew the difference but the actor should? Absurd.
He should ckeck it. I believe Jensen Ackles said he checks his always. Also the most important part was he wasn't supposed to point it and shoot at the person.
Thanks for doing daily updates. ❤
Yes, I just cannot watch another entire trial for 8 hrs a day!
@@B_Bodziaksame! I love Peter's recaps and they helped me survive Read case cuz I just couldn't listen to Lally after week 1. I'm interested to see differences here from Hannah Reed trial. I think it's be acquitting Baldwin as an actor using a prop gun unless there are actor rules or safety guidelines or something saying actor should be well trained in handling a firearm and safety checks before they use it and maybe armor should be shaking dummy round in front of actor as loading into gun and only hand it back to them, only those ppl trained in gun hanging and safety can touch the guns, including the actor. And if those aren't the rules on every set with any gun that could fire then they should be, Union or not, it is beyond that or no guns should be there. Ever.
I was an infantry soldier and a cop. I have loaded thousands of magazines in my time. There is NO WAY actors check their weapons. In this particular instance it’s a revolver and it can make sense. But think about an actor unloading multiple magazines to check each round then reloading them. It would take forever. Think about weapons that are belt fed. It would take an hour. Think about movies where actors use multiple weapons in quick succession like John Wick. You think he checked every bullet? Ridiculous.
Great point! Thank you for your service 🤙
Baldwin's co-star checked his weapon, he dry fired it into the ground six times.
He checks the safety of every weapon he uses, on every set.
Reeves in John Wick is the biggest safety nut, he got the bug in shoot houses, with live weapons, he trained in for the film.
"It would take effort" isn't any excuse for slacking with the safety of deadly weapons.
I agree. There was a reason an armorer was hired. It was HER only job and she failed.
Destruction of the gun which left the defence unable to test it is such a huge violation. As a public defender, I can safely say that in Canada, the FBI evidence about the functioning of the gun would never be admissible if the defence was left unable to test it due destruction of the evidence by the prosecution. Mind blowing that this evidence is allowed in. Basically its like saying, well you're just going to have to take the FBI's word for it.
That is a very good point that I didn't fully grasp till I read your comment
DNA evidence often gets eaten up after testing. It happens all the time.
Are the Canadian laws different from US laws?
Kohl’s I
Yeah, kind of violates the entire concept of having the right to confront your accuser.
I can’t handle another gavel to gavel so soon after Read so I REALLY appreciate the highlights! I hope you’ll continue them! Thanks so much for all you do.
These excellent recaps save me so much time! (So many trials, so little time!)
His explanation of the objections made by Morrisey were spot on. She always comes off as exasperated & IMO tries to make the defense appear to be deceitful or liars. How do jurors perceive this? Do they think she’s on point or are they irritated by her interruptions & so aggressively? It’s unfair to the defense, their line of cross & its flow! 😤
How does the defense even combat this when it was addressed pretrial? Do they mention it at every sidebar? Speak with the judge in her quarters prior to trial or is it handled in the courtroom prior to the jury coming out? I don’t think she can control herself after watching several pretrial motion hearings. She may know the law but her professionalism & tact needs a lot of work! Can the judge hold her in contempt if she doesn’t stop? I don’t think any defendant can have a fair trial with these kind of objections & interruptions!
@@gunnybunny4081 I have wondered if her exasperated demeanor is calculated. Her perpetual state of indignation is annoying to me, and when she's shrill, it's almost unbearable. 🙂Since the state always has the strongest benefit of the doubt, though, I bet it's effective with the jury, despite how we feel.
Thanks for walking us thru these trials. So interesting. I love learning about the law and the ins and outs.
I worked in almost 50 movie as an armorer, Actor NEVER check the firearm, mostly because of insurance and risk, actor some time (Most of the time actually) don't know what to do with a firearm, and if they went ahead and check the firearm unsupervised, that's very dangerous. What they usually do is if they (anyone, not just Baldwin) are unsure, they cut and call the armorer in and check it in front of him.
On the other hand, if I was on that scene before the blocking, I would think Souza, Hutchin and the 3rd guy (I think he's the focus pulley) would want to check the firearm more than Baldwin because the weapon is going to be pointing at them, not at Baldwin.
Most of the commenters think they know much more than they do about all this.
@@bellalugosi5853 I guess most people here never produce a movie and they wouldn't know.
Actors may or may not have any weapon training at all, especially the one from oversea like UK or Ireland or Australia where guns are illegal without license most actor I work with as an armorer have never even hold a firearm before. I mean, do you expect someone had not held a "gun" before to check it by themselves? That's how unsafe it was if they are allowed to do that by themselves. Regardless of how many movies Baldwin was in that involve firearms, those aren't real firearm experience.
As a general rule, firearms on set were only given out when they are required to shoot and they will do whatever was told to do and then they return those firearms to the armorer, nothing more.
@@cosplayshop What you say makes sense. I just find it frightening that so many people want Baldwin to be guilty and jailed because they don’t like him personally. Pretty sickening.
Surprising that they wouldn't be forced to take a basic firearms safety course before being allowed to handle real guns on set. In my country the course is like less than a workday total so its not a significant investment.
@@bellalugosi5853 I don't like him either, to be fair Baldwin had a "reputation" in this industry that you either like him very much, or you hate his guts.
The issue here is that could have been anyone, if you watch the defence opening argument, you saw two actors was literally pointing the gun at Baldwin (and the camera crew directly behind him) it could have been them instead of Baldwin and I will still say the same thing, you shouldn't judge an incident by the person. This is a tragic accident, and I wholly believe, as a fellow armorer, it's the armorer faults.
Guess I’m the rewatch crew tonight!!😂
I’m right there with you!
You're not alone
Happy for the company!
Me too
I'm right here with you 😁
The Morrisey lady is so unprofessional and so disrespectful to the other lawyers in both these cases. She's plain rude and she always looks at the jury put her glasses on and off 2999 times while being snarky and I think it'll turn off some jurors .
I agree with you !!!
She’s a self righteous narcissist, just like my sister 🙄
She even treats her own witnesses as if she were cross examining them; so hostile. Felt so bad for novice Officer Lefleur; the first to testify, and clearly nervous. The way she addressed him on redirect was unacceptable.
@sandtats she's quit appalling. When she looks at the jury and does whatever she does with her eyes and changing the tone of her voice is disgusting. I just don't think she's professional whatsoever. Yelling her objections from her table like the judge said she's not gonna allow this trial & most of her objections were denied becuz she's atrocious. It's so frustrating to watch!
And now...
The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, had been hired to perform two jobs. One was the armorer in charge of guns and gun safety, and also an assistant to the prop master Sarah, who was in charge of the props used to simulate 1880s Kansas on the movie set south of Santa Fe, N.M. Rust' First Prop assistant director David Halls was sentenced in deadly on-set shooting. David was the last guy that told Alec that it was a cold gun. If you do your research correctly…you will find that it is not the law for actors to check guns when it is handed to them. Alec supposed to point the gun where the director says and he did several times with dummy bullets until the day more than one person didn’t do their job. That is not his fault.
It is your responsibility to check the state of your weapon when you take possession of it. Gun safety is simple and cannot be delegated.
Please never touch a deadly weapon, you clearly aren't responsible enough.
Maryanne, so you think the director told him to point the gun at Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins?
I'm not sure if an actor is supposed to check a gun but I do believe that if 2 people, whose job is to check the gun, failed to notice the live bullet then why should we expect an actor to notice it.
Exactly
I work in theater, not film, but in every show I have been a part of that has a gun, the actor NEVER checks the gun. We have someone on set that loads and checks the gun for safety before is is handed to the actor, and it is not the actor'hs job to check the gun. Usually, the gun is locked up until right before it is needed on stage, and is only handled by the person loading/checking for safety and the singular actor using it. The actor is instructed to NEVER point it at anyone, even 'in character'. Blanks can still have the ability to injur another person.
Right, he's civilly liable because he pointed a gun at her and presumably pulled a trigger. But he's not criminally responsible since he was led to believe the gun was cold and because gun safety wasn't an actor's job.
Peter, in Australia at least, an actor checking a gun to see if it's loaded would be BREAKING on-set safety rules.
Re: you said that the officer said that Alex Baldwin was asking people what kind of cigarettes they smoked and if he could have one. And that probably not being the question she had in mind.
Which brings up a point for me - aren't you only supposed to ask questions you know the answer to? That's what I've learned about lawyers. Lawyers are supposed to know what the answer is before they ask the question.
So why does this particular prosecutor continually ask questions that she's got no clue what the answer is?
The dummy bullets make a rattling sound! So, Gutierrez either didn’t check because she was lazy and David Halls trusted the “armorer since birth” and didn’t check for the rattle! But again…….not the actors responsibility……….AND, there should have never ever been any live rounds on a movie set!
definitely also the actor's responsibility.
let the prosecution educate you as the trial progresses.
check out atty andrew branca.
These are my thoughts too so far, going into this. Im keeping an open mind though....
Peter thank you for covering this as my uneducated opinion is that Baldwin shouldn’t have been charged.
Twenty years ago I told my principal that I’d received a jury summons, she immediately told me to tear it up. The point was moot as I had my 2 handicapped children to care for. I just got a summons for July 29th and because of listening to you and Bruce I’m looking forward to the privilege.
Its actually pretty interesting to be apart of the jury process, and everyone should get to experience it. I served on one almost 20 years ago. Would love to again now with all the knowledge I have obtained from LYK.
I sat on a jury on 2 different trials (criminal & medical malpractice). Great experience to be part of the process, but was very emotionally draining as well. Good luck!
Awesome! My opinion on jury duty changed when I got summoned over Christmas break so I had spouse home to watch the kids. Spouse kept saying they better not pick me, but after hearing bits of case I wanted to be on that jury so bad. Defendant was female and very interesting situation of a stay away order of ex's new gf and that gf showed up at a place the defendant was at. Never went near each other, only knew cuz others told each other they were both there. The prosecutor, in closing arguments, even slipped up and said the defendant stayed away! It came down to we wanted to see the stay away order, which had no specifications on distance to stay away. So I reasoned, if I'm at Walmart shopping, or amusement park, or hiking trails and a person I have a stay away order from (no distance specified) goes there, should I be arrested and convicted if we never even see or interact with each other? We found the fair with the order, it needed to specify distance if we're to find a defendant guilty. Oh and the person called the police about it a few days later, not on the day at the place. And the officer who arrested her thought the order had diff language in it than it did. I say all this cuz it sounds very similar to things Turtleboy is going through. And I def think that gf showed up on purpose to cause trouble, cuz it was a place the defendant would be known to be, and defendant said the gf had done that before. And I believe they called the police after an argument between the defense and the ex a few days later. I personally saw it as retaliation, but we didn't even discuss that during deliberation.
After that experience, Depp v Heard happened and I've been hooked on court and lawtube ever since. Id be so jazzed to get a summons now, just need to line up a babysitter. I think you can even volunteer to be in the jury pool in my state anyway, but I'm not sure. Haven't filled out the form yet
@@origamikiddo2625 sounds very interesting; bet you learned a lot
@@cmcdonaldmacri thank you!
i did NOT miss this Prosecutor's demeanor & antics; i rly like the opening Defense Attny's, tho
Carrie is terrible! She’s mean and condescending and 98% of the time it’s really unnecessary. I was biased against Baldwin because of his personality and wanted him to lose. Now I want her to lose 😂. She needs an ego-deflation
I agree 💯! Kari Morrissey is almost unbearable! Erlinda Johnson has very good courtroom decorum & I really like her so far.
Love how often you are posting videos! I love when something pops up!
Replay crew. Love hearing your views and thoughts. 💜🇺🇸
Thank you, Peter! 👍🏽
Peter, thank you for teaching the public about trials and the importance of of being a juror. I enjoy your commentary 😊
Definitely interested in your terrific daily recaps - thanks so much !!!
Thank you for the recap. Yes would love more recaps but please keep us updated on the other cases too if you can
Loved this episode!
This video and your commentary Peter… along with the great community here, are why I love this channel.
Immediately from the prosecution opening, you have me thinking differently and keeping my mind open.
Keep up the great work
I was a competitive shooter and every course I took said “never point the gun toward something you don’t want to shoot”. Never assume it’s unloaded, even if you’ve checked it.
Were you shooting in movie sets? Because if you weren't your point is mute.
Guns on sets are shot with bullets inside, albeit not real ones and the person in charge of making sure there are no live rounds in those guns are the armorers. Full stop.
And every firearm is loaded until you prove it safe yourself.
@fernandaolivares7926
Well, according to testimony from the experts at the last trial, actors still follow firearms safety rules. So there's that point of knowledge. There are ways to shoot a film and make it appear as though a gun is pointed at somebody, while in reality, it never was.
@@CatFish107I agree with you.
Something that just occurred to me that I'll need to ponder on further:
In a past life I was very anti gun. Didn't like them, understand, or approve of them. I think, back then, if I were "playing" with a toy gun or a gun that was meant to be used for playing pretend, I think I would have pointed it at someone rather recklessly. I don't think it would have as much weight, its _potential_ wouldn't have occurred to me.
Now that I am pro gun, have taken classes and given serious purposeful consideration on the gravity of carrying one, there is no way I would point it at someone.
(I haven't thought hard about this yet. Maybe I'm wrong.)
Familiarity breeds contempt. It also breeds comfort.
Most fatal car accidents happen near a person's home. Why? Because a person travels nearest their home more often than other areas. But the other reason is comfort. You've taken the turns, know the traffic patterns and feel safe. You can get cocky. (Pun!) But seriously. When you get enough days stacked up behind you where everything has turned out fine, you tend to put your actions on repeat.
There's probably a lot to consider. The jury will deliberate fairly and figure it out.
Be well!
If it's not the rules on set then it should be or no guns there. Forget realism. They have plenty of things they fake cuz doing the real thing would be illegal (drugs, drinking, sex, blood, violence etc). Fake guns with no firing pins cuz blanks are dangerous too. Following gun safety rules with blanks would keep ppl safe too. It seems to me most ppl there, including Hannah, (except Jensen) treated everything like a toy including firearms like it was not possible to be hurt by any of these things, hence why Hannah barely checked the rounds cuz it didn't even seem to enter her mind there could be a real bullet. And same with others, waving those guns around and giving to kids like they weren't real guns. Even shooting airsoft gun with kiddos, we teach the rules of gun safety there cuz as they learn it's not such an disastrous result getting hit by a plastic pellet as they are learning. And until they should they are following the rules, they don't get to use a BB gun, no matter their age, it's about responsibility.
I signed off this trial bc I didn’t think I’d be interested. Thanks for the recap Peter. I’m totally interested now. Please provide daily updates/recaps, ty.
Yes, please continue your recaps.
Great coverage
Great breakdown more please!
Jason Ackles who is also on the movie was taught to check his gun all the time which he always did
Joel Souza said it best in the previous trial, he couldn’t comprehend that he had been shot with a live round…he didn’t believe it while being transported to the hospital, or in the ER. He had to be shown he was shot with a live round. No live round should have never ever been on a movie set. The prosecutor stated in closing arguments that of course the actor would manipulate the gun.
Of course we want your recaps! I’ve been watching it all but still always look forward to your recaps ❤
Say “unintentional” all you want now, Peter. After Sarah Boone starts we won’t ever want to hear that word again! 😂
Man if that ain’t the truth 😆
Great recap and analysis.
HIT THE 👍🏼 LIKE, 🙏🏼 folks to push the algorithm!
Always❣️⚖️
I think the bottom line is that the cause of death was bringing a live bullet on set and failing to prevent it from ending up in the gun. He can be as reckless as he wants with the gun. You would have expectation that no harm would come to anybody by handling the gun in a manner that is reckless because it should never have a live bullet in it. He could have participated in all the training, handled the gun perfectly on set the whole time, and this still would have happened. If the argument is that he intentionally placed every bodies lives at risk by hiring an inexperienced armourer to save money, then we have to believe that he choose to place his own life at risk by hiring her. We know as a father that just wouldn't have happened. Theres no scenario in which he would let a stoned and cocaine using armourer on set. I am sure if he knew for even on second that she had brought live bullets on set she would have been fired immediately. If you have seen the interviews after the event and the body cam footage, it was very very clear that he had no understanding live bullets were on set and that one had ended up in the gun.
Protocols exist for a reason. Not fo)lowing them is negligent. There are redundant safety checks because no one person is infallibly correct every time. There need to be multiple checks. If you blow off the checks you are negligent. Not following correct procedures creates an environment where anything goes. That is what occurred in this case. The set was a circus. An accident waiting to happen. That is why AB is on trial.
@@IwishIwasshorter So you think he intentionally allowed an armorer on set that was putting peoples lives in danger including his own just to save money? His life was just as much at risk as everybody else's but as a father of a crap load of kids he just decided YOLO?
@@nicci337 I know he said in an interview that he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. I know that he was I charge of everything and everyone on that set and there was no overriding his aggressive personality. I know the set was in complete dereliction of the standards and protocols designed to keep the crew and actors safe. I know his lawyer said that even if he did pull the trigger deliberately that is was a moot point because he had an expectation that the gun was safe. You do the math.
@@IwishIwasshorter if he knew it had a bullet in it, do you think he would have handled it like that????
@@nicci337 The bar for negligence is set a little higher than that. He knew or should have known that safety protocols were not followed on the set. He did not follow them and it was clear that the standard had been undermined by no less than AB's belligerence and recklessness. To add a little spice to the mayhem I believe that the officers of the court are all of them incensed by the toxicity of the workplace and AB's cavalier attitude. I believe AB stepped into a world of trouble he has never experienced before entering that courtroom yesterday. That's what I believe.
I love the Alec Baldwin case!! They shouldn't be prosecuting him, imo.
Canton situation is off the hook!! Great coverage! ❤
Thanks
So appreciate your following this and providing such terrific info and commentary.
Really liking it here. Subbed on a hunch but it paid off! Happy to "know" this lawyer.
I didn't think Baldwin had any chance, but after watching the opening statements, his attorney was amazing. Clearly, money makes a huge difference when getting good legal counsel.
Please don’t ever change how you do your videos!
I VOTE TO KEEP UPDATING THIS BALDWIN TRIAL.
I am open to hear all the evidence before making a decision but I keep thinking “safety is everyone’s responsibility “ something we learn at a very young age and at every place of employment.
Really helpful that you’re going thru this with us. I’ll keep watching. Sure, it’s not quite as titalizing as Read case, but chock full o’ fascinating stuff! Thank you
Please do daily updates. 👍
Another well-balanced analysis. Thanks brother
I'm interested in more on this case. I don't particularly want to watch the trial but I like hearing how it went and your take on it!
I may have heard incorrectly but didn’t the prosecutor say in opening that someone else checked the rounds the first two times and the third time the gun wasn’t checked? Wouldn’t that mean it would be the fault of whoever looked the first two times but not the third?
I heard that also.
Clear in testimony; gun was tested "before lunch" and then (as directed) gun was left on cart open to anyone on set. Baldwin directed armorer and all actions.
Every gun should be checked by the user, I would never ever trust someone, especially in this scenario
It makes no difference. He had the gun, he pulled the trigger, it was pointed at someone. Manslaughter.
@@1amyyesactors are not allowed to check any guns only the armorer and prop master..
Thank you so much Peter!!! You are great!!!!
Def a good topic Peter many will be into it
This is an interesting case. I think that the prosecution team is really fearless and so impressive. Thank you for your great videos LYK! 🙏
Oh I’m In!! More pleeeeease🙏🏻
Sad I missed this live..thanks so much for ur insight Peter! Im on eeplay crew.. Love From NB Canada 🇨🇦
Yo Robyn, greetings from the other side. Can't get no CanCon courtroom footage. Must be our judges are embarrassed by the wigs.
@CatFish107 I know..I would think this would be here by now..God knows why they don't wanna be aired on TV lol
This is a really important case!
Love the recaps and would love for you to continue to do them for this case. I want to follow this trial but don’t think I can watch gavel to gavel since we are no longer on Judge Bev’s schedule! 😂 Thanks Peter!
Nice to see "tough guy Baldwin" (Alec's brother) Stephen, sitting behind him in support. 🙂
Their sister is next to him (blond). She broke down today, actually really sad. 😢
I’m judging people by how they judge Baldwin.
Me too lol
Yep!! Lol
💯
Is a juror guilty of negligence for believing an expert witness in court?
@@aprilkepler1702 the jury has expressed no opinions nor have there been expert witnesses yet.
Would that mean that an actor needs to check every round on a belt-fed firearm?
I’m mind boggled how this judge said after Hannah trial “you and you alone are responsible for this” and they put someone else in trial for same thing. So is her and not her alone responsible for this. Alec Baldwin is not a great person other than beetle juice but this should be a civil case not a criminal case. He won’t be found guilty Of this criminally. If Baldwin is at fault then why is Hannah in prison if Hannah is responsible then why try Baldwin.
Yes to recaps!
Daily recaps, please! 😊
I don't see how it's his job to check the gun when there isn't supposed to be live rounds on set at all. So as far as he knows no live bullets on set. You have Hannah and Dave Halls to do this! Also Sarah Zackery has her hands on the prop cart and trashing who knows what? Hannah apparently was doing some kinda drugs when we saw her trial! Dave calls out cold gun twice and it's Alec Baldwin fault? I don't see it. Imo.
Good point. I was wondering what a round consisted of. Thx 🇨🇦
Don't believe that the fact he pulled the trigger holds the most relevance... What is the most relevant is that he was given a gun that was supposed to be cold... This is a case of trust and when not to
Exactly.
And who is responsible for the safety of the gun. The person whose job it is to make sure the gun is safe, that's who. The person who loaded it and the person whose job was to oversee that (the AD).
But following the rule but treating it as live and not pointing at anything you don't want to destroy would mean Helena would be alive. And if directors, camera operators, producers etc say point it right at the camera the actor, who has learned the rules, will say no, I'm not doing that cuz you def don't want me destroying this expensive equipment, we need to do it another way. So maybe they fire that actor for being difficult, but then that actor is not having the weight of someone's life on their hands and they tried to do what they could.
@@origamikiddo2625 This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. The gun is managed by a FIREARM EXPERT. It is nothing more than a movie prop.
No. NEVER POINT ANY GUN AT SOMEONE YOU DONT INTEND TO KILL. It's simple gun safety, not rocket science.
I can’t help but feel awful for Alec. I met him years ago on the street when he had no obligation to be even cordial and he went out of his way to be nice and make the encounter memorable.
You may be the only one with a nice story about Alec. 😅
@@thehutch7728agreed, I don’t think I have ever heard the name Alex Baldwin and nice in the same sentence. At least now we know he was nice once.
The time I saw Alec Baldwin in person he was screaming at someone on his cell phone in the middle of the sidewalk 😂
He lied about firing the gun, he is a liar, a sleaze , a typical entitled Hollywood creep.
More breakdowns on this trial please 🙏🏻
Excellent very well
I believe that the person responsible for this killing is Hannah and she is in prison... It was her job, the negligence from Alec was trusting in his armorer
Same!!
Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger and killed her. He is responsible. Being an actor isn’t an excuse to murder someone.
The negligence was in trusting his armorer - not aiming a gun and pulling the trigger?? lol what????
@@ItBeThatWaySometimesthe negligence is in pointing a gun at a human
Maybe finish watching the trial first???
In Jenson Ackles’ police interview, he said he always performs his own gun checks to include firing the gun into the ground (times however many rounds the gun holds) to make sure it doesn’t fire.
So, that tells me actors can be and ARE trained to be responsible for their prop guns before using them in a scene and that changed the way I personally look at Mr. Baldwin’s responsibility/liability in this case.
If the call on set was for blocking , why was the gun loaded in the first place ??
And how does an armorer , who grew up on sets, not know the difference between a live and dummy round when loading ??
I was going to skip this trial because it seemed like an open and shut case. But because Peter is covering it, I had to check it out. Now, I realize that my experience has easily swayed my views. I grew up with guns and all of the gun safety rules were burned into my brain. I have a great deal of respect for firearms. Later in life, I avoid guns. However, I would always expect that our universal safety rules should be followed. (Plus, I’ve never cared for AB because of his attitude)
Replay crew 💙
Loved this recap Peter. Yes I too, like others in the chat find the prosecutor infuriating😩 but looking forward to following with you!🙏😊
Love your feedback on this trial!
How fun! Have a great time! 🤠
Replay Crew!
So, I went into this feeling strongly about lack of weapon safety, but after listening to opening arguments, I do think the prosecution has a long way to go to prove AB is responsible. We knew why HGR was responsible, but on a film set the responsibilities are split up between multiple people. Even if they can prove AB pulled the trigger, if they can't prove he's responsible for the safety of that weapon and how to point it, and checking the bullets for it to be empty or to contain blanks, I'm not sure it's right for AB to be convicted.
Yes, let’s do this case please
I really don't understand why so many people watch and don't hit the like button! It's really not difficult but it does help Peter's channel! I always hit it before the videos even begin!
That makes sense that it is not the actor responsibility to check to make sure something is safe. They would not be responsible for checking if this explosion or stunt is safe. They're an actor not a weapons, pyro, or stunt expert that's why they hire those people to do those jobs.
I am watching the trial but also coming here for the recaps and for your analysis, as I love your way of translating the technical details into laymans and also pick up on things I miss. I wish I caught this live so I could comment as and when but it was too late for me in UK and I'm also ill at the mo, so I'll make my initial comments here in bullet points. BTW I am being completely unbiased, I have no feelings one way or the other about AB and am even not letting other info infiltrate what is said in court, ie the producer theory and I watched the pre trial motions.
1. Based on the first couple of mins of the defense opening, the pros opening (yes I think they slipped up see point 3) and re the charges (see point 2) I am at NG. Re defense opening - him being an actor and actors are not responsible for checking, that is what at least 2 other people before him are for and they declared cold and a movie set is not like real life, re the cardinal rule not applying, I disagree with you, you don't have min 2 paid 'professionals' checking for you first in everyday life. It is they who failed, not AB.
2. I dont think they can find him guilty of the 2nd charge - a reasonable person would not anticipate death on a movie set, he could not anticipate that the armourer and 1AD would have let a live bullet on set let alone into the gun and then declare its cold. Re the 1st charge, caused the death, he did technically but was it by NEGLIGENT use? (was it negligent when at least 2 others responsible before him checked it and declared it cold?). Unless there is a clear instruction that defines the definition of negligent in relation to this case I would be going NG on that as well due to reasonable doubt.
3. Pros opening mentioned inexperienced staff, since they cant charge him as producer they should not have mentioned that, however brief, IMO they shifted blame off him.
I’m enjoying daily recaps.
Peter!!.. I would have started my opening statement with “ guns don’t kill … people do!!!
Guns don’t kill people, people *with guns* kill people.
I like that, it’s true.
The liability is the persons whom prepared the cold gun with dummy rounds, thus the actor is performing duties of an outlaw Western gunslinger. That is beyond reasonable doubt and this defense attorney is really hitting the mark.
A recap on Baldwin is enough for me.
"Intent" is NOT an element of involuntary manslaughter!
Your shirt looks like quality made, soft too :)
Hi everybody!!!!🙋♀️⚡️
The Armorer who testified in the HGR trial said the only way to check for dummies was to remove them and shake each one as their purpose is to look like real rounds. He said if an actor did that that he would again check and reload it himself. So the actor is never the last to check.
Yes, precisely. And that expert armorer had been doing this for 20 years and had law enforcement and expert firearms experience.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the folks who think the rules of the gun range apply to a movie set, when the states own expert witness on armorer duties even states that the actor should never be the last person to check a gun.
Great questions from the live group! You've got lawyers in the making 😂
The most important factor to this tragedy is that if there wasn’t a live bullet, none of this would have happened. Live bullets should never be present on any movie set. It very, rarely happens, if never. It stands to reason why Alec Baldwin should never think a live bullet would be in the prop gun. No one has ever thought that. This was an unfortunate anomaly.
All could this have been avoided if Alec Baldwin was not so arrogant as to not check a real gun. It was a human being’s duty to check that gun before he pointed at anybody. He was the last line of responsibility.
Alec Baldwin’s father was a school shooting coach. He spent time on the range according to Alec Baldwin himself
Many many actors do check their weapons. Having a magic movie moment was not worth her life. I don’t hate him, I just think he was irresponsible
And how many movie sets have you worked on? I think you’re talking out your ignorant a$$.
And not point directly at someone !
@@jennhrbn2470 Yeah, cuz no guns are EVER pointed at ANYONE in a movie. 🤦♀️
@@bellalugosi5853people speed everyday too but if you’re in a wreck while speeding, that’s a different set of problems.
Could you please have Josh Ritter (Law &. Crime Sidebar and now Courtroom Confidential) on to discuss this? I can imagine it would be super interesting, especially as he was an award winning prosecutor.