I thought he was gonna get away with manslaughter - Alec Baldwin Discussion

[–] bozo_500 (13371) 2 years ago

he most likely thought he was going to as well

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

If he wants to be an antigun libturd while simultaneously glamorizing

You think Anthony Hopkins supports cannibalism because he played Hannibal Lecter?

everyone knows u NEVER point a gun at anything u are not willing to kill!!

Camera angles are a thing.

not respecting the weapons he plays around with

You mean the gun that he was told was good to go which shouldn't have been able to fire anything. Next you're going to say Natalie Wood didn't respect water because she drowned even though she was on a boat.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Sorry, that last argument just doesn't wash. Part of elementary gun safety is that you are responsible for anything that comes out of the barrel of a gun you are holding, and any damage, injury, or death that results. It's also the law. The armorer may share responsibility, because it was her job to ensure that the guns used on set were in a safe condition, and no live ammo was present. But her failure to do her job properly does not absolve Baldwin. Firearm safety is not an area where you just take other people's word for it.

And what makes it all worse is that the NRA, which Alec Baldwin hates, could have made the set of this film safer. But of course, famously anti-gun Alec Baldwin would never have been willing to take a second's worth of training from them. He signed his name to an open letter by an organization calling itself the "No Rifle Association" or "NoRA." Its stated purpose is to end the National Rifle Association as an organization.

But like it or not, NRA officers are the recognized experts in firearms safety in this country. An NRA-trained Range Safety Officer certification -- which is not easy to get, as you must first qualify as an NRA-certified firearms instructor -- is pretty much a requirement to work on any firing range in the U.S., whether public or private, The insurance companies that insure these range for liability requires this, because they recognize the NRA as the premier organization teaching gun safety.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

Thank you for your response. It was intelligent not like the other two responses I got here.

Here's my issue: the armorer had one job. Telling Alec Baldwin to check the gun when he is not the expert doesn't sit right with me. He shouldn't have to do the exact same job that the other person was getting paid for. I wouldn't expect The Rock to do a check of the car he's about to drive before shooting a scene for the "Fast" movies. There are experts for that. But let's just say Alec Baldwin actually did check, but she still got shot, this now turns into a case for murder instead of manslaughter.

There should have already been laws implemented before this film. There should be no reason why they use real guns. Apparently there were real rounds on set too. What kind of idiot didn't make sure the round was real?

reply

[–] Nanook (2043) 2 years ago

Not denying the armorer's duty. Having twenty+ years in the industry, the AD is the de facto head of safety on set. And who hires the AD as well as the armorer? The producer. Alec was the producer. The buck stops there. Any civil liability lies with the producer. This is why you hire good people when their job could cost a crew member's life, e.g. a helicopter pilot. Not a lawyer, but it stands to reason that the criminal liability lies with the person that pulled the trigger: Alec as well.

Think I've made this analogy here before, but imagine the gag involved stabbing instead of shooting. For all (camera) shots a real chef's knife is used, except a rigged knife with a collapsible blade is to be used for the "kill shot." For that shot the prop master hands Alec a knife and says, "it's the fake one," but it feels real, heft, balance, etc. Would you, being Alec, take their word for it, or just for the sake of safety, maybe push the tip to make sure it collapsed before you thrust it in to the neck of the victim? Same logic applies when handed a firearm. Do you have to be an "expert" to handle a knife? Drive a car? Operate a band saw?

Bear in mind there is no "National Knife Association," nor no "official rules of knife safety." There *is* an NRA and there are three to four simple, straightforward official rules of gun safety, easily found from countless sources, and Alec broke *each and every* one. If he had followed just *any one* of the rules, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

And who hires the AD as well as the armorer? The producer. Alec was the producer.

But wouldn't you have to prove that he carelessly hired her. I mean, if the armorer suddenly went on a killing spree, I don't think Alec should be blamed for that.

reply

[–] Nanook (2043) 2 years ago

Bit of a reach, but of course not. She would have been the actor, not he.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

Tell me, in the lobby scene in The Matrix, did every actor and stuntman unload every round from every magazine every time they picked up a prop gun? Because otherwise real rounds could've gotten in there and they'd commit manslaughter.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

If they didn't, they should have. Period.

When you hold a gun, you are ultimately responsible for what happens with it.

Real rounds shouldn't be anywhere on the set. But as this movie proves, things that shouldn't happen do happen. So check your weapons. If you don't, you are going to be the one holding the bag if something goes hideously wrong. You are going to be the one charged with manslaughter and facing possible prison time.

Just like Alec Baldwin.

So do the responsible thing. Do you want to be the one facing prison time and protesting (wrongly) "it wasn't my fault!" after you have cost a person her life? Or do you want to be the one who happily and uneventfully completes an acting role, and goes on to live an untroubled life, because you conducted yourself responsibly?

You can make all the excuses you want, but at the end of the day, when you ask yourself "if I had just looked for myself to see if the gun was loaded, would this person still be alive?" and the answer is yes, remember you are the one who is going to have to live with the fact that you didn't.

If that's something that wouldn't bother you... Well... okay. Wow.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

What you're proposing would mean no more action movies. Requiring every actor to unload every round out of the prop magazine every single time they pick it up, then load it back in themselves? John Wick, Die Hard, impossible. And every actor would have to be trained how to do it too.

Are race car drivers forced to get out of their cars and check every lugnut after their crew changes their tires? Or airline pilots have to open the engine cowlings and manually check the torque of all the bolts inside?

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

No it wouldn't be the end of action movies. I have been a cop for 22 years, and a detective most of that time. I carry a gun every day, and it is trivially easy to pull out the magazine every time you pick it up, and pull back slightly on the slide to check there is a round in the chamber, then reinsert the mag (if you have a revolver, just open the cylinder and look). Then you put it back in your holster, and you're good to go. As long as the gun stays in your possession, you've checked it and you know it's condition. It takes about three seconds.

Do this often enough, and it becomes both automatic, and routine. The idea that this would be hard to do before the start of filming a scene, or that it would be so unduly burdensome as to bring the production of action movies to a halt is simply ludicrous. The armorer hands you your gun, and you take that three seconds to check it before the director calls "action." There. You're done.

Don't do this, just take someone else's word for it, and... well, you may end up being responsible for taking an innocent human life, being charged criminally, and facing possible prison time for it. Just like Alec Baldwin.

Now which of those two alternatives sounds more inconvenient to you?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

Your cop checks arn't good enough for this scenario.
You're checking if theres a bullet present.
Under your system these actors would have to check the type of bullet, all of them , which would mean emptying the mag not just looking it.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Dude, you're being deliberately obtuse about this, and look at why: to defend unsafe gun practices that have resulted in the needless and totally preventable death of an innocent person.

What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. You?

You're essentially shrugging and saying "meh, we can't do any better."

I've explained in detail how, when the scene calls for a gun to be passed around on camera, you put in a little extra effort to ensure that all the guns present in the scene are clear and safe before the start of filming. Movie production companies have been following procedures like this successfully for over a hundred years. Tragic accidental shootings like the one in which Baldwin was involved, result when people get careless and don't follow these safety precautions. You're arguing that the precautions are too burdensome, and you're just flat out wrong.

Please do us all a favor, and stay far away from any career or hobby that has anything to do with firearms.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

I completey advocate all safe practices to make filming with guns as safe as absolutley possible

My point is you cannot just copy the real worl gun code verbatim.
In the real world it is easy to comply with comman sense rules like:
keep your finger off the trigger
dont point a gun at anything you dont want to destroy
dont sticj the gun in your mouth, or anyone elses

In movies all these things happen so OTHER measures have to be taken to make it as asfe as possible.
I would not be bothered if the alternative methods emplyed for movie safety took twice as long .
my point , again , is that its a different set of rules.
similar no doubt , but different .
I refer you to my speeding example.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

Also I'm talking generally here , not this specific instance.
In this particular case , which wasnt even being filmed - all the normal rules should've applied and he's clearly guilty of manslaughter.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

As a cop of 22 years you understand how a magazine operates in a firearm. Even if the first round is a blank, the bolt will cycle and the next round will be chambered. That second round may be live, and under your rules the actor is guilty of manslaughter if he or she hasn't checked that round. Ergo, every round must be unloaded from every magazine every time a prop firearm is picked up, every take in every scene--as the actor can't be sure about the rounds otherwise.

You're assuming that if the first round is a blank then they're all blanks, which under your system is criminally negligent.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Yes. When you are on a set where no live ammo is supposed to be. You should check every round before the start of filming.

Or better still, the armorer doesn't just hand you a loaded gun, he loads it in front of you, or (gasp!) even hands it to you to load!

Yes. You check it yourself and don't just take someone's word for it. Exactly. Bravo.

And it's not my system genius. It's the legal system. Or has it somehow escaped your notice that when Alec Baldin, who did not check his gun, fired a real bullet into the chest of a woman standing in front of him he wound up being charged with manslaughter? All these things you scoff and say it's impractical to do, Alec Baldwin didn't do.

And look where that got him.

Again, you do what you want, but when your refusal to follow sensible safety precautions gets someone killed, and you wind up in handcuffs doing the perp walk, don't say you weren't warned of the potential consequences.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

Again, your rules would make every single action movie impossible. Every single actor would have to unload and reload every single round in every magazine on every prop gun on every take, the moment they pick it back up (as the first rule of gun safety says). And not just their own, but any prop guns that are pointed at them. Every actor would also have to be trained and competent to do this, on top of their normal job. Every single time.

You have no room in your system for the concept of prop guns and trained professionals. You have no concept of a chain of trust.

And you haven't answered how you don't propose similar rules for other parts of industry, where even MORE lives are on the line. How is it that you don't require an airline pilot to get out of the cockpit and check that the engine maintenance was performed correctly? Literally hundreds of people may die if it's wrong. It must be his legal responsibility to not trust another professional to do their job, and he must verify it himself. Every flight. Get out of the cockpit, check the engine. Everyone's lives depend on it. More than any actor ever did with a prop gun on the set of Die Hard. Why don't you hold accountable pilots who REFUSE to take safety into their own hands? Why do you allow them to trust other professionals whose job it is to keep everyone safe?

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Again, your rules would make every single action movie impossible.

No they wouldn't. I've already explained this ad nauseam. I'm not going through all of it again. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

You have no room in your system for the concept of prop guns and trained professionals. You have no concept of a chain of trust.

It's NOT a "prop gun." It was a real gun. If an animal handler brings a poorly trained beast on set, and it mauls an actor, was that a "prop tiger?"

And I simply can't believe I have to keep pointing this out, or that so many people can't seem to understand it: Alec Baldwin followed your "chain of trust."

AND HE'S FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!

Didn't work out so well for him, did it? Worked out even worse for Halyna Hutchins.

Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around?

And you haven't answered how you don't propose similar rules for other parts of industry, where even MORE lives are on the line.

I'm not going to get into endless apples and oranges comparisons. Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be: the pilot doesn't do the required preflight checklist himself, and takes a crew chief's word for it that it got done.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

>No they wouldn't. I've already explained this ad nauseam.

No, you didn't. You said "the armorer hands you a gun and it takes three seconds to check it." That's a lie. You're attempting to lie to people by claiming you're a cop for 22 years and depending that they don't think for five seconds about how a magazine operates. I pointed this out to you and you agreed. But now are back to pretending you didn't fuck up.

It doesn't take 3 seconds to check every round in a magazine. You're attempting to bully people into believing you. But I know how a gun operates.

The rules you propose would make it impossible for all recent action movies to have been made, as it's prohibitively difficult for every actor to check every round in every magazine every time they pick the prop gun up, every take. Anything less is criminally negligent under your rules.

>It's NOT a "prop gun." It was a real gun. If an animal handler brings a poorly trained beast on set, and it mauls an actor, was that a "prop tiger?"

If a professional tiger handler brings a trained tiger onto set and gives a safety lecture to actors, who have no experience with tigers, about how to successfully complete the shot in a safe manner, then that would be equivalent.

Do you understand the difference? Why are you lying about guns, lying about magazines, lying about how difficult your rules would be? Are you capable of reading? Are you senile? How old are you and how much have you had to drink today?

>AND HE'S FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!

That's not in dispute

>Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be: the pilot doesn't do the required preflight checklist himself, and takes a crew chief's word for it that it got done.

What? Crew chiefs don't do preflight checklists. Is this another tactic?

The most important thing in an airplane is that the engine is functioning properly. Why is the pilot allowed to trust a qualified professional to do his job properly?

Surely you can answer one question.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

I shouldn't have to answer a question this stupid -- especially when it's a follow on to your implied question of "why can't we just continue to do things the same way that led to a woman getting killed on set?"

Don't forget that: you are defending the maintenance of unsafe practices that led to a woman's death. Why would you do that? That's a serious question, so since you're so big on getting answers, answer that one.

As to your aircraft question... When you get into something as complicated as jet engine maintenance, then specialization, and trusting the specialists becomes unavoidable. Is the airline pilot a certified jet engine mechanic? No? They why would he check the engines himself? He wouldn't even know what he was looking at, now would he?

But if he were, he just might check them. Not a jet, but WWI air ace Eddie Rickenbacker was a race car driver and mechanic before the war, and he did check out his own engine before missions, because he knew his life was on the line.

But again, this is an apples/oranges comparison. An airline pilot won't check his jet's engines, because he doesn't have the training to know what's wrong even if he did. On the other hand, he does have a preflight checklist that he is required to go over himself and not take anyone's word for.

Being able to see whether or not a firearm is loaded doesn't require years of training like being a jet mechanic. And it carries possibly deadly consequences for not doing it. So why would you not do it?

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Do you understand the difference? Why are you lying about guns, lying about magazines, lying about how difficult your rules would be?

This deserves its own response.

First off: go fuck yourself. I'm not lying about a goddamn thing. The practice you say are too burdensome to follow are, in fact, the way it is supposed to be done. The way you say is impossible, is actually the industry standard (which the cast and crew of "Rust" failed to follow). This is the third time I have posted it, but here you go. Here is a link to an interview with actor Adam Baldwin (no relation to Alec), who is an actor, wherein he described it being standard practice for actors to follow these procedures you say are impossible to follow (fast forward to 3:10, also 5:50, also 7:13 for specific references to the rules).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHvrpAm76c

So I'll take the word of a professional actor who's been working on screen with firearms since the 1980s about what actual gun safety practices are on set, over that of some keyboard commando who is inexplicably defending the kind of unsafe behavior that resulted in a woman's totally avoidable death.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (298) 2 years ago

I watched the video. Again you're lying. At 3:46 he's discussing how to clear a revolver for a shot that doesn't require shooting the firearm. That isn't in question. As your 22 year of experience tell you, revolvers don't have magazines. Revolvers don't hold 10-30 rounds. Obviously it would be irrelevant to say you'd have to check all the rounds in a magazine when you're talking about a revolver.

I've treated you with nothing but respect until you started lying, despite you being disrespectful, and getting more and more hostile when you were called out. You need to calm down.

Again, it's prohibitively difficult to unload every single round in every magazine an actor is going to use for a scene, every single time he picks it up, and everyone else who handles a firearm in that scene. That's why there's an entire chain of custody and trust that ensures all firearms on a set are prop firearms. That's why there's an armorer. That's why live ammo cannot be brought onto the set. That's why the armorer's word is law. Just like there's a chain of custody for an aircraft to make sure it's safe to fly. You said yourself a pilot isn't certified to check the inner workings of an engine, despite everyone's lives depending on those inner workings. They hire certified professionals to do that.

Many times on set actors point prop guns at the camera. Many times they fire it. I'd wager there are ten thousand such shots in action movies. Probably more. Do you really think the actors on set of John Wick each unload every magazine and every round, check each one, and put it back in? It is not. Nor should it. Nor CAN it be. It's as prohibitive as requiring your pilot to check the torque specification of the bolts in the engines. That means there have to be rules for real firearms, and rules for cleared prop firearms, with professionals that clear them and enforce the safety rules.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

I watched the video. Again you're lying. At 3:46 he's discussing how to clear a revolver for a shot that doesn't require shooting the firearm.

No he isn't you DUMBASS! He's describing how a Colt Single Action Army works -- it's a single action revolver, which means you have to cock the revolver manually for it to fire, and the single action pull, because it doesn't have to do the work of cocking the hammer the way a double action trigger does, has a very light pull. Where he says "release the round" is a poor choice of words: he means fire the round. And he then says "he didn't clear the weapon." He's not describing how to clear a weapon "for a shot that doesn't require shooting a firearm," he's describing how a single action revolver fires -- as opposed to a double action -- and then stating, as an assertion of fact, that Alec Baldwin didn't clear the weapon.

If you did watch the video, you clearly didn't understand it.

And like hell you've treated me with "nothing but respect." That's complete bullshit. Being argumentative, tendentious, and willfully obtuse is not remotely respectful. Nor is telling someone "you're lying." Especially when you clearly have deficient comprehension skills, and the video you said you watched, doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

And again, all this to argue that movie production companies can't be expected to follow basic safety procedures. That they are fine in continuing to follow manifestly unsafe practices, which in this case led to the preventable death of woman, leaving her husband a widower, and her children motherless.

Seriously, you need to look in the mirror and question why you'd argue for a proposition like that.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

"Part of elementary gun safety is that you are responsible ...."

I'm not saying Baldwins innocent (they wernt even filming at the time!)
but I just do not see how that is possible.
In the real world - absolutely . for sure . all day long .

In a movie - just cant be done . It has to be up to the armourer and other supporting staff.

You cant start stripping your gun in the midddle of a take to check the ammo.

Let me use an analogy.
In the real world , when driving , you never ever ever go over the speed limit.
In the movie world , when filming driving at over the speed limit - you have to go over the speed limit. (but you take extra precautions to alleviate the risk this brings. rollcage maybe.)

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

I'm not saying Baldwins innocent (they wernt even filming at the time!)
but I just do not see how that is possible.
In the real world - absolutely . for sure . all day long .

In a movie - just cant be done . It has to be up to the armourer and other supporting staff.

You cant start stripping your gun in the midddle of a take to check the ammo.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. Like I know I'm typing English, but people on the other end see Chinese characters or something.

This objection is ridiculous. No one is talking about stopping in the middle of a take. It's really, really simple. Before the start of shooting, when the armorer hands you a gun, you check it. You verify the gun you have been given is either empty, or loaded with theatrical blanks. You then proceed to film whatever scene you have with that weapon. If at any point you have to return it to the armorer, as soon as he takes it into his hands, he checks it. If he has to give it back to you before the next scene, then as soon as he does so, you check it and then proceed to film your scene.

I am really having a hard time fathoming why this simple, elementary, very quick procedure strikes you as so burdensome.

it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for Adam Baldwin (no relation to Alec), who is an actor, and has no apparent difficulty whatever following that rule, it doesn't bring production to a halt, and he says it is how it is supposed to be done (fast forward to 3:10, also 5:50, also 7:13 for specific references to the rules).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHvrpAm76c

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

What happens if the scene involves loading and unloading the gun?
and/or then passing it from one character to another ,
and/or then putting it to your head for Russian roulette in direct violation the other rule: "dont point it at your head"

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

Dude, watch the video, and forward to the time stamps I pointed out. It's really simple. But I'll try to explain it to you without using any big words.

If the gun is going to be passed off to others in a scene, then prior to the start of filming, the armorer hands the gun to an actor, ideally with the slide locked back, or the cylinder open, or the loading gate of a single action revolver like the one used by Alec Baldwin. The armorer gathers everyone in the scene around, shows everyone, cast and crew alike, that the gun is clear and safe. The actor who will be using it first checks it himself to verify that it is clear and safe, and he too shows it around to everyone present. Everyone involved has now seen for themselves that the weapon was not just checked, but double checked, in front of them all, prior to the start of any filming.

You then proceed to film the scene. This is actually the exact same procedure we used in the police academy whenever our training involved real firearms instead of dummy weapons or simunition guns.

So there you have it. There is nothing remotely difficult about this. And the end user of the gun has verified it's condition for himself as he absolutely should.

But hey, if taking someone else's word for it about a deadly weapon is good enough for you, knock yourself out. When your negligence gets someone killed, don't say you never had it explained to you how that could have been prevented.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

its crazy to see how much u libturds will bend over backwards to defend gun violence when it is one of ur own pulling the trigger...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I'm not liberal. Both liberals and conservatives are complete idiots. I'm not defending gun violence. The armorer is to blame.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

yes the armorer is to blame as well but the personal holding and firing the gun is the last defense against people being hurt and takes the most responsibility when someone is hurt. Alec was too busy talking shit about guns and living in his libturd safe space to know even the first most basic rule of gun safety. That poor woman paid the price for his arrogance towards firearms and he needs to serve time in prison to think about what he has done and make it right to her children...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

You seem too obsessed with him being liberal that it's clouding your judgment.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

the fact that he is an antigun liberal just make it the most ironic thing in the world. he wants to take away ur God given 2nd amendment right and at the same time not only plays with guns on screen but does it in such a irresponsible way that it resulted in the death of a mother :( just goes to show liberals are the most self righteous hypocrites to walk this planet...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

God didn't give Americans a right. Your politicians did.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

no bud they didnt! God did! our founding fathers (they were inventors, businessmen, rebels, and patriots NOT politicians) had the forth-sight to know our country would be corrupted by the global elite forces so they wrote it in that way. If self defense and self preservation were given to our citizens by man then another man could rightfully take it away from you in the future. But if it was given to you by God himself then it can never be taken away from you! The second a corrupt libturd politician comes for your guns you have all moral rights to fight to the death for your freedom since it was a God given right you were born with not given to by anyone! There is a saying in Murica, ITS BETTER TO DIE ON YOUR FEET, THAN LIVE ON YOUR KNEES!!!

My parents immigrated to this country from commie Europe and reclaimed these God given rights when they came here. A LOT was sacrificed to give me a life here, I might have been born poor in a foreign nation but I was born an American! A free American!! An you best believe I will die a FREE MAN!!! They can come for my guns and they can take em FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

Weird how God only gave the USA their rights.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

God gave every man that right, it is a basic human right that has been stripped from most modern humans. If u dont have gun rights you cant call urself a citizen your more of a serf or peasant to your government.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

Do you see how crazy you sound?

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

no you sound crazy to me bud

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I'm not the one claiming that God handed gun rights to people and that guns are a basic human right.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

u got so cucked and brainwashed by ur big brother commie government that u dont think even the most basic right of self preservation is a right u where born with. u are crazy bud, a slave who thinks they are free...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I don't live in a communist country.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

keep tellin yourself that u commie hahhahahahahahaha

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

"self righteous hypocrites "
moronic argument
You can put a gun in a movie and still be against real guns on your streets , obviously.

lets count how people have been killed as a result as making movies with guns in vs your god given right to swamp the country with them in real life .

lets see
Brandon Lee,
This lady ...
Thats 2

versus 10,000 per year in non movie related shootings

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

USA has a people problem not a gun problem! The people here are crazy and the solution is gun rights!!! At least we dont have acid attacks and shit like they do in the UK. U try that shit here in Murica u will be gunned down in the street like the dirty dog you are...

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16282) 2 years ago

"when it is one of ur own pulling the trigger.."
bullshit, who is "defending gun violence" ?

I suspect AB is guilty of manslaughter , but I'll wait for the trial

Crazy the way the repubs will comdemn AB without trial becasue of he's a democrat.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11948) 2 years ago

You might want to remove your mouth from Baldwins rectum before your next post.

You’re welcome.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I hate Alec Baldwin. The guy is an asshole.

reply

[–] DeathbySnuSnu (1013) 2 years ago

Natalie's biggest problem is she was not on a boat, surely.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

also re: the respect thing, if I'm not mistaken, he wasn't even supposed to have been pulling the trigger at that time anyways. This isn't like The Crow where the fatal shot, was a shot that was supposed to be fired in that moment.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I don't know if he was allowed to pull the trigger. He claims he didn't pull it.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I'm no expert but I would say it's impossible that it fired without him pulling the trigger. It can't just spontaneously go off.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I heard somewhere that he claimed he pulled the hammer down and that's what set it off.

reply

[–] Darren (1451) 2 years ago

He can claim what he likes. The FBI was unable to replicate what he said happened. The Colt Single Action Army has been in use for 150 years now, and it's still in production because it is one of the all time greatest firearm designs. It's mechanically a very sound design, and it simply does not fire unless you pull the trigger. What seems likely is that he had his finger on the trigger (this breaks one of the four cardinal rules of gun safety -- you keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot), and he thumbed the hammer back and let it slip. The hammer would not have fallen when released if he had not had his finger on the trigger. He may say he didn't have his finger on the trigger, and it's possible he's even convinced himself that it wasn't. But it was. To fire the gun, it had to be.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

He's been changing his story. At one point he said he was ordered to pull the trigger, another time he said he was instructed to pull the hammer.

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1451) 2 years ago

The armorer is responsible for the gun safety. You cannot allot it over to the actor who isn't a specialist on gun safety. I'm no fan of Baldwin's bit he isn't responsible.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

specialist on gun safety?!? I didnt know u needed to go to college and pass a test to know not to point guns at people. I grew up in "flyover country" were they tell this to 5 year olds...

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

he was not supposed to be aiming it at the camera or pulling the trigger at the time.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

And what if he did neither but it hit someone in the background?

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

what if he did neither?!? the gun fired that means he pulled the trigger. just cause his lying scumbag ass went into defense mode right away and said he didn't doesn't change the fact how firearms are engineered. for the gun to shoot a trigger needs to be pulled, this coward killed that woman in cold blood then has the balls to lie about not pulling the trigger in a sad pitiful attempt to get off of the manslaughter charge. he could have manned up and admitted his mistake and accepted the justice that needs to come but instead tried this sorry ass attempt to lie his way out of it. just cause his libturded fans are dumb enough to not understand how firearms work doesnt mean the prosecution and jury will buy the same pile of horseshit coming out of his mouth...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

Even if he did pull the trigger, unless he was told not to, it's not his job to check the gun. Actors don't do tests on cars before filming scenes. Actors don't check out the camera rigs to make sure everyone is safe.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

guns are killing machines not camcorders...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

Camera rigs can injure people if not installed properly.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

yes, and if someone was neglect in the installation of a canera rig and it managed to kill someone, they could be charged with a crime.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

But would the actor be charged, if say, the camera was mounted on the car they were driving?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

probably not. because that isn't remotely a comparable situation.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

I don't see how it's much different. If the actor is driving a car where the camera is mounted, he's essentially controlling the camera.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

no, he's controlling the car. And yes, if he was using a car in a way he wasn't supposed and killed someone, he'd likely get charged.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

No, I mean should he be required to check the engine, tires etc. before they begin filming?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

ok, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics to try to compare two things that aren't comparable. Here is the difference in a nutshell. A guns purpose is to be harmul, a cameras isn't. If you left a child alone with a gun, you would be charged with a crime because it is understood to be inherently dangerous. The same isn't true about a camera, because the 2 aren't comparable,period.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

This is going off topic to my previous point. If an actor is filming a chase scene in a car, he is not expected to check the engine, wheels, brakes etc. of the car before filming. That car could cause damage to people. You rely on industry professionals who sole job is to measure the safety of such things. If a wheel pops off and kills an extra walking by, why should the actor be charged because he didn't triple check \and do diagnostics on the car?

I'm comparing cars to guns because whenever pro-gun people attempt to convey why you shouldn't ban guns, they often bring up how cars can kill people and you can't ban those.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

that is the error in your argument. The gun wasn't faulty, it didn't malfunction, it didn't have mechanical failure. The reason someone died is because an actor knowingly did something with a potentially deadly weapon, that he wasn't supposed to do. He wasn't supposed to be pointing it and pulling the trigger when it happened. That is why it is his responsibility, and obviously why he lied and immediately claimed it went off on it's own, which is literally impossible. Even using your car analogy, if everything was ok with the car, but an actor driving it decides to try and do a stunt move that he shouldn't be doing and it killed someone, they'd obviously be responsible.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

The reason someone died is because an actor knowingly did something with a potentially deadly weapon, that he wasn't supposed to do.

Based on what though? Maybe the gun was faulty. We don't know what he was instructed to do on set either. And if the armorer did her job right, then she wouldn't have died either.

if everything was ok with the car, but an actor driving it decides to try and do a stunt move that he shouldn't be doing and it killed someone, they'd obviously be responsible.

If the gun fired blanks as it was supposed to do, then nothing he did was wrong. Again, I blame the armorer.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

The fbi investigator stated it could not fire on it's own, and the crew acknowledged he was not filming at the moment and was not supposed to be firing the pistol when it happened.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58491) 2 years ago

They weren't filming, but they were rehearsing and checking out where the camera was going to be placed. There's footage of him taking out the gun being asked to keep taking it out.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

ok, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

reply

[–] RoloTony (1334) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xanthas (3215) 2 years ago

There should never be real guns used on movie sets.

Also, this hasn't gone to trial yet. It hasn't even had preliminary hearings.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

Alec was a producer and had that choice but thought real guns look better for artistic license. which is fine if u treat them with respect and caution. he was too arrogant and full of his own shit to treat them like a responsible redneck and instead went around pointing them at people and pulling the trigger like a dumbass libtard thinking they live in fairytale land...

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

The charges are because he's vastly disliked. If it was up to the actor to make sure there was blanks and not live rounds in a gun, then they might as well not bother having armorers and prop masters on movie sets.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

he was more than just an actor he was a producer

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

It's still really not up to him to check the gun. That's what the armorer and propmaster are for. But as far as civilly then yes he definitely has some culpability there. And he did pay out in that area to her family. The criminal case is only because he's profoundly hated by mostly everybody. Nobody was charged in Brandon Lee's case because there was no hated person involved. That case was settled civilly.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 2 years ago

I have to disagree with that. A wooden stake in a vampire movie is not dangerous if it is properly handled by almost anyone. However, everyone knows it still has the potential to harm someone, so dont be stupid and jam it in their eye. With anything with a potential of violence, it has to be treated with respect at times, even if fairly benign.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

He may yet. If he spends his personal fortune on lawyers, trial "experts", and publicists, he may be found innocent or get a much lower sentence than a regular schmoe would get for accidentally killing someone.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

that is the sad reality, he almost never even got charged because of his privilege. I am glad these law enforcement are at least trying but its a uphill battle fighting those dirty jew lawyers in court...

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

That's the sad truth, a lot of DAs are afraid to file charges against the rich or rich-and-famous, because they're afraid of being the next Marcia Clark - the DA who lost a case to a monumentally expensive "dream team" of lawyers, experts, and publicists.

This has had a chilling effect on the legal system, and has made the rich damn near functionally above the law. Certainly it delayed charges being filed here, the DA had to put in months of work before they would even file charges, just to make sure their case had a hope of a hope.

reply

[–] howgamer (3987) 2 years ago

He is only charged. IF convicted the sentence will be no jail time, minor fine and probation. Money and status talk.

reply

[–] DMT (4483) 2 years ago

we will see what the jury and judge says, dirty jew lawyers can work magic but they are not wizards...

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1582) 2 years ago

The way I see it the whole studio is getting away with 1st degree murder

reply