Baldwin Calls For Police Officers On Set To Monitor Weapons Safety
https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1457733193860214787
shareIf safety protocols are followed to the letter you won't need police officers there.
share
MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > Baldwin Calls For Police Officers On Set...
What an absolute buffoon. That's the armourer's job fuckwit. Jesus Christ this is peak clown world. He cannot take responsibility for his own failings.
shareAnd, Baldwin has a history of unfair public criticism of police and firearms use but now wants them on set policing firearms use.
https://www.westernjournal.com/vicious-alec-baldwin-tweet-mocking-cop-wrongful-shooting-resurfaces-baldwin-kills-woman-set/
Instead of police officers, how about if a movie has guns, whether they're using live rounds, dummy bullets, or blanks, there should ALWAYS be a trained gun expert to inspect and approve each gun before every scene it's used in?
shareWhat a crazy plan. Very similar to what already exists with proper productions run by competent people.
share
If this accident proves anything is that accidents will happen no matter what precautions are taken.
I don't see how a police officer is any more qualified to handle a gun and the ammunition than an armorer. Honestly, all you need is a weekend shooter like me as long as whoever's job it is simply does it.
Every. Single. Time.
Accidents won't happen no matter what precautions are taken. This accident happened because the proper precautions were not taken. If they had been taken, it couldn't have happened.
share
The proper precautions were in place. Someone didn't do their job or made a human mistake.
There were at least three identified levels of precaution in place, and all three failed. I suppose we can increase it to ten levels of protection, but I assume before that happens, it will become easier to pay for CGI then to keep adding more people to the chain of command.
Everybody at each level of protection is blaming each other. Let's be fair, how about everybody takes the blame and split the civil suit?
share
A civil suit *probably* won't happen. There's no doubt an innocent woman was killed on the movie set - and the level of guilt required in a civil suit is far less than a criminal trial, so the movie companies insurance will simply settle and do what's right.
"If this accident proves anything is that accidents will happen no matter what precautions are taken."
Wrong. This accident-due-to-negligence happened because the primary rule of gun safety (don't point a gun at anyone you don't intend to shoot) was willfully ignored by Alec Baldwin.
Wrong. The accidents happened because humans make human mistakes. That's why the word exists.
Look, I get it that you have a boner for Baldwin, but you're going to be mighty sorry if the judicial system doesn't agree with you.
"Wrong."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. In reality, this accident-due-to-negligence happened because the primary rule of gun safety (don't point a gun at anyone you don't intend to shoot) was willfully ignored by Alec Baldwin. That's a fact, and facts aren't open to debate nor gainsaying. Had Baldwin not pointed the gun at anyone, the woman he dusted wouldn't have been dusted.
"The accidents happened because humans make human mistakes."
I already told you why the accident happened, twice now. See above. Also, his "mistake" falls into the category of negligence, since he pointed a gun at someone, which was intentional, not the result of e.g., an involuntary muscle spasm.
"Look, I get it that you have a boner for Baldwin"
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo. Also, this is a...
Comical Irony Alert
... for you, since between you and me, you're the only one who has expressed a strong opinion about Alec Baldwin. As for me, I couldn't care less about him; he's just one of countless idiots in the world. I'm interested in this case because it's gun-related, not because it's Alec Baldwin-related.
"but you're going to be mighty sorry if the judicial system doesn't agree with you."
You don't read so well. I've already said multiple times that the system is full of incompetence and corruption, therefore the law probably won't be enforced correctly.
[deleted]
Your non sequitur is dismissed
LOL, it's like playing chess with a pigeon. You shit all over the board and then claim you won.
You have a problem separating what happens on a movie set and what happens in real life. Yes, in real life you don't point any gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot. Everyone knows that. In real life, you don't fly aircraft under bridges or high tension wires. Everyone knows that. But on a movie set, safeguards are put into place because some movie scenes require reckless actions.
Here's what we know is a fact: Baldwin was an actor who was handed a gun that was declared cold by people specifically hired to do a simple job of making sure the weapon was safe. They failed. Unless there is a law that says the actor must *also* check the weapon, Baldwin isn't to blame for the shooting.
If there's a law that says otherwise, then cite it and I'll retract my opinion.
I've already said multiple times that the system is full of incompetence and corruption, therefore the law probably won't be enforced correctly.
Gosh, that's awfully convenient! I like that. If Baldwin is charged and convicted, you won't mind if I use that excuse to explain my mistake?
share
"LOL, it's like playing chess with a pigeon. You shit all over the board and then claim you won."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, simpleton.
"You have a problem separating what happens on a movie set and what happens in real life."
A movie set is real life, Slow Doug, which of course negates your asinine and utterly nonsensical assertion.
"Yes, in real life you don't point any gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot."
Since a movie set is real life (obviously), your concession is noted.
"Everyone knows that."
Exactly, which is why Baldwin pointing a gun at someone in real life (that's right, real life, not in, e.g., a video game) constitutes negligence.
"In real life, you don't fly aircraft under bridges or high tension wires."
Some people do, obviously.
"But on a movie set, safeguards are put into place because some movie scenes require reckless actions."
Safeguard don't negate the rules of gun safety, which can only possibly be followed by the person holding the gun. For example, the primary rule is that you don't point a gun at anyone you don't intend to shoot (and the only justification for intending to shoot someone is if they pose a direct and imminent threat to you or someone else's life), and the only person who has control over where the gun is pointing is the person holding the gun, obviously.
"Here's what we know is a fact: Baldwin was an actor who was handed a gun that was declared cold by people specifically hired to do a simple job of making sure the weapon was safe."
Utterly irrelevant. There is no profession that gets you an exemption from the rules of gun safety, nor do the rules of gun safety allow for passing the buck. The rules of gun safety directly address the person holding the gun.
"Unless there is a law that says the actor must *also* check the weapon, Baldwin isn't to blame for the shooting."
For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with Baldwin not checking the gun, it has to do with him pointing it at someone. That's the primary gun safety rule violation that got someone killed. Him ignoring other rules of gun safety, such his failure to check the status of the gun, isn't what got someone killed, because had he done everything exactly the same minus pointing the gun at someone, the bullet wouldn't have hit anyone and it would have just been a negligent discharge that wouldn't have even made the news.
Also, law doesn't fundamentally determine who's to blame for something, logic does. According to your "reasoning", before there were any laws, no one was ever to blame for anything, and even today, if there's no specific law pertaining to the situation, no one is to blame. For example, if someone is always leaving the lights on when he's not using them he's not to blame for the increased electric bill, because there is no law that says he is.
"If there's a law that says otherwise, then cite it and I'll retract my opinion."
See above, mooncalf.
"Gosh, that's awfully convenient!"
No, clodpate, it's a blatantly obvious observation about the US criminal justice system, and I've said right from the beginning that the law probably won't be enforced correctly in this case due to incompetence and corruption pervading the system. Here's a quote from a post I made 18 days ago:
If the law is applied correctly (and it probably won't be, because the system is as corrupt as the day is long), he'll be charged with, and convicted of, negligent homicide, which is sometimes called involuntary manslaughter.
https://moviechat.org/nm0000285/Alec-Baldwin/617373751183543b58d14fb9/People-jumping-to-conclusions-with-no-facts?reply=61738dae1183543b58d15153
"If Baldwin is charged and convicted, you won't mind if I use that excuse to explain my mistake?"
You're confused, Special Ed. If Baldwin isn't charged and convicted, it won't constitute a mistake on my part, so I obviously won't need an excuse, because it would be exactly what I said right from the beginning would probably happen. See above. share
"In real life, you don't fly aircraft under bridges or high tension wires."
Some people do, obviously.
Yes, they're called movie stunts and some people point guns at cameras - those are also movie stunts. Both of those examples of how not to operate the device, but this is done in movies all the time. Again, separating reality from movie scenes is beyond you. I guess you've never any of the thousands of movies and TV shows where guns are literally aimed at cameras. It's been done for a hundred years, but not in your world.
LOL, I honestly didn't mean to trigger you and reduce you into a blathering insulting boob... Exactly 100% of what you said is wrong. No sense arguing with the confused.
share
"Yes, they're called movie stunts and some people point guns at cameras"
Reading Deficiency Alert:
Pointing a gun at a camera is irrelevant, numbnuts, because a camera isn't a person. Baldwin pointed a gun at a person, which is why she's now on the wrong side of the ground.
"Both of those examples of how not to operate the device"
Wrong. There are no airplane safety rules that say you can't fly under bridges or electrical wires, and that's because doing those things doesn't inherently put someone else's life at risk.
"Again, separating reality from movie scenes is beyond you."
Comical Irony Alert and Reading Deficiency Alert: Part II
First, making a movie scene is done in reality, dipshit. Second, the homicide didn't happen during the filming of a scene, not that that would be a valid excuse anyway.
"I guess you've never any of the thousands of movies and TV shows where guns are literally aimed at cameras."
Pointing a gun at a camera is irrelevant, airhead, so consider your non sequitur dismissed out of hand.
"It's been done for a hundred years, but not in your world."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"LOL, I honestly didn't mean to trigger you and reduce you into a blathering insulting boob... Exactly 100% of what you said is wrong. No sense arguing with the confused."
Your non sequitur, which consists of mere gainsaying, reading deficiency-fueled delusions, and comical irony, is dismissed. And since your entire post was nothing but a collection of non sequiturs of varying flavors, you effectively didn't reply at all, and as such, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
Pointing a gun at a camera is irrelevant, numbnuts, because a camera isn't a person. Baldwin pointed a gun at a person, which is why she's now on the wrong side of the ground.
Yeah, no... He aimed the gun at the camera as directed. The cinematographer was (amazing at it seems!) operating the camera at the time and was really, really, really close to it!! Baldwin was off a couple of degrees. Maybe you can convince the prosecutor to charge him with inaccurate aim!!!
share
This is turning into JFK conspiracy territory. He was aiming at the camera but somehow shot the person next to it.
share
There was a second shooter????
You tell me. you said he aimed at the camera yet shot the cinematographer next to it. He must be a terrible aim.
share
He must be a terrible aim.
Depends on how far he was from the camera. Cameras aren't very large these days. If he was aiming at a camera ten feet away and was 12 to 18" off, he would have struck the personnel. Since it wasn't an actual competition, I would suppose his aim would be in the general direction of the camera.
share
But he was told to aim at the camera.. only 10 feet away...
share
Missing the camera by only 12" at 10 feet away isn't really all that bad for an amateur who wasn't even trying to hit a bullseye.
They're going to have to change rules or even laws as a result of this screw-up. Hopefully, CGI can do justice to the effect.
Either the operator was behind the camera, in which case Baldwin knowingly pointed a gun at them and pulled the trigger, or the operator was at the side of the camera in which case Baldwin can't aim for shit. Either way you spin it, he pointed a gun at someone, pulled the trigger and killed someone. I can't see how any argument can be used to defend him.
shareThere's no dispute he aimed a gun at the camera/operator and pulled the trigger.
What is in dispute is whether he's culpable or to what degree. This didn't happen at a bar, or at his home, or in a parking lot. This happened on a movie set where there were people specifically hired to ensure that what Baldwin was handed was a cold gun. Whoever had those jobs failed.
This is where I get ambivalent. As a gun owner, I would have checked the weapon just because I would ordinarily. My concern is that if my wife was hired as an actress, and handed a gun that was declared to be empty, and was told to aim it at the camera and the gun went off, she would be charged with something she knows nothing about. That doesn't seem fair to me.
Does Baldwin know anything about guns? Is he supposed to? I honestly don't know.
I haven't been able to get a definitive answer as to whether an actor doing a gun stunt is required to take a gun safety course and observe standard gun safety rules when there are people hired to do that for them, or more importantly, whether they are included in the chain of gun safety protocol on a movie set.
If the actor is required to know about guns and to check the weapon before firing it, then he would be guilty. Since he admitted firing the gun, then it seems the reason he hasn't been charged (yet) is that actors may not be legally obligated to check a weapon on a movie set.
*Anybody* handling a gun capable of firing live rounds should be aware of safety procedures. It would have taken seconds to check if it were loaded. I can't see a reason why any laws should be changed just because you're on a movie set.
share
Then *anybody* would be required to take a gun safety course an learn the difference between live rounds and blanks. It will be their duty to inspect the gun after it's been inspected. They would also need to sign a liability contract holding them responsible for an accident if they should make a mistake.
That's fine, let's do it. That virtually guarantee that real guns won't be used on sets (which I'm fine with), but we can't retroactively apply them to past accidents.
You fit the true definition of the word stupid, i.e., ~incapable of learning. For the umpteenth time, you don't need a safety course to avoid pointing something at someone; even a small child can do that with only one sentence worth of instruction:
"Don't point that at anyone."
That's the primary rule of gun safety, and the reason it's the primary one is because even if you ignore all other safety rules, if the gun isn't pointed at anyone then no one will get shot, except in the extremely unlikely case of a ricochet hitting someone.
Oh joy, the little boy who still is having a problem separating movie stunts from reality.
For the umpteenth time: movies break all sorts of safety rules performing stunts - be it cars, airplanes, or guns. But they hire professionals and pay them well to reduce the incidence of accidents.
And for the umpteenth time, movies and TV shows have been LITERALLY pointing guns at cameras for a hundred years - all without your input.
True, it's not done at a gun range, in a backyard, in a parking lot, or in your living room. But it is done and has been done forever in the entertainment industry.
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/police-officer-pointing-gun-picture-id471893767
Look, it's a cop disobeying your direct order not to point a gun at anyone!!!
This practice will probably stop because of this accident and since CGI technology has now advanced to the point where a gun discharge can be reasonably replicated.
"Oh joy, the little boy who still is having a problem separating movie stunts from reality."
Movie stunts are done in reality, moron, which negates your asinine assertion.
"For the umpteenth time:"
Monkey see, monkey do.
"movies break all sorts of safety rules performing stunts - be it cars, airplanes"
It doesn't matter how many times safety rules are broken, it doesn't let anyone off the hook if their negligence kills someone, especially someone who never gave any informed consent to be involved in the stunt.
"And for the umpteenth time"
Monkey see, monkey do: Part II
"movies and TV shows have been LITERALLY pointing guns at cameras for a hundred years - all without your input."
A camera isn't a person, dumbass, which negates your laughable assertion due to irrelevance, and again confirms your diagnosis of "stupid".
"True, it's not done at a gun range, in a backyard, in a parking lot, or in your living room. But it is done and has been done forever in the entertainment industry."
First, it wouldn't matter how many times it's been done (see above) even if you were on the right topic (pointing a gun at a person), and second, you're talking about pointing a gun at a camera (because you're dumb as a mud fence), which is utterly irrelevant.
"Look, it's a cop disobeying your direct order not to point a gun at anyone!!!"
Is that a joke? There's nothing in that picture that indicates, nor even suggests, that he's pointing a gun at anyone. That's not necessarily a cop (how many cops do you know who moonlight as stock photo models?), not necessarily a gun, and there's no one else in the picture. You're under the impression that a camera can't be used unless someone is behind it, which is additional confirmation of your stupidity. Furthermore, even if it were a picture of an actual cop pointing an actual gun at an actual, innocent person, it would do nothing to help your "argument", but it could get him fired and charged with a crime.
You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
You're under the impression that a camera can't be used unless someone is behind it, which is additional confirmation of your stupidity.
And you're under the impression that every one of the tens of thousands of photos and live action shots of guns being pointed and shot at cameras for the last 100 years (there's a clue for you) were done remotely. How little you know about film history. Too bad you don't know what everyone else who reads your BS knows.
You want every camera to be remote? Fine, I'm on board - today's technology makes that simple. You want all real guns off set? Fine, I'm on board - let's avoid another tragedy. But nothing that happens from this point forward will change what happened on Rust or the last 100 years of film history.
share
"And you're under the impression that every one of the tens of thousands of photos and live action shots of guns being pointed and shot at cameras for the last 100 years (there's a clue for you) were done remotely."
I haven't said anything at all which even remotely supports this risible assertion of yours, so consider your non sequitur dismissed. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly talked about pointing a gun at a camera as though it's inherently the same thing as pointing a gun at a person, and even linked to a stock photo of a male model dressed up like a cop pointing something that looks like a gun at a camera as an example of a cop pointing a gun at a person. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.
Furthermore, as I've already said, it doesn't matter how many times people have violated safety rules, it is still negligence whenever it happens. Also, even the safety rules specifically for the movie industry prohibited Baldwin from pointing a gun at anyone in this scenario, which I've already linked to, but due to you being a textbook example of stupidity (~inability to learn), it had no chance of penetrating your drop-forged, case-hardened forehead.
"How little you know about film history. Too bad you don't know what everyone else who reads your BS knows."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXIX
"You want every camera to be remote? Fine, I'm on board - today's technology makes that simple."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"You want all real guns off set?"
And this is another in a long line of Reading Deficiency Alerts for you. Guns on a movie set aren't a problem. Idiots on a movie set who can't even follow the most basic rule of gun safety are a problem.
Film history junior. Read about it.
Idiots on a movie set who can't even follow the most basic rule of gun safety are a problem.
And how do you propose to eliminate idiots from movie sets (other than keeping yourself away of course).
There were supposed to be zero live rounds anywhere near the set. Someone screwed up.
The armorer was supposed to ensure the guns on set were unloaded or only containing blanks depending on the scene and to check them again right before the shot. The armorer screwed up.
The Assistant Director was supposed to check the weapon before handing it to an untrained actor and calling out "cold gun" before handing it to the actor.
So we see that there many idiots involved, yet you want to hang this solely on the actor. We see that even with many stages of safety protocols, this accident happened anyway.
You're smarter than everyone here, what's your considered plan for eliminating idiots from the set?
share
"Film history junior. Read about it."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, simpleton. By the way, since idiots are the only possible source of non sequiturs during an argument, this is yet another public declaration of idiocy from you.
"And how do you propose to eliminate idiots from movie sets"
It isn't hard to identify an idiot; they inevitably declare idiocy, as you have many times now. For example, if I were making a movie, you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the set, since you think that gun safety rules don't apply on a movie set because of your delusion that movie sets don't exist in reality.
"(other than keeping yourself away of course)."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXX
"There were supposed to be zero live rounds anywhere near the set. Someone screwed up."
Utterly irrelevant. You're not supposed to point a gun at someone even if you believe it's unloaded. "I thought it was unloaded" is a very common "excuse" when it comes to negligent discharges.
"The armorer was supposed to ensure the guns on set were unloaded or only containing blanks depending on the scene and to check them again right before the shot. The armorer screwed up."
Your non sequitur is dismissed (see above).
"The Assistant Director was supposed to check the weapon before handing it to an untrained actor and calling out "cold gun" before handing it to the actor."
Your non sequitur is dismissed (see above).
"So we see that there many idiots involved, yet you want to hang this solely on the actor."
The person holding the gun is always the one responsible for its safe handling, unless he's determined to be mentally incompetent.
"We see that even with many stages of safety protocols, this accident happened anyway."
That's why the primary rule of gun safety exists, numbnuts, because even if all other rules are ignored or not followed correctly, if the gun isn't pointing at anyone, the worst that will happen if the gun is fired with a live cartridge is property damage.
You realize that if the actor opens a gun to check it, the armorer is required to *recheck* it. I guess you want to watch a never ending game of ping pong.
LOL, you're really embarrassing yourself now.
"You realize that if the actor opens a gun to check it, the armorer is required to *recheck* it."
First, there is no such requirement according to any credible rules of gun safety, nor according to logic. If the movie industry wants to make their own stupid rules, that's their problem. Second, it's again utterly irrelevant (i.e., another non sequitur which establishes you as an idiot), because, for the forty-eleventh time, this isn't about checking the gun, it's about...
... wait for it...
... pointing a gun at someone...
... which violates the primary rule of gun safety; the rule that's the most important one because it's a final failsafe which prevents injury or death even if all the other rules were ignored.
"I guess you want to watch a never ending game of ping pong."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"LOL, you're really embarrassing yourself now."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXXI (You know, coming from the clodpate who thinks movie sets don't really exist, who thinks a camera = a person, who thinks the rules of gun safety are conditional depending on where you're located, who thinks the responsibility for safe gun handling can be transferred from the person holding the gun to someone who isn't holding the gun, and so on).
... wait for it...
... pointing a gun at someone...
Density alert 164: it's been done literally tens of thousands of times in TVs and movies, all before your wonderful remotely operated cameras were invented (which means guns aimed at cameras were also aimed at the camera operator at least, plus maybe the director and/or cinematographer). You haven't seen it done, but it has been.
Density alert 165: things that are filmed in movies have always featured things that go against the normal rules of safety - rules that are routinely broken by movie stunts.
Everyone on MC has seen this done time and time again - everyone except you.
share
"Density alert 164:"
Monkey see, monkey do, and Comical Irony Alert: Part XXXII
"it's been done literally tens of thousands of times in TVs and movies"
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part XX
Again:
Furthermore, as I've already said, it doesn't matter how many times people have violated safety rules, it is still negligence whenever it happens. Also, even the safety rules specifically for the movie industry prohibited Baldwin from pointing a gun at anyone in this scenario, which I've already linked to, but due to you being a textbook example of stupidity (~inability to learn), it had no chance of penetrating your drop-forged, case-hardened forehead.
"all before your wonderful remotely operated cameras were invented"
LOL! You mean when all movie cameras were hand-cranked? Movie cameras that don't need to be cranked by hand have been around since 1911. And no, they don't need to be "remotely operated" in order to get a shot of someone pointing a gun at the camera without anyone being behind the camera. You can simply roll the camera and walk away from it. It doesn't get separation anxiety and refuse to work because no one is standing behind it. Also, it's irrelevant (see above).
"Density alert 165:"
Monkey see, monkey do, and Comical Irony Alert: Part XXXIII
"things that are filmed in movies have always featured things that go against the normal rules of safety - rules that are routinely broken by movie stunts."
Utterly irrelevant, Captain Non Sequitur. People routinely drive drunk too; people routinely engage in practically every type of negligence imaginable; it changes nothing.
"Everyone on MC has seen this done time and time again - everyone except you."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, buffoon.
[deleted]
"Yeah, no..."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"He aimed the gun at the camera as directed. The cinematographer was (amazing at it seems!) operating the camera at the time and was really, really, really close to it!! Baldwin was off a couple of degrees."
For the fifth or sixth time, it didn't happen during a scene; the camera wasn't rolling (therefore no one was operating it, obviously). Baldwin was "practicing his cross draw" at the time. Also, you don't get a free pass by claiming you weren't pointing the gun at someone, you were just pointing it a hair to their side. You're not supposed to even point a gun in anyone's general direction, because due to human error, it could be actually pointing at them.
For the fifth or sixth time, it didn't happen during a scene; the camera wasn't rolling (therefore no one was operating it, obviously).
"Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Souza said, according to the affidavit. Mr. Souza said that he had been standing beside Ms. Hutchins “viewing the camera angle.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/arts/baldwin-shooting-details.html
share
"Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Souza said, according to the affidavit. Mr. Souza said that he had been standing beside Ms. Hutchins “viewing the camera angle.”
That aligns with what I said, and yet another concession from you is noted.
And I'll go ahead and note this other concession from you again:
"Yes, in real life [movie sets are a part of real life, obviously] you don't point any gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot."
That aligns with what I said, and yet another concession from you is noted.
LOL, now you're just being silly. You said there was no one behind the camera, my citation says there was - in other words, you're wrong. Again.
"Yes, in real life [movie sets are a part of real life, obviously] you don't point any gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot."
Again, you're having a problem disconnecting movie sets from reality. Pointing a gun at a camera on a movie set has been done literally thousands of times:
https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/pointing-gun-at-camera
Google is your friend if you want to use it.
share
"LOL, now you're just being silly. You said there was no one behind the camera"
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part III
I said:
"For the fifth or sixth time, it didn't happen during a scene; the camera wasn't rolling (therefore no one was operating it, obviously)."
Does the "bolding" help, numbnuts?
"my citation says there was - in other words, you're wrong. Again."
See above, clodpate. Also, LOL at "again". I have yet to be wrong once, let alone "again".
"Again, you're having a problem disconnecting movie sets [which are a part of reality] from reality."
LOL at you.
"Pointing a gun at a camera on a movie set has been done literally thousands of times:"
I haven't encountered anyone so stupid online since the days of the IMDb forums, so congratulations on that. Again, pointing a gun at a camera is irrelevant, because a camera isn't a person, idiot.
And I'll go ahead and note this concession from you again:
"Yes, in real life [movie sets are a part of real life, obviously] you don't point any gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot."
Again, pointing a gun at a camera is irrelevant, because a camera isn't a person, idiot.
So I'm the idiot.. The irony here. LOL.
I'll try this one more time. I'll use small words so you might understand. Baldwin aimed the gun at the camera as directed. The cinematographer (sorry about the six syllable word but I don't know any other way of describing her) and AD were manning the camera. What this means is that anyone manning the camera would be very, very, very, near to to it. Maybe directly behind, or off to the side a bit, but very, very, very, close to it.
So what this means is that if a gun is discharged aimed in the general vicinity of the camera, those people operating it will be more or less in the line of fire.
Simple enough?
If you want to argue that the practice of aiming a gun at a camera while someone is manning it should be outlawed on movie sets, that's fine. It would probably be a good idea since even three levels of safeguards didn't prevent this tragedy.
Right now, it isn't - which is the whole crux of this incident. It's been done thousands of times and continues to be done to this day. After this incident, maybe that practice will be outlawed.
If you're just trolling, you got me.
share
"So I'm the idiot.."
Obviously, given that you think that reality / real life doesn't include movie sets (which is blatantly and demonstrably false), and you think that pointing a gun at a camera is in any way relevant.
"The irony here. LOL."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII
"I'll try this one more time. I'll use small words so you might understand."
More comical irony from the well-established and officially registered idiot.
"Baldwin aimed the gun at the camera as directed."
It doesn't matter what you think he was directed to do, nor where you think he aimed, because the fact is he pointed the muzzle at two people, which is why the bullet he fired hit two people, and that constitutes negligence.
"The cinematographer (sorry about the six syllable word but I don't know any other way of describing her)"
Comical Irony Alert: Part X
"and AD were manning the camera. What this means is that anyone manning the camera would be very, very, very, near to to it. Maybe directly behind, or off to the side a bit, but very, very, very, close to it."
No one was operating the camera, dumbass, because the camera wasn't rolling, which is why there's no footage of the incident. Also, it's utterly irrelevant, i.e., a red herring, because it has nothing to do with the fact that he pointed the muzzle at two people, which is why the bullet he fired hit two people, and that constitutes negligence.
"Simple enough?"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XI
"If you want to argue that the practice of aiming a gun at a camera while someone is manning it should be outlawed on movie sets"
Is that a joke, Slow Doug? The primary rule of gun safety is that you don't point a gun at anyone you don't intend to shoot, and whether or not there's a camera near that person is utterly irrelevant. If you want to point a gun at a camera, you would obviously make sure no one is near the camera when you do it.
"It would probably be a good idea since even three levels of safeguards didn't prevent this tragedy."
You don't need any "levels of safeguards" at all if the dipshit holding the gun doesn't point it at people.
"Right now, it isn't"
It doesn't matter. Negligence in and of itself isn't necessarily against the law, but if that negligence causes a homicide, then you have a crime (negligent homicide).
"If you're just trolling, you got me."
More comical irony from the dullard who thinks that movie sets don't exist in reality.
"LOL, now you're just being silly. You said there was no one behind the camera, my citation says there was - in other words, you're wrong. Again."
You have to give him credit you keep knocking him down and he keeps getting back up.
"LOL, now you're just being silly. You said there was no one behind the camera, my citation says there was - in other words, you're wrong. Again."
You have to give him credit you keep knocking him down and he keeps getting back up.
LOL at you sharing his reading deficiency.
I said:
"For the fifth or sixth time, it didn't happen during a scene; the camera wasn't rolling (therefore no one was operating it, obviously)."
Does the "bolding" help, ninny? If not, I'll explain it: I didn't say that there was no one located behind the camera, I said that there was no one operating it (because it wasn't operating at the time, therefore no one could have been operating it, by definition). He thought I said that there was no one behind it because he's stupid and has a reading deficiency, much like yourself.
Also LOL at you thinking he's knocked anyone down (you know, the moron who keeps insisting that movie sets don't exist in reality), which are thoughts that only an idiot could conjure up. share
Youre like those annoying little lap dogs!! Yap Yap Yap
share"Youre like those annoying little lap dogs!! Yap Yap Yap"
You're easy to trounce in an argument, aren't you, airhead? Your non sequitur is dismissed and since you presented no arguments whatsoever, you've tacitly conceded after only one post (lol).
Unlike strnz, I realize that arguing with someone who cant separate a movie set from something that happens in everyday life is like arguing with a flatearther. It's a total waste of time and will lead nowhere. YAP!YAP!YAP!
share"Unlike strnz, I realize that arguing with someone who cant separate a movie set from something that happens in everyday life"
There's no logical basis for "separating a movie set from something that happens in everyday life" in this case, ditz, because people don't magically become bullet-proof when they walk onto a movie set, which means the rules of gun safety still apply, obviously.
Also, you realized that you simply had no argument, because anyone can scroll up and see that I never said what "strntz" claimed I said, even though you were too inept to do that before replying the first time.
"is like arguing with a flatearther"
You lack the mental horsepower to argue at all, so you'd get trounced by most any "flatearther" too.
"It's a total waste of time and will lead nowhere."
Especially when you start out on the blatantly wrong side of the argument, like you were dumb enough to do.
https://youtu.be/qrOObczCkE4?t=2
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
share[deleted]
You have to give him credit you keep knocking him down and he keeps getting back up.
Heheh.. I know. He might be a troll, but there are trolls on MC that I have at least some respect for. This guy is a condescending jerk. He says things on line he wouldn't have the nerve to say to someone's face. I've never said anything on line I wouldn't say directly to someone in person. Maximumassboil doesn't have that kind of nerve. They never do.
He's a keyboard coward who just can't seem to separate movies from reality.
I asked him to not respond to me in another thread, but he does anyway. I stop responding to his illogical rants and it stops for a while, but then he starts again. As long as he insists upon doing so, I'll keep punching him. Maybe some day he'll go away.
share
"He might be a troll"
Comical irony from the nincompoop who insists that movie sets don't exist in reality. Tell me, Einstein, what plane of existence do movie sets reside in, in your estimation?
"He says things on line he wouldn't have the nerve to say to someone's face."
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo.
"He's a keyboard coward who just can't seem to separate movies from reality."
Baldwin didn't kill someone in a movie, moron, he killed someone in reality. This is one of many non sequiturs from you which prove that you're an idiot (because idiots are the only possible source of non sequiturs of this type).
"I stop responding to his illogical rants"
More comical irony from the registered idiot who thinks that movie sets don't exist in real life.
"and it stops for a while, but then he starts again."
LOL at "stops for a while". I reply to posts that I want to reply to, with zero regard for who posted it. If it "stopped for a while" it's because I didn't happen upon any post of yours that I cared to reply to, not because of your laughable request. This is a public forum; you don't have any say in who replies to your public posts, obviously.
"As long as he insists upon doing so, I'll keep punching him."
LOL!
Also:
Amateur Hour Alert
Comical irony from the nincompoop who insists that movie sets don't exist in reality. Tell me, Einstein, what plane of existence do movie sets reside in, in your estimation?
Classic strawman. Yes, movie sets physically exist on Earth. No one here has said otherwise. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that things that happen in movies are not real life.
In real life, we don't do this with guns:
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/police-officer-picture-id117505462?k=20&m=117505462&s=612x612&w=0&h=SZ6ecYvE4AM1-9Mpl2QCiwCz1dLZv7vV8Su7WK8u8Yk=
In real life, we don't do this with helicopters:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BCYWJ1/helicopter-stuntman-hanging-from-red-gazelle-helicopter-on-sunny-day-BCYWJ1.jpg
See? Both are dangerous, but are done in movies using precautions.
Movies are magic!
share
[deleted]
Very good point. "Defund the police. Also, we need police to come and babysit us on film sets to save paying for a qualified armourer".
share[deleted]
He won't shut up. He's a bloviating jerk who can't help himself and he believes he's smarter than every one else.
Why did you link twitter rather than the actual link? wtf is wrong with people?
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alec-baldwin-police-officers-on-set-monitor-weapons-safety-1234869813/
Well twitter you get all the comments..and a link to the story
shareHe doesn't seem to understand what a police officer is.
share