Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter - Alec Baldwin Discussion

[–] bozo_500 (12210) 2 years ago

think baldwin might get away with it due to his money in a settled out of court type deal. probably cost him about $20m. and the other 2 will be held primarily accountable (the 24y old armourer and the AD) so most likely prison terms. however think its unlikely Baldwin will ever work again as his name will be forever associated with the tragedy (and buying his way out any of responsibility)

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 2 years ago

Bullshit - he'll still work.
Hollywood is governed by the dems - dems worship and build statues of an actual criminal G. Floyd (yes, he was unjustly killed, but his past criminal activities are well documented). The only thing Baldwin has got going against him is that he's white - but come the elections time, if Trump decides to run, Baldwin will be kicking it at SNL again, and all will be forgiven.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12210) 2 years ago

Alec as Trump again? lol no

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 2 years ago

His work would decrease, that for sure so I don't think he would return to SNL (I can be wrong) but he definitely gonna pop here and there in small roles, he definitely is not going to fully vanish.

Who knows also depends on how his PR people managed this situation he could end like a victim of circumstances in all these at the eyes of the public opinion, which Is not impossible.

reply

[–] christomacin (4527) 2 years ago

In terms of public opinion, I could see this swinging either way under certain circumstances once all the facts have been hashed out and debated. At the moment I think it's looking more likely to harm him, but that could change. I think the union issue and the unsafe work environment on the set will end up being what hurts Baldwin (as one of the producers) the most. People claiming this is going to be an open and shut case with Baldwin going to jail are going to be disappointed (so I think right now, anyway).

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

Baldwin will get a character rehabilitation appearance on SNL before he faces his first day in court. Hell, he may even get a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars, or some new special award made new just for him, kind of like they did with Dan Rather after his disaster.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

Given the fact out there today, SNL will never associate with Baldwin again.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

By that metric, a waiter serving a meal with deadly botulism would also be charged with manslaughter.

Unless someone can prove Baldwin had both the knowledge *and* the duty to inspect the firearm, then whoever was responsible for checking the gun would be the most culpable. If it was an accident, then involuntary manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge.

reply

[–] ArnoStrine (57) 2 years ago

it was a movie set with a special set of circumstances

no charges will be filed and none would ever stick

civil court: yes, it will eain

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I agree with this. Despite my feelings about Alec Baldwin in the political world, as someone who works in community theater, I have more sympathy for him in this circumstances. I don't know all the specifics so this is just my simple opinion. A movie set and movie/prop weapons are different than real live 'real world' guns. So I don't agree with all the 'gun rules' being spewed out at this time. From my, very basic, understanding, the actor wouldn't necessarily check the gun; they trust the prop people, the stage manager, the weapons expert to make sure the gun is ready for shooting (the film). it NEVER should have been giving to Alec the way it was. NEVER. So, in my mind, the responsibility belongs to the people in charge of that weapon.

Where I COULD see fault falling on Baldwin will be in his responsibilities as a producer/executive producer. My understanding is that is just the money person; he doesn't hire people or is responsible for on set stuff; he just signs the checks. But I could be completely wrong on that. If he WAS responsible for hiring people and hired the shady people that were apparently on this set then there might be some culpability there. I just find it a stretch.

Either way, this man's life will never be the same. He's an asshole but I don't think he ever imagined something like this could happen. He will live with this the rest of his life. If there is a civil suit; I hope he settles and gives them what the family needs; not because he was at fault, but because it's the right thing to do and will keep the family from having to go through the insane process for years.

reply

[–] ArnoStrine (57) 2 years ago

very well said

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 2 years ago

Good unbiased summary..

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

You need to understand the management/producer's involvement in this, as well as the actor's actions.

https://youtu.be/3IzkSFIGg-w?t=180

reply

[–] christomacin (4527) 2 years ago

I don't know at this point that we can assume that no ricochet's were involved and that his finger was on the trigger. Both of those things are PROBABLY true, but not definitely true. If either of those things did happen though it alters the picture a bit. I've also heard that an actor is ENTITLED to inspect a weapon that has been declared "cold" and handed to them, but I'm not certain that there is an REQUIREMENT that they do so. Three Key Points: (1) was Baldwin's the finger on trigger and pointed at someone [yes or no]?, (2) was the gun firing an accidental discharge or intentional discharge? (3) and if an actor is required to check the chamber not just entitled to do so. I'll also add a fourth question, (4) was his role amongst the 12 or so producers such that he could have called a halt to shooting on his own authority, and if not, should he have walked off the set in solidarity with the crew that left? This final question is most likely to come into play in a civil trial and in the court of public opinion. Or it could lead to criminal charged, depending on how egregious the conditions on the set were and to what extent Baldwin himself helped create them.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

"Ricochet's"??? .... well, first ricochets is not a possessive case word, mr. foreign commenter.

Second, it hardly matters because the gun was not supposed to be loaded - ever, or even have live real bullet rounds in it.

After talking "ricochet's" you are not really qualified to say anything anyone should pay attention to ... what a useless comment.

reply

[–] christomacin (4527) 2 years ago

It was a typo. I'm not a "foreigner". Legally, it does matter as to who is ultimately responsible. Not a "useless comment" at all. I think a ricochet scenario is EXTREMELY likely, but until we get the full ballistics report and/or video footage of the incident it is a (remote) possibility. My point was simply that it would make a difference as to whether he was deliberately pointing a gun at her or not, although he still might be on the hook in other ways. Anyway, thank you for your pro bono proof reading work.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

A typo is when you hit the wrong key, not when you deliberately insert the wrong punctuation.

Like I said, there would be no ricochet if there was no bullet, so no armorer, no union professional on-site, there would have been no real bullet, and no killing. The chance of ricochet or misfire is something armorer is responsible for.

Spend as much time getting informed as you do thinking up clever quips.

reply

[–] christomacin (4527) 2 years ago

Yes, it's still a typo. I didn't "deliberately" do anything. It was a typo. Period. In any case, it is irrelevant to what I said. You are not listening to what I am saying and NOT saying, which is a far bigger sin than a typo, in my book. I did NOT say that a ricochet would in any way absolve Baldwin or anyone else from all the other lapses of safety which clearly did occur. This is provisional on if that happened at all, which I said was unlikely but still possible until a ballistics report rules it out. The ballistics report will put this particular question to bed soon enough. All I meant was that a ricochet could potentially weaken that one specific charge against him but not the others (the lack of union crew, gross lapses in gun safety protocol, etc.). Baldwin was probably complicit to some degree in this break down of safety because of his other roles on the film. It's mainly a question of how much control over the production he held and which other producers he shared it with. Still, the armorer would not be responsible for Baldwin aiming a gun at someone - although it would seem to me that someone should be on hand to observe the actor holding the gun to ensure they don't get carried away or get distracted by their acting, and that they continue to maintain the safety protocols at all times. The actor should be doing this as well, but for the sake of safety someone (not the director or actors) should be observing like a hawk the whole time, which I assume is how it is SUPPOSED to work. The armorer would be responsible, among other things, for ensuring there are only blanks in the gun when needed, that there are no blanks in the gun when they are not needed, and needless to say, that there are no live bullets in the the gun or anywhere else on the set at any time. This all circles back to the quitting/dismissal of the union crew and how much Baldwin had to do with it, and why he didn't walk out in solidarity with the crew. None of this has anything to do with ricochets and I never said it did. The only significant differences is that I'm saying wait for the ballistics report before saying with 100% certainty where he was pointing the gun. We won't have long to wait. I'm not really even sure what we are arguing about, other than a stray apostrophe s.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> This is provisional on if that happened at all

Meaning it is useless speculation that just clouds the issue.

> All I meant was that a ricochet could potentially weaken that one specific charge against him

Again speculation, and there are no charges as of this time.

> Still, the armorer would not be responsible for Baldwin aiming a gun at someone

A reiteration of the obvious.

At a time where there is tons of misinformation and confusion about the facts, to assume certain facts or speculate is useless compared to finding accurate sources of facts and get them out to support people knowing and understand what happened - what is known, and what is not know.

They checked the gun and it was in working order - i.e. not going to go off by itself. So, yes, Baldwin's finger must have been on the trigger.

The use certain protocols on the set to make sure no one is in any danger of getting hurt - so it doesn't really matter whether it was an accidental discharge or not - though how could it be an accidental discharge when they were rehearsing the scene where he was supposed to shoot. Baldwin should not have a gun in any condition pointed at another person. The armorer is supposed to tell him exactly how to move or if it is not safe to shut down the scene.

reply

[–] christomacin (4527) 2 years ago

I never said Baldwin didn't fire the gun, or any of the other crap you just typed.

"Meaning it is useless speculation that just clouds the issue."

No, meaning I will wait for the ballistics report before stating it as a fact that he was pointing a gun at someone. Making a factual claim about something before it is know with certainty is speculation.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

I never said you said "Baldwin didn't fire the gun"

What I posted was no crap, but that is an easy excuse to use I guess if you do not want to support your previous comments.

> Making a factual claim about something before it is know with certainty is speculation.

Yeah, we can mostly agree on that. There are some facts that actually can be inferred that are not specifically known.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1759) 2 years ago

Isn't it the first rule of firearm safety to assume that all guns are loaded? He pointed a gun capable of firing live ammunition at someone and pulled the trigger.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Yes, but this is a movie. He was handed a gun by someone who was supposed to certify the gun was safe to fire and *told* him the gun was safe to fire. He was then directed to fire the gun at the camera.

If this was between scenes where he was dicking around, that would be a different issue.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"Yes, but this is a movie."

LOL at you thinking that makes any difference whatsoever. Show me any gun safety rules published by a credible source where exceptions are made for people who play make-believe in front of a camera. And since you think there are not only exceptions to the rules, but exceptions for something as trivial as playing make-pretend, you shouldn't be anywhere near a gun; you're a negligent homicide perpetrator waiting to happen.

"He was handed a gun by someone who was supposed to certify the gun was safe to fire and *told* him the gun was safe to fire."

Utterly irrelevant. The whole point of gun safety rules is that the person holding the gun always has the responsibility of determining the gun's state of readiness for himself, and is always 100% responsible for handling it safely, and must never point it at someone else (except in self-defense) regardless of certain they think they are that it's safe to do so.

"He was then directed to fire the gun at the camera."

First, he wasn't directed to do any such thing; he was practicing his "cross-draw". It wasn't a scene; the camera wasn't rolling. You would already know that if not for your unfortunate reading deficiency, since I've already told you. Second, there is no gun safety rule against pointing a gun at a camera, but there obviously is one against pointing a gun at people, which is the rule that Baldwin broke, resulting in a homicide.

"If this was between scenes where he was dicking around"

That's exactly what it was.

"that would be a different issue."

No, that doesn't make it a different issue. Rolling a camera doesn't mean gun safety rules can be ignored, obviously. There are no exceptions to the rules of gun safety; none whatsoever.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Utterly irrelevant.

Everything you said is not only utterly irrelevant but mostly incorrect- the irony apparently totally escaping your notice. The thousands of TV shows and movies that have been filmed for 100 years say you're wrong.

Everyone on MC knows your a condescending prick who won't admit when he's wrong. You have no idea how to discuss something in a civilized manor. I gave you the last word on the other thread where you spent most of the time insulting my intelligence, and I'll give you the last word on this one. Please don't respond to me in the future and I'll return the favor. Thanks.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

Your post is a non sequitur (which is a habit of yours); consider it dismissed out of hand. And since you have no arguments whatsoever, your tacit concession is noted (again).

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

You are uninformed as to what happened on the set.
There is no indication that Baldwin was "dicking around" at all.
That is just lies and fake news.
Why don't you go find out the facts before making nonsense up your don't understand.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"You are uninformed as to what happened on the set."

Comical Irony Alert

Alec Baldwin was practicing a “cross draw” in a church pew that required pointing his weapon at the camera during the prop gun mishap that left cinematographer Halyna Hutchins dead, newly released documents reveal.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/25/alec-baldwin-was-practicing-pointing-revolver-at-camera-during-fatal-prop-gun-mishap/

Which is what I said he was doing. Here it is again:

"First, he wasn't directed to do any such thing; he was practicing his "cross-draw". It wasn't a scene; the camera wasn't rolling."

"Why don't you go find out the facts before making nonsense up your don't understand."

Comical Irony Alert: Part II

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

You said he was "dicking around". That's what you are doing here in your comments.

Practicing is what they do at rehearsals, and if the professional union armorer were there he would have checked the gun, and also checked how Baldwin was using it, pointing it, and helped to block out the scene. If the armorer was not satisfied that the scene was safe they would shut down the set.

It's just as I said, you are full of lies and misinformation and you try to attack me. You make me sick.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"You said he was "dicking around"."

And I also elaborated, since "dicking around" doesn't have a highly specific meaning. For the third time, I said:

"First, he wasn't directed to do any such thing; he was practicing his "cross-draw". It wasn't a scene; the camera wasn't rolling."

It didn't take place while a scene was being shot. He was sitting there practicing his "cross draw", which could have been done with a fake gun since the camera wasn't rolling anyway, and it definitely could have been done without him pointing the gun at anyone. In other words, he was dicking around. Also, as I've already said, it doesn't matter either way, because pointing a real gun at someone who isn't trying to kill you is negligence no matter what.

"It's just as I said, you are full of lies and misinformation and you try to attack me. You make me sick."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

Strntz is actually the one who brought up the term.
I saw your reply to that post where you use it.
I was replying to that.

> he was practicing his "cross-draw". It wasn't a scene; the camera wasn't rolling."

That is problematic. When you say "practicing", do you mean rehearsing as in official business? Even practicing, rehearsing or being filmed the rules that the armorer should have gone through with Alex Baldwin - not to point a gun at anyone.

> In other words, he was dicking around.

I think you are blind to the connotation of the words you use. The term picking around has a distinct connotation or dangerous or thoughtless deliberate negligence, and I don't think as of yet there is any evidence of that.

Some people here make such an effort to inflame and insult people, so that is why I responded to you the way I did. But, sorry I confused your replies with Oblivioid or whatever his name is. You are more responsible than he is, still dicking around is a loaded term, no pun intended, and no really justified.

It would be fair to use that term to describe the people who were using the prop guns with live ammo and plinking at beer cans.

In fact, I don't think it can be ruled out at this point that someone of those people left live rounds in the gun when they returned it/them or that someone deliberately put live rounds in the gun. Either way it is a bad situation for everyone.

reply

[–] cj3333 (1046) 2 years ago

He wasn't dicking around? ...so he shot het on purpose?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1759) 2 years ago

>Yes, but this is a movie.

Movie *set*. Big difference.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Food is not considered to be an inherently dangerous item, a firearm is which moves it into a special are where you cannot ignore basic safety. Basic firearm safety dictates that a person with a gun should never point it at anyone unless they intend to shoot said person, and that the finger should never pull the trigger unless they want to shoot what they are pointing the gun at. You can have additional procedures for enhanced safety such as having someone else check the gun with you, hell you can have a dozen people verify the gun is unloaded, but you are the person taking possession of the gun still have a duty to verify the gun is truly unloaded. He failed to even do that. It would have taken all of 5 seconds and he couldn't be bothered to do it.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Basic firearm safety dictates that a person with a gun should never point it at anyone unless they intend to shoot said person, and that the finger should never pull the trigger unless they want to shoot what they are pointing the gun at.

This is literally done all the time. Thousands of TV shows and movies for almost a hundred years have had the gun pointed directly at the camera.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

And after the Brandon Lee death, the protocol for firing a gun at a camera dictates that the camera operator should not be at the camera, and that a clear safety barrier would be between the gun and the camera. Do you honestly think that film makers would fire blanks at a camera where you would almost certainly fuck up the lens if it wasn't protected? Have you priced a lens used for making movies, these aren't cheap.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Agree, but even a barrier wouldn't have prevented this particular unless it was bullet rated glass. Plenty of blame to go around, yes.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Barriers used in filming situation like this aren't made of regular glass they are much stronger. Not bullet proof as that wouldn't be necessary if you though it was only a blank, normally bullet resistant. And if they were firing a 45 long colt it wouldn't have stopped the bullet. It would have slowed the bullet and caused it to deform to the point that it would have done less damage to the operator, probably slowed it down enough that it wouldn't have gone through her spine and into the guy standing being her. She may have still bled out. Of course that's the reason the normal procedure for filming a gun face on shooting. blanks is to set up the camera, start it, get away from the camera, and then start the action.

Of course we are told they were not even filming and he was simply practicing his draw. That of course means he could have been practicing his draw anywhere, outside the church, anywhere on the set with who knows how many people in the area and because the idiot was not only drawing the gun but also pulling the trigger, he could have killed anyone in the area that day. The biggest issue was Baldwin playing with a gun he never verified as being unloaded and the pulling the trigger.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

By that metric, a waiter serving a meal with deadly botulism would also be charged with manslaughter.

How do you figure that? A waiter simply brings the food from A to B. He is not a taster, and would rightly get fired if he were to eat of the food meant for the customers.

Unless someone can prove Baldwin had both the knowledge *and* the duty to inspect the firearm

It's gun safety 101. It is the very first rule of gun safety: never assume a gun to be empty, no matter who has inspected it before you. Once you pick up or receive a weapon, you become responsible for what that weapon does. So do not think for a second that a gun is empty until you have made sure of that yourself. And even then, always treat it as if it were loaded anyway.

The armourer is responsible for having failed to ensure no live ammunition was present on the set. But Baldwin is responsible for having failed to check the gun, and for failing to exercise muzzle discipline. Even with the negligent discharge, there should never have been anyone in harm's way. There is simply no excuse for that. And lastly, as a producer, Baldwin shares an overall responsibility. And concerns about safety had already been raised before this happened.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

A waiter simply brings the food from A to B. He is not a taster, and would rightly get fired if he were to eat of the food meant for the customers.

Because the food was presumed to be safe when it was handed off to the server, just as this gun was declared safe when handed off to the actor.

It's gun safety 101. It is the very first rule of gun safety: never assume a gun to be empty, no matter who has inspected it before you.

Yes, I know this. Every gun owner does.

But people seem to forget this is a movie. Movies feature stunts all the time that greatly exceed the acknowledged rules of safety. One my roomies from college was a stunt pilot, and he did things with an airplane that defied all rules of safety. Movies also feature car chases through streets that break all sorts of safety rules.

Production companies hire people to make sure (as best they could) to prevent airplane or auto crashes that could hurt the stunt people or civilians nearby. Despite these specifically installed safety measures, people still get hurt or killed in stunts. This production hired a person to specifically oversee the weapons in the actor's stead.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

Because the food was presumed to be safe when it was handed off to the server, just as this gun was declared safe when handed off to the actor.

So? The waiter isn't handling the food in any way, and isn't responsible for the food in any way. He is merely the courier. This analogy fails on every level. Not only is food not a weapon designed to kill, but the waiter is not in charge of putting the food together. He hasn't even touched the food. But worse still, you are comparing the waiter not to the armourer, but to Alec Baldwin - the end user. Whereas the only way to make your analogy work is by comparing the chef to the armourer, and the customer with botulism to Baldwin - and there is no waiter. But even in this case the analogy wouldn't work, because how is a customer supposed to be able to check the food for botulism? Alec Baldwin was perfectly capable of checking the gun, however, which means there is no ground for comparison whatsoever.

Yes, I know this. Every gun owner does.

But people seem to forget this is a movie.

Doesn't matter. The actors still live in the real world.

Movies feature stunts all the time that greatly exceed the acknowledged rules of safety. One my roomies from college was a stunt pilot, and he did things with an airplane that defied all rules of safety. Movies also feature car chases through streets that break all sorts of safety rules.

They appear to do so. If you look at most car chases, they are filmed in such a way as to make it look like they're going fast, but they're actually moving at a snail's pace. Most action which is not CGI is done by smoke and mirrors, as it were. Clever shooting angles, clever editing... there are lots of tricks of the trade. And while stunt men frequently place themselves in harm's way, they have special training to do so. And they certainly do not throw safety to the wind: great care is taken - or ought to be taken - to minimise risk to the stunt men and everyone else. You ensure safety as much as possible. And checking the gun your bloody self is a bare minimum.

Production companies hire people to make sure (as best they could) to prevent airplane or auto crashes that could hurt the stunt people or civilians nearby. Despite these specifically installed safety measures, people still get hurt or killed in stunts. This production hired a person to specifically oversee the weapons in the actor's stead.

No, that is not why armourers are hired. Armourers are hired to oversee gun safety. This includes checking the guns before the actors get their hands on them, but in no way does this eliminate the responsibility of the actors to check the weapons they are given. QED.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

They appear to do so. If you look at most car chases, they are filmed in such a way as to make it look like they're going fast, but they're actually moving at a snail's pace. Most action which is not CGI is done by smoke and mirrors, as it were. Clever shooting angles, clever editing...

I can link a thousand car and plane scenes where the rules of general safety are ignored for real world situations, but done in the movies. Ever watch the Flight of the Phoenix? Paul Mantz was killed in an airplane stunt that went wrong. My roomie's dad knew him. Ever watch Bullitt? It's hard to jump cars 100' at a snail's pace.

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) 2 years ago

This will never happen. Alec is a darling of the Left. He's just going to pay a settlement to the victim's family and like maximmm says below, if Trump runs in 2024, Baldwin will be right back there on SNL playing him. If it was James Woods or some other conservative actor, yeah, he'd be in serious legal trouble and probably headed for prison, but not Baldwin.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

Baldwin is hardly a darling of the Left. Why do people say this.
First thing, he may be an actor, but he is the producer of this movie,
meaning that he was contributory to firing the professional union
crew, and even calling the cops on them.

2 hours later someone is shot.

https://youtu.be/3IzkSFIGg-w?t=180

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

Alec Baldwin is a true believer of modern leftism. Just because he fired union crew doesn't negate that, it just makes him a hypocrite.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> Alec Baldwin is a true believer of modern leftism.

Oh yeah, because he makes fun of your daddy Trump I suppose. Get lost. And are all you right-wing rabid morons in the same account. How do you decide who will pass out whatever comment from Republican central command?

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

Ad hominem aside, your comment doesn't prove Baldwin isn't a raging leftist. If you are sympathetic to the left yourself, why would you want Baldwin to not align with your views? Is it because he wrongfully shot and killed somebody, and now all of a sudden, Baldwin isn't really a leftist because it reflects poorly on your beliefs?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> your comment doesn't prove Baldwin isn't a raging leftist.

Yeah, well I don't feel any compunction to do that since it is blatantly obviously.

Why when it is alway you moronic Right-Winger who are raging up and down and all over the Internet do you feel you can call anyone a "raging leftist"? Truly idiotic.

The only think I know that Baldwin has done that might seem pro-Left is making fun of Trump. Of course it is great to have a super-rich and famous guy present to be a Leftist and take on the hate of the Right - for no real reason.

Then on top of all your other nonsense you want to tell me my inner motivations for my comments, which are pretty obvious and already apparent. I'm not hiding anything, that's you. You Right-wing trolls have just found alternate way to spew even more insults and lies.

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

I'm the one that's raging?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

Yes, correct.

By the way ...

> Alec Baldwin is a true believer of modern leftism.

What is modern Leftism and how do you know Alex Baldwin is a true believer in it?

Maybe you could explain what the difference is between

believer / true believer
leftism / modern leftism

I think you just insert extra meaningless words in your comments because you basically have no point and nothing to say.

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

Alec Baldwin's twitter feed is filled with angry screeds and calls to shoot and execute republicans and various other people he deemed right wing. It is also his platform to call for gun confiscation. He's a modern leftist, period. And angry, rage filled.

Are you also going to deny that he has had multiple instances of assault and battery caught on film? He is quite literally rage filled. And a modern leftist. And now he finally went and shot some woman. In the face.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

I don't really follow Alec Baldwin's nonsense, so maybe you could find one of those tweets where he calls for Republicans to be shot or executed.

But, even if you can - it's just words. People lie all the time - like Trump lied about his tax cuts soaking the rich and how mad they would be at him, and how much more he would have to pay in taxes. Or about health care, having a plan that he would reveal after the election that would be cheaper than ObamaCare, Better than ObamaCare and cover everybody. Trump co-opted Bernie Sanders' agenda as a lie to get votes.

So Alec Baldwin has a platform? And he wants to confiscate all guns? Is that right.

So, you didn't tell me what a Modern Leftist is?

It also sound like you are lying again by saying you know where Halyna Hutchins was shot? Any evidence of that?

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

Since you admit to never following Alec Baldwins social media commentary, you aren't in a position to defend it.

I can't believe you are sticking to this belief he isn't a leftist. Why? Is there something wrong with him having leftist political views? I don't get it.

You're also making all kinds of wild assumptions about me personally. For the record, Alec Baldwin is probably the funniest asset SNL ever had, I think he's hilarious, even the Trump stuff. Politically and privately the guy is an obvious douche like most of Hollywood.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

I am not defending Alec Baldwins social media. Where did you get that idea? Do you assume because you are attacking him that I must be defending him.

You are calling him names and a Modern Leftist, whatever that is. I just asked what is that and what is your basis for thinking Baldwin is that?

I draw a distinction between a Hollywood actor who acts like he is a Leftist for PR purposes and a real Leftist who you want to call a Marxist Communist. Actors are commodities and anything they can do to get people to like them they do. Charity appearances, and talking about mildly liberal policies - whether in reality they support them or not.

Today some actors, usually has beens like James Woods, realize they can get popular with the right-wing nuts by talking Right-wing points. Either way it's probably all for show.

I am a far-Leftist, a socialist. I think our economic and political system has shut out any input from the people, in the media only certain right-wing views are show, in politics only right-wing candidates get support and money to run. There are still exceptions, but if Republicans, i.e. fascists, get their way, those will be gone.

I have trouble thinking there are really Americans who want that, but if there are, they are not in the majority, but the get covered, and financed like they are. I am against that, I think it is the primary issue in politics - and I don't think Alex Baldwin has done anything to bring that to the fore or to oppose it. So, no, I don't think Alex Baldwin is a true, modern, or any other kind of Leftist.

He may be, and I'd welcome it if he was, but he has a bad image that is easy to attack so I am not sure what kind of an asset he would really be to the Left. Kind of like Hillary and Bill Clinton, or even Barack Obama

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

Ad hominem aside, your comment doesn't prove Baldwin isn't a raging leftist.

Just like none of your comments have proven that he is...

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

His own Twitter feed proves it, moron.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

Then by all means quote from it. So far you're expecting people to simply take your word for it, and you have given us no reason why we should.

reply

[–] Oblivioid (1237) 2 years ago

I'm not here to do your homework. I'm not here to do a term paper on the political science. I'm not under your command. Actually, two things that stick out as hard to believe. One, that people are desperate to argue that Alec Baldwin is not a leftist (this one is baffling on many levels), and Two, that you read all this and decided to strike up an argument with me about it.

Alec Baldwin endorsed Obama twice, and has actively campaigned as a Democrat for the Democrat party in Virginia. All his political speeches have been against Republicans (which is fine he's allowed to do this), he has actively called for the overthrow of Republican governance and Trump of course. Never has he participated in any action that would put him in the right of center politically. Which is the pathetic attempt being brought forth in this thread.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

I'm not here to do your homework.

It's not my homework, you conceited oaf. It's yours. YOU made the claim, it is YOUR job to back it up. That's how it works. Your refusal to back up your claims means I get to call you a liar.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 2 years ago

I don't know what kind of lawyer is this, but really suck at his job, this is nonsense and has no knowledge of what happened

The weapon fired cant be checked have to be charged through the cock inserting every bullet one by one, after that the person must count how many bullets have been shot to know how many bullets have left, is not like a regular revolver when you can separate the Tambor and check the bullets inside.

This has been already discussed

In one thread are a link to a Twitter post where an expert explains all this in detail the type of weapon used and how works really good information

I don't think he is guilty as an actor I really believe under this circumstance this could have happened to any actor, I do believe however he is responsible as a producer this was a consequence of the bad security measures in the set and there he has responsibility

EDIT

Ok with so many threads generated by minute on this page I have to check in my browser history to find the tweet I was talking about

Here it is, a really detailed analysis for an expert without any interest in helping Baldwin or F** him.

https://twitter.com/tavera1984/status/1452104935877849092

This type of analysis is way more helpful to understand what happened and what could happen in the future of this case.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

Good post. I am very interested with the investigation and outcome on the production side of this. I really don't fault Alec as the actor at all. As I said above, I could see something happen with him as the producer. But even then I am hesitant because it depends on what his capacity as a producer means. Did he have active roles in hiring/firing organization on the set of was he just the check signer. Was he just funding the project or did he have an active role, outside of acting, on this production. Some movies have multiple producers so then not just Alec would be responsible here.

There is a chain of command in theater and I can assume on movie sets. Where was the stage managers, asst. stage managers, director and asst. director with all this? Who was in charge of the actors/crew on set? Who allowed these guns to be used for target practice prior to being given to an actor? There are so many questions about what was going on in this set that I am more in favor of blaming the main crew than Baldwin himself.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 2 years ago

Well, the crew quit because of the lack of security, and he as a producer who was present did have (if not the legal) the moral obligation of checking out what was happening.

If you are interested I put the link to the tweet I was talking about

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Not that good. I mean, I actually read the Twitter thread, and the Twitter poster was pointing out that you have to check each cylinder individually to see whether the gun is loaded. You can't easily see it's loaded by swinging out the cylinder as you can in a modern revolver, but it certainly can be done. It's not true that you have to count how many bullets are left once its loaded.

That said, it's really the prop master's or armorer's responsibility on a set to check the weapons and double check them. You're right that there was widespread ignoring of the rules on this set. The prop master should have been the one handling the guns and doing multiple checks including one at the time the gun is given to the actor. For that reason, I doubt Alec Baldwin the actor will be charged with anything criminal. They'd have to charge a lot of people.

That doesn't necessarily mean Baldwin's without blame, though. The first rule of gun safety is to treat a gun as if its loaded, and that doesn't change because they are filming a gun fight or because Baldwin was rehearsing a scene where he pointed a gun at the camera. These people who are going around calling others stupid for saying those rules should have been followed when they were filming gunplay don't know what they are talking about. Those rules are there especially for those scenes. They don't usually point the guns at actors or crew in order to film them. It's usually not necessary. They'll make sure to position actors and crew so a gun won't be pointed directly at them. I've got this from crew members and actors who have commented, but it makes sense.

I agree with you though that most of the blame should go to the people who were responsible for the set and skipping the safety protocols. I doubt he'll be charged criminally, unless it turns out he was at least in part responsible for how things were being done on the set. He made a mistake, did a stupid thing, but to get manslaughter it has to be pretty egregious.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

When did the prop master/armorer hand over the guns?

Was the prop master/armorer on the set?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The prop master wasn't handling the guns and I don't think she was on set.

I just read an article from an experienced prop master who turned down an offer to be on that movie, and according to him they wanted him to double as prop master and some other position. He actually though he'd need another person or two just to handle everything the prop master needed to do, since there was a lot of gunplay involved in this movie.

So if that was also the case when they hired the 24 year old prop master, then she was being spread pretty thin as well as being really inexperienced. That might explain why she wasn't involved when they were actually using guns on set.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> I really don't fault Alex as the actor at all.

You need to rethink that. Obviously Baldwin did not mean to kill anyone,
and I bet he feels terrible - and that will go for the rest of his life.

But, as an actor he did not take his responsibilities not to aim a gun at
people, and not to press the trigger. As a producer he is partially
responsible for both the union walkout and hiring unqualified people
to continue the work.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I think it depends on what was happening with this rehearsal. Was he flailing the gun around acting goofy aiming it at people or was this a rehearsal where the director and camera person wanted to see the POV of the shot in frame? If this was supposed to be a directed POV shot, he was doing what he was directed to do. And it still doesn't change the fact that all the protocols before the gun even got in his hands were blatantly ignored. He is an actor. he was given what was TOLD to him to be a 'cold' gun. that is not his fault and I would never blame any actor in that situation.

As a producer, he is liable for the safety on the set. I don't think that necessarily should mean jail time but his company owes the families money.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

I don't think so because the shooting itself was prima facie evidence that he was not behaving responsibly with the gun. The armorer or assistant was responsible for the guns, and keeping them on a cart with a chain of custody, and the armorer and union people walked off the set, actually pulled off by the police when they were leaving thanks to management calling them cops, even though they were leaving themselves for good reason.

Actually management and the "big Leftist" Alec Baldwin should have shut down the set at that time, but they chose to go ahead with the shoot. That was number one.

Number two was that when a gun is handed out on the set, the armorer checks it, loads it with blanks, BLANKS, and takes it right to the actor, and then explains where they should point it and helps to block out the scene. If there is a situation where they think they need to point the gun at someone - they are involved in re-thinking that at that time, or shutting down the scene - because never is a gun in any condition supposed to be pointed at a person.

So, as management Baldwin, and also as a star in the actor's union should have stopped work or shut down the set, but he was the money-guy too here and so he didn't. Then he obviously not only pointed the gun at someone else, but pulled the trigger.

We'll see what happens, but I think AB share a big part of the negligence and decisions that allowed this accident to happen.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> I really don't fault Alec as the actor at all.

There is nowhere near enough information out there to acquit anyone of responsibility on this. Nice to know facts don't make any difference to you when it comes to your favorite celebrities? So, now I know not to take anything you say seriously.

It must be good to know you'll never have to serve on a jury though.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

wow. And YOU have just lost all credibility in anything you write to me as obviously you have no idea what is going on. I don't tolerate rude ignorant people. bye.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8397) 2 years ago

> I don't tolerate rude ignorant people. bye.

What do you do when you are the ignorant person - take the long swim? Because that is what a person who makes up their mind about guilt or innocence before the testimony is in.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"The weapon fired cant be checked have to be charged through the cock inserting every bullet one by one, after that the person must count how many bullets have been shot to know how many bullets have left, is not like a regular revolver when you can separate the Tambor and check the bullets inside."

What are you talking about? To count how many live rounds you have left in an SAA or similar single-action revolver, you just put the hammer at half-cock, open the loading gate, and manually rotate the cylinder (or if it happens to be a New Model Ruger single-action revolver, you just leave the hammer down and open the loading gate). The ones with dented primers have already been fired and are therefore just empty casings, and the ones with undented primers are live. But regardless of all that, this homicide wouldn't have happened had Baldwin obeyed the primary rule of gun safety, which is to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times (which means you never point it at innocent people, obviously).

"Here it is, a really detailed analysis for an expert without any interest in helping Baldwin or F** him."

Your supposed "expert" said this...

In the 1880s, double action revolvers didn't exist yet.

... which is a load of horseshit. The Colt models 1877 and 1878 were both double-action revolvers, and the first modern style double-action revolver (i.e., with a swing-out cylinder) is from 1889 (Colt model 1889).

He also said this:

and you need to half cock the hammer to check each cylinder individually.

He thinks a chamber is called a "cylinder". A revolver only has one cylinder, and [usually] six chambers within that cylinder.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

But regardless of all that, this homicide wouldn't have happened had Baldwin obeyed the primary rule of gun safety, which is to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times (which means you never point it at innocent people, obviously).

I started shooting guns when I was about 10 years old. My dad and older brothers taught me all about gun safety. I know not point a gun at someone unless my intention is not to shoot them.

But Baldwin is an actor who probably never fired a real gun with a live round until this incident. AFAIK, there's no requirement of training for actors to learn gun safety. There's an armorer on set whose job it is to see that the gun is cold.

As far as firing it at the camera (or director who was behind it), there are lots filmed scenes of guns being fired into the camera's POV.

I can't stand Baldwin and think he's a POS, but I can't hang this on him. Someone had the very easy job to make sure the gun didn't have a live bullet in it and was being paid to do so. How they screwed that up is beyond me. But unless and until there's a law that says an actor must first take and then pass a gun safety course before picking up a weapon, then the actor is not to blame for this accident.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"But Baldwin is an actor who probably never fired a real gun with a live round until this incident."

There's no excuse for ignoring the fundamental rules of gun safety; they exist to prevent exactly what happened here. Anyone unwilling to follow them has no business picking up a gun. No one gets a free pass on that simply because they are playing make-believe in front of a camera.

"There's an armorer on set whose job it is to see that the gun is cold."

Yes, redundancy measures are good for safety. Ultimately, whoever is holding the gun is responsible for its safety. Again, don't touch a gun if you don't want the responsibility that goes along with it.

"As far as firing it at the camera (or director who was behind it), there are lots filmed scenes of guns being fired into the camera's POV."

Pointing a gun at a camera isn't a problem as long as you are okay with the possibility of destroying the camera. On the other hand, pointing a gun at someone who isn't threatening your life is always a problem.

"But unless and until there's a law that says an actor must first take and then pass a gun safety course before picking up a weapon, then the actor is not to blame for this accident."

There doesn't need to be a specific law broken in order to establish negligence. All you would need is a "reasonable person" test, and it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate that a reasonable person knows that you're not supposed to point guns at people. Furthermore, a two-second web search for "gun safety rules" will turn up this as a top result...

https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

... as well as many other results which all say fundamentally the same thing. Furthermore there is this, which is specifically for the movie industry:

https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE
SAFETY BULLETIN #1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFETY WITH FIREARMS AND USE OF
"BLANK AMMUNITION"

BLANKS CAN KILL. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.
"LIVE AMMUNITION" IS NEVER TO BE USED NOR BROUGHT ONTO ANY STUDIO
LOT OR STAGE.

No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures. If there are any questions as to the
competency of the person who will use the firearm, the Property Master (or, in his/her
absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by
the locality or the needs of the production) shall determine if additional training is
required.

GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS

1. Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her
absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel
determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety
representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object
at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

None of what you said will convict Baldwin. I know gun safety as I've been shooting guns since I was ten. My wife doesn't. If that was my wife on the set, and she was the actor who was handed a prop gun and told it to fire it at the camera, and it turned out to be live loaded and she killed someone, she would be in the same situation, and that's where logic comes in.

I hate Baldwin as much as any conservative does, but I will not join the lynch mob and drag him out in the street and hang him for something that he wasn't at fault for. I also wouldn't wish that on anyone, even if I concede it couldn't have happened to a better person if it did happen.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"None of what you said will convict Baldwin."

If the law is enforced correctly it will (it probably won't be due to incompetence and corruption throughout the legal system). Negligence + homicide = negligent homicide, which is sometimes called involuntary manslaughter.

"My wife doesn't. If that was my wife on the set, and she was the actor who was handed a prop gun and told it to fire it at the camera, and it turned out to be live loaded and she killed someone, she would be in the same situation, and that's where logic comes in."

Logic dictates that someone who doesn't know, or plans to ignore, the rules of gun safety has no business handling a gun in the first place, and if they do so in an unsafe manner, it constitutes negligence. And if someone gets injured or killed as a result of their negligent actions, it's a crime. Even the movie industry safety bulletin that I linked to above says:

"No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures."

So why would your wife be handed a gun on a movie set, or anywhere else, for that matter?

"for something that he wasn't at fault for"

Of course he was at fault. Whoever is holding a gun is responsible for its safety. The only exception would be someone who isn't mentally competent, like a toddler or someone with a severe case of Down Syndrome.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

"No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures."

None of which describes the required knowledge or identification of the ammunition. I've taken several gun safety courses, and none of them described blanks from live rounds.

So why would your wife be handed a gun on a movie set, or anywhere else, for that matter?

She would do what she's told by the director is she was an actor, the same as thousands of actors have done firing a gun in movies and TV shows over the last 100 years. It's up to whoever's job it is to make sure she had the required knowledge of the weapon, and it's up to the armorer or propmaster to hand her a safe weapon.

If you want to argue that Baldwin was more than an actor, then that's a different story and we'll have to wait to see what involvement he had or didn't have in the handling of the props. If he had some involvement of hiring someone who was not qualified, then he would be responsible to some degree.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"None of which describes the required knowledge or identification of the ammunition. I've taken several gun safety courses, and none of them described blanks from live rounds."

That's irrelevant; he's not supposed to be pointing a gun at anyone in the first place, regardless of whether he believes it's loaded or not:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

That movie industry safety bulletin says the same thing as rule 1, and they even put it in all caps:

BLANKS CAN KILL. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.

"She would do what she's told by the director is she was an actor, the same as thousands of actors have done firing a gun in movies and TV shows over the last 100 years."

And if she violated the basic rules of gun safety, such as, you know, pointing a real gun at someone, it would constitute negligence, and if her negligence resulted in someone being killed, she would be charged, tried, and convicted of negligent homicide, if the law were enforced correctly.

"It's up to whoever's job it is to make sure she had the required knowledge of the weapon, and it's up to the armorer or propmaster to hand her a safe weapon."

That relieves exactly no one of their own job of handling a gun safely when they choose to pick one up. Gun safety isn't something for which you can pass the buck.

"If you want to argue that Baldwin was more than an actor"

His profession is utterly irrelevant. He was holding the gun therefore its safe handling was his responsibility.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

You left out this part of your citation:

Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera,....

There it is. Sometimes on TV shows and movies the gun is pointed at the camera, which is what happened here. It may well come to pass that because of this incident, any camera would need to be remotely operated or the practice of aiming a gun at the camera be ended entirely by law. But right now, aiming a gun at a camera is allowed.

And if she violated the basic rules of gun safety, such as, you know, pointing a real gun at someone, it would constitute negligence, and if her negligence resulted in someone being killed, she would be charged, tried, and convicted of negligent homicide, if the law were enforced correctly.

There is no law saying an actor can't fire a gun at a camera.

He was holding the gun therefore its safe handling was his responsibility.

Until someone can cite a law that says an actor must be able to identify a blank from a live round, I don't believe the actor is responsible.

Again, it may well come to pass that future actors will need to be able to identify ammunition and would need to agree to accept responsibility of an accident by a new law, but right now, actors don't need to be gun experts.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"You left out this part of your citation
Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera,"

Your bald-faced lie is dismissed. I copied and pasted that from the PDF file ~2 hours ago (scroll up). Also, it's irrelevant here, since the cameras weren't even rolling when it happened and the people he pointed the gun at weren't even going to be in a scene, since they weren't actors. Plus, it it is never necessary to point a gun at an innocent person, let alone absolutely necessary, since making movies isn't even necessary in the first place. Additionally, it doesn't say to just go ahead and point a real gun at someone, it says to consult the property master, and a property master should call for the use of a fake gun for such a scene, assuming he's not a negligent idiot. The same PDF says:

"These guidelines are intended to give recommendations on the safe handling, use, and storage of firearms. Firearms include prop guns, rubber guns, plastic guns, non-guns, flintlock guns, pistols, machine guns, rifles, and shotguns that shoot "Blank Ammunition.""

"There it is. Sometimes on TV shows and movies the gun is pointed at the camera, which is what happened here. It may well come to pass that because of this incident, any camera would need to be remotely operated or the practice of aiming a gun at the camera be ended entirely by law. But right now, aiming a gun at a camera is allowed."

See above, and pointing a gun at a camera has nothing to do with anything, as I've already pointed out.

"There is no law saying an actor can't fire a gun at a camera."

This isn't about firing a gun at a camera, therefore consider your non sequitur dismissed, and your tacit concession regarding my paragraph that you quoted and failed to address, is noted. It's about pointing a gun at a person. Baldwin not only did that, but he cocked it and pulled the trigger too.

"Until someone can cite a law that says an actor must be able to identify a blank from a live round, I don't believe the actor is responsible."

Since this is about the negligent act of pointing a gun at someone which resulted in someone being killed, and not about distinguishing blanks from live cartridges, your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession is noted. And also, since I've already pointed this out, and I've also already pointed out that it has nothing to do with pointing a gun at a camera, this is...

Reading Deficiency Alert: Parts I & II

... for you.

"Again, it may well come to pass that future actors will need to be able to identify ammunition and would need to agree to accept responsibility of an accident by a new law, but right now, actors don't need to be gun experts."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and you don't need to be a gun expert to refrain from pointing one at people, obviously.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

I tend to skim long posts for bullet points and then go back for detail, but I'm not in this case. A quick skim revealed a lot of personal insults, so I'll be relatively brief with what will be my final post.

You can't stand Baldwin and want to see him hang for no other reason than he's scum and you hate him with every fiber of your being (your denial of that fact is expected).

Your posting history shows that you are a condescending prick who can't discuss a subject without resorting to ad hominem attacks when your logic fails you, so I'll end my involvement with something you can understand: bite me.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"You can't stand Baldwin and want to see him hang for no other reason than he's scum and you hate him with every fiber of your being (your denial of that fact is expected)."

Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo. In reality, I couldn't care less about Alec Baldwin. Yes, he's an idiot, but so is practically everyone else in Hollywood, as well as most of the population in general, for that matter. You're the one who seems to have a personal beef with him, since you've pointed it out so many times in this thread alone.

"Your posting history shows that you are a condescending prick who can't discuss a subject without resorting to ad hominem attacks when your logic fails you, so I'll end my involvement with something you can understand: bite me."

My logic never fails me (you need to deal with your unfortunate reading deficiency before you can even attempt to appraise anyone else's logic in written form; crawl before you walk), nor have I ever posted an ad hominem on this forum. I'll let you in on a "secret", Special Ed, an "insult" is only an ad hominem fallacy if it's used in place of an argument, you know, like you just did (so this is a Comical Irony Alert for you). Any "insults" that I post are either in addition to arguments or after the argument is over. In any case, your entire post is another non sequitur and since you presented no arguments, nor did you address anything I said in any way at all, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) 2 years ago

Original Colt models 1877 and 1878 are VERY rare and expensive today and nobody has ever made a replica. I am pretty confident that the weapon Baldwin was using was an 1873 Single Action Peacemaker.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"Original Colt models 1877 and 1878 are VERY rare and expensive today and nobody has ever made a replica."

What does that have to do with anything? The "expert" said that double-action revolvers didn't exist in the 1880s, which is false.

Furthermore, and not that it matters, they are not "VERY" rare, nor are they necessarily all that expensive. Here's one for for $1,295 for example:

https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/products/3188-colt-1877-lightning-38-c16096.html

On top of that, movie productions usually rent their guns from Hollywood gun rental firms like Stembridge, and one or more of those firms would probably have some that have been in their inventory for ages. They've certainly been used in movies before; Young Guns (1988) and Young Guns II (1990) for example, which is fitting since Billy the Kid used one in real life.

"I am pretty confident that the weapon Baldwin was using was an 1873 Single Action Peacemaker."

Most likely, since a typical western has a lazy and/or ignorant prop department that just gives everyone an SAA and calls it good, a practice that dates back to the 1950s. But regardless of that, it has nothing to do with my post. My post was about pointing out factual errors in the "expert's" posts.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The analysis you linked to gets some things right but misses others. Yes you have to spin the cylinder to see how many bullets are in it. However it assumed you have to remove bullets to verify if they are dummies, blanks or live. That isn't correct. a dummy bullet would have a hole drilled in the back or the primer completely removed so it would be easy to see if it was a dummy bullet or not. As for determining if it is loaded with blanks or live ammo simply holding a gun in front of mirror while you rotate the cylinder will show you very quickly whether the round has a bullet in the end or is a blank because you can easily see the end of the bullet through the front of the cylinder as it is completely open.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 2 years ago

Ok very interesting men, thanks for the information.

Is a shame to know so a huge tragedy could have been prevented so easily

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

Beginning? It was manslaughter at a minimum, right from the jump. He alone pointed a loaded gun at her and he alone pulled the trigger. If you or I did that, we would be doing time, and Baldwin shouldn't get away with it just because he is rich and famous.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

If you're a waiter and served a plate of food with salmonella that killed someone, would you be liable?

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

absolutely terrible analogy. You are embarrassing everyone who tried to teach you anything.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

You don't need to be condescending. It's a perfectly fine analogy. If it isn't, describe why it isn't.

Baldwin is an actor. He was handed a prop gun and directed to fire it at the camera, which he did. Turns out what he was handed was dangerous when it was declared to be safe by a professional. He's now being accused by some for manslaughter.

A waiter serves food. They could be handed a plate of food and directed to serve it to a person, which they would. Turns out the plate is dangerous. If the person died of food poisoning, the waiter wouldn't be culpable.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

I stand by what I said.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I think the analogy is correct. What isn't is comparing what Alec Baldwin was doing on a film set to a normal person with a real gun situation. If Baldwin was on a street playing around with a gun, then yes, criminal charges. But that wasn't what happened. He was an actor who was handed what he thought was a 'cold' gun by what was supposed to be knowledgeable production staff responsible for the safety of the actors and crew. Completely different scenarios.

That being said, it's not without reason to think he can be responsible civilly as a producer during what seemed to be a really cheap, unsafe, chaotic production. I just don't blame him as the actual actor shooting the gun because that could have happened to any one of those other actors/extras. The fault lied in the production/safety protocols.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

That being said, it's not without reason to think he can be responsible civilly as a producer during what seemed to be a really cheap, unsafe, chaotic production.

Exactly, and that's a whole different can of worms and is something we won't know about for several months at the earliest I presume. If Baldwin actively fired a qualified armorer and hired an unqualified boob to save money or any other reason, then that's a different story to be sure. We'll have to wait for those details however.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 2 years ago

"I think the analogy is correct."

The analogy is utterly absurd. A waiter has no way of determining that the food is infected with salmonella, while anyone of sound mind and body can refrain from pointing a gun at someone and can also determine its state of readiness.

"What isn't is comparing what Alec Baldwin was doing on a film set to a normal person with a real gun situation."

Is that a joke? That isn't even an analogy, but rather, it's the exact same thing, i.e., Alec Baldwin was a normal person with a real gun.

"If Baldwin was on a street playing around with a gun, then yes, criminal charges. But that wasn't what happened. He was an actor who was handed what he thought was a 'cold' gun by what was supposed to be knowledgeable production staff responsible for the safety of the actors and crew."

You obviously don't know the first thing about guns / gun safety, but inexplicably, you feel qualified to comment on it:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Rule number 1 means it doesn't matter that he was told it was a "cold gun", he's still supposed to treat it as if it were loaded, which means, don't point it at anyone except in self-defense (see rule 2). This applies to everyone; people who play make-believe in front of a camera don't get an exemption. And giving other people responsibility for gun safety is just redundancy, which is good; it doesn't relieve anyone from personal responsibility when they choose to pick up a gun.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

You are 100% wrong. I've been shooting guns since I was a kid. Fired tens of thousands of rounds. Do you know what I have never done and hopefully will never have to do? Point a gun at another person and pull the trigger. Alec Baldwin did that, and moreover, he did it to a person that was absolutely no threat to him. Her children will grow up without a mother because of what he did. If there is justice in this world, he is going to prison.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but I disagree. You are looking at this as Alec Baldwin standing around pointing a gun unnecessarily at this woman. That was not the case. They were filming a movie. She was (most likely, I don't know all the facts yet) standing behind the camera as the cinematographer to check the frame. He was most likely DIRECTED to point the gun at the camera. He wasn't pointing it at the camera to be a jerk, he was doing his job. If there is proof that Baldwin ignored certain established protocols (Hollywood/filming protocols) or specific directions from the crew, then maybe there is a case but I don't see anything like that being reported.

The fault comes from the production team; specifically the weapons/props person and the Assistant who handed Baldwin the gun. It looks to me that chain of custody was breeched and the gun was not checked properly before going into an actor's hands. The gun was called a 'cold gun' when it was not. From my understanding, it is NOT the actor's job to check the gun. Should it be? perhaps but if it was not a requirement, Baldwin can't be blamed for killing that poor woman.

Again, that doesn't mean his company and his position as a producer aren't liable as there was some gross negligence happening here.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

Are you a paid propagandist? Question, If a man shoots another man in a drug deal gone bad, do you try and blame his parents?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

He was a producer of the movie so he was well aware that the movie was going to have lots of guns in it. He had a responsibility to take a basic gun safety course at the very least. If he had done that he would have been well aware that you never accept anyone's word that a gun is unloaded... doesn't matter if it was the Pope or Jesus telling you it is unloaded you check it yourself. It doesn't get much more basic than that, and he failed. Gross negligence on his part and he should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter at the very least.

reply

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

The gun was not loaded. The assistant director assured him of that fact. The armorer's job to make sure guns are safe.

Who hired the two incompetents?

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

It’s not hard for the actor to check the weapon before using it. Especially if it was a real gun. Also why point it at the DP?

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

You're assuming that Baldwin would know a live round from a blank if he saw one. I would, you probably do, but actors are not required to know gun safety. They have prop masters and armorers specifically trained and hired to do that so this type of stupid accident doesn't happen.

Yes, *I* would have checked the weapon as I own guns and know gun safety. I would do it out of habit. My wife however wants nothing to do with guns. If she was the actor and was handed the prop gun and killed someone because of someone else's screw-up, I would defend her as well.

Regarding the aiming of the gun, he was directed by the director to fire the weapon at the camera for the scene. The director was behind the camera.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

Completely agree. Actors do all kinds of things that they may not normally have interest in or know how to do. They would maybe get enough training to get through the scene but that's about it. There's no guarantee they would have been taught to know a real bullet from a blank or how to even load the gun. There's a reason they have weapon experts on set. to take care of this stuff. Would it be a smart move if, knowing you are going to do a film like this, you would take some training? sure, but it's not required or expected. I know I keep throwing the production team under the bus for this, but I just can't blame the actor here. It could have been anyone of the actors. the fault, in my opinion, lies in whoever gave him that weapon.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

At the end of the day it’s not hard to tell a blank round from a live one. Blanks have crimped ends. It should be very easy to check the difference. There’s zero reason to not double check. Baldwin should have been on it. If you’re pointing real firearms at people then the responsibility ultimately rests on you. He’s as much at fault as the armourer and directors.

Just because everyone was skimping on safety doesn’t mean you’re absolved of responsibility.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

At the end of the day it’s not hard to tell a blank round from a live one.

For you and me it isn't, and I would check the firearm as a force of habit as I own several. But unless and until there's a law that says the actor must take gun safety classes, pass a test, and must check props personally, actors won't be responsible.

I know guns, but I don't know about a lot of stunts, like pyrotechnics or explosives. If I was an actor, I would rely on the stunt people to decide if the dynamite strapped to a bridge with an oncoming locomotive that I was about to detonate would be safe.

If Baldwin fired the armorer in order to save a buck or simply decide one wasn't necessary, he would be screwed as he should be.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

The armorer was supposed to declare the gun empty and then open the chamber in order for Alec to see it was empty before she handed it to him.

Also, there should have been safety instructions to show the actor how to handle the gun, etc. which was not done. An actor isn't expected to know how to handle the gun which is why he gets instructions. All employees should have been cleared by the armorer or safety expert on set.

Another problem is that investigators found bullets laying around the set in several different areas.

How does anyone casually ignore guns going off on a movie set three times?

The armorer looks ditzy. Who hired a ditz as armorer?

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

It galls the s**t out of me to have to agree with you, but here we are. Strange days.. LOL

There are no laws that require actors to know the difference between a blank and a live round.

There were rules in place that should have prevented this. Other than security personnel, there are supposed to be no live ammunition on the set anywhere. Screw up #1. A properly trained prop-master or armorer is tasked with thoroughly check the gun for proper operation, to check the barrel for obstructions, and to check the ammunition before clearing it for the actor. Screw up #2.

This incident may end actors handling guns as the next logical step is to require full gun safety training for actors including the identifying ammunition, and require *them* to personally clear the weapon for use. This however will leave actors open to liability concerns, and it's likely that no actor will want the responsibility and may end real guns on sets.

reply

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

The only thing re: Alec that seems off is that he's an experienced actor who knew how proper gun safety was handled on sets since he used firearms in previous movies. I'm surprised he never complained about all the shenanigans on this set since that's his MO.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with that. I know that *I* would have checked the weapon having owned guns for 50 years as a force of habit, and he should have as well if he has some prior experience with them. Where I kind of get far less certain is the point about whether it was a legal duty to do so when there are hired professionals on set whose job it is to make sure there are no live rounds anywhere except for any security personnel and to make sure that weapon is absolutely safe when handed to him.

reply

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

I've always been a stickler for safety at work. Very exhausting, but each time I started a new work place, I had to fight to make things safe for myself since I know employers don't care. We're replaceable if we become sick or die because of them.

*I* would've been a major pain in the a** on that set especialy if I had Alec's star status. No real guns nor bullets on set, an experienced armorer, and I would've been against the assistant director's hire since he has a history.

The "pro" armorer would've opened the chamber of the prop gun to show me it was empty before handing it to me, cleared the set while I rehearsed and given everyone gun safety lessons.

An attorney said unintentional manslaughter could be filed against several people. My guess is the armorer and assisant director. It's still unclear who was in charge of the set. Where was the director and what was Alec's role as producer? The studio hired unqualified people, also.

reply

[–] TexasJack (12515) 2 years ago

The director was standing behind the DP and was wounded by the same bullet that killed her.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Was the armorer on the set when the shooting happened, i.e. the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin.

reply

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

It appears she was on the set, but they don't know where she was when the assistant director handed Alec the gun.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Was the armorer on the set when the shooting happened, i.e. the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

"Who hired the two incompetents?"

Perhaps the executive producer - Alec Baldwin.

Even if he thought the gun was unloaded, which is hard to believe since a loaded weapon weighs substantially more than an unloaded one and someone as experienced as Baldwin would know that, he never should have been pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger. It doesn't matter what led up to it. At the end of the day, Alec Baldwin, and no one else, pointed a loaded gun at a mother, pulled the trigger, and killed her.

reply

[–] Keelai (31867) 2 years ago

Alec was a producer - one of twelve. No idea what his role as producer was yet since it varies. Some producers only provide financing.

An 1800 revolver with one bullet. It can't be too easy to know if it's loaded since THREE people thought it wasn't.

Of course, it matters what lead up to it. The armorer didn't do her job.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

So tired of everyone trying to blame the armorer. No one knows if she did her job or not. If she was told to set out three guns then she did. They may very well have been unloaded when she placed them on the table as instructed. Someone else could have easily loaded a live round in one, you know a disgruntled crewman that had been fired that very day... The person that was responsible was the person that pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. They had control of the gun and could have easily check to see if it was loaded. Either by looking at the cylinder carefully or hell even pointing the gun at the ground and pulling the trigger 6 times. Either way would have kept him from killing someone, but he was too lazy to spend less than a minute of his precious time.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16508) 2 years ago

This was nothing more than a clusterfuck of incompetence and half-assedness. There was no criminal behavior, just stupidity. If anything, it will result in a massive civil suit. And I'm no shill for Baldwin--I think he's a pompous, overrated, bloviating leftist twat.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Agree on *every* *single* *point*.

I can't stand the jerk but I won't be part of a lynch mob who wants to hang someone because of my dislike of them.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

Same here.

reply

[–] wrlord (1081) 2 years ago

Those alone do not point to manslaughter in this context (and I'm a lawyer too).
However, if Baldwin had some responsibility for the production, and there was criminal negligence on the set (and it sounds like there was), then he could be liable.

Mostly, though, it sounds like the armorer was a complete fuckup.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Those alone do not point to manslaughter in this context (and I'm a lawyer too).
However, if Baldwin had some responsibility for the production, and there was criminal negligence on the set (and it sounds like there was), then he could be liable.

I'm not a lawyer, but do know that most laws are based on some sort of logic (most, LOL).

The way I see it, a non-professional (as far as weapons are concerned) was handed a gun and told it was safe by a supposed professional. If I'm on the jury, Baldwin the actor doesn't get convicted of manslaughter despite my personal feelings for him.

I also agree with your second point about his involvement in the production. If Baldwin was directly responsible for hiring an incompetent or otherwise unqualified armorer, then he'll definitely be exposed to some sort of liability.

I think only an over-zealous DA would charge Baldwin with manslaughter based on the information we have right now.

reply

[–] wrlord (1081) 2 years ago

One tweak to your otherwise spot-on analysis:
"If Baldwin was directly responsible for hiring an incompetent or otherwise unqualified armorer"

He doesn't have to have been directly responsible for her hire. If he has actual responsibility as a producer (and it's not just a credit, as often happens), then under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee taken in the course of that employment. So he need not have been involved in hiring her to be liable. However, I think it unlikely that he will have any personal criminal liability here.

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

Thanks.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Was the armorer on the set when the shooting happened, i.e. the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin. What should the armorer have done differently?

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I don't know if this link will work but it's an article from September 2018 and gives a basic idea of the armorer's job.

https://gunpowdermagazine.com/what-job-does-an-armorer-do-for-the-movies/#:~:text=Firearms%20are%20typically%20modified%20for%20use%20on%20screen,the%20production%20team%20with%20firearms%20and%20other%20weaponry.

Here is a selection I find the most relevant:

Overseeing the Action
In most productions, the armorer is the last person most actors will see before they go before the camera, and the armorer is generally the only person other than the director to have the power to yell “cut” should he or she see something that could endanger the actors or crew.

Most armorers would agree that it is still very much the director’s job to worry about whether a scene works, but the armorer is there strictly from the point of view of safety. Given that many of today’s high-octane action films can feature shootouts as complex as a Hollywood musical, it is important to have a qualified armorer on set. Without these individuals doing their jobs, a film set could be far more dangerous!

The job of the armorer doesn’t begin right before a scene is shot, however, and in many cases can be an important part of the pre-production process. Larger and more complex sequences will require the armorer’s input and can include consulting with special effects personnel.

The actual amount of time the armorer and actors spend together can be limited, and while some actors go the distance with specific training, for many extras it can be as little as 45 seconds.

Per your questions, these will all need to be investigated by the police working the case. It is my understanding that the Armorer really should have been there when Baldwin was, at the very least, practicing with the gun. He was supposed to make sure the gun was ready for use before it even reached the actor's hands.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Didn't the armorer do the job she was hired to do on this production?

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Was the armorer on the set when the shooting happened, i.e. the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin. What should the armorer have done differently?

reply

[–] wrlord (1081) 2 years ago

Fine question, and one that will have to be asked and answered. As I understand it, it is the armorer's job to make sure the weapons used are safe. That might mean that they are inoperable, or it might mean that they have blanks only, depending on the circumstances. There are reports that the crew was using the very same gun for target practice. That's an unconscionable failure on the part of the armorer. There should never have been live ammo on the set, and live ammo should never have made its way into these weapons in the first place.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

From reading they wanted the person to do several things in the filming besides armourer. She might have been over doing those than there at a rehersal part.

reply

[–] TexasJack (12515) 2 years ago

She should have checked the gun personally before giving it to Baldwin and personally taken it back from him when the scene was over and placed it back into the safe. It's her only job. It was a terrible mistake to diffuse that responsibility by including the first assistant director in the process. He has a hundred different things to do and is under enormous pressure to keep everything moving.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1710) 2 years ago

Was it up to her whether or not she hand it to Baldwin?

reply

[–] strntz (10800) 2 years ago

The report I read said it was the Assistant Director who yelled "cold gun" and handed it to Baldwin. The story didn't mention if the armorer was there at that time. More details to come I presume.

reply

[–] chilone (17262) 2 years ago

His acting skills are going to SERIOUSLY be put to the test.

reply