Alec Baldwin killed a woman

[wiffleball 4,645]

Well SOMEbody shot Pat Tillman,! 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

4 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Well SOMEbody shot Pat Tillman,! 

Very edgy. Clown 

[Brad GLuckman 518]

This article points to the armorer or assistant director as responsible and it's a conservative blog.

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/10/25/fingers-point-at-assistant-director-who-handed-alec-baldwin-the-gun-before-fatal-shooting-n424735

[Boots11234 107]

2 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

This article points to the armorer or assistant director as responsible and it's a conservative blog.

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/10/25/fingers-point-at-assistant-director-who-handed-alec-baldwin-the-gun-before-fatal-shooting-n424735

Like I said before, does the paid armorer assume lisbility for these weapons or is it ultimately the actor?  I think the actor

[Brad GLuckman 518]

2 minutes ago, Boots11234 said:

Like I said before, does the paid armorer assume lisbility for these weapons or is it ultimately the actor?  I think the actor

Then what's the point of an armored on set?

[Strike 3,979]

6 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

This article points to the armorer or assistant director as responsible and it's a conservative blog.

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/10/25/fingers-point-at-assistant-director-who-handed-alec-baldwin-the-gun-before-fatal-shooting-n424735

Eh, that's just a bunch of speculation.  Any of us could have written that blog post.  I'm having trouble getting past the fact that in general the person holding a gun takes responsibility for anything that happens with it.  The fact that you're an actor on a movie set shouldn't give you a green light to be any less safe than if you are at a shooting range.   I found the legal analysis I posted much more compelling.

[Strike 3,979]

2 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Then what's the point of an armored on set?

A movie set is a chaotic place.  It makes sense to have a person specifically in charge of the weapons so only the people who should have access to them do, and only for the minimum amount of time required.  It also makes sense to have multiple levels of checking a weapon to ensure it's safe.  Having someone designated to be in charge of weapons shouldn't absolve the person actually shooting the weapon of doing their own due diligence.  I know I would if I were an actor.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

A movie set is a chaotic place.  It makes sense to have a person specifically in charge of the weapons so only the people who should have access to them do, and only for the minimum amount of time required.  It also makes sense to have multiple levels of checking a weapon to ensure it's safe.  Having someone designated to be in charge of weapons shouldn't absolve the person actually shooting the weapon of doing their own due diligence.  I know I would if I were an actor.

The actor should absolutely check if the weapon is loaded with blanks, but I don't know if blanks are easily identified as opposed to live rounds.

[Strike 3,979]

2 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

The actor should absolutely check if the weapon is loaded with blanks, but I don't know if blanks are easily identified as opposed to live rounds.

As I noted above, this was a rehearsal.  There are not supposed to be ANY kind of rounds in a gun during rehearsal.  So he doesn't have to check for blanks versus live rounds.  He just has to check for ANYTHING.  And from my understanding it's pretty easy to discern between a blank and an actual bullet anyways.  He, like the AD who seems to have a history of not giving a sh*t about gun safety, obviously didn't check to see if it was loaded with anything.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

As I noted above, this was a rehearsal.  There are not supposed to be ANY kind of rounds in a gun during rehearsal.  So he doesn't have to check for blanks versus live rounds.  He just has to check for ANYTHING.  And from my understanding it's pretty easy to discern between a blank and an actual bullet anyways.  He, like the AD who seems to have a history of not giving a sh*t about gun safety, obviously didn't check to see if it was loaded with anything.

Ok, if that's the case then Baldwin, the AD, and the armorer should all be held responsible.

[wiffleball 4,645]

Pretty safe to assume some of you guys know who's shooting blanks just by the taste and mouthfeel. 

[jerryskids 5,206]

11 hours ago, Utilit99 said:

Baldwin is guilty.

Gross negligence is used as a standard for criminal law, for example, under manslaughter in English law.^[4] Under common law, criminal negligence is defined as a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. 

I think the question comes down to reasonable standard of care on a set.  My guess is that a lot of actors trust the experts in charge without checking the weapon, and that Baldwin could bring in a bus load of actors who will testify as such.  So I don’t think Baldwin will be found liable for firing the gun.

His liability as producer may be a different story but I don’t know how the law works on that.

[5-Points 2,732]

8 hours ago, Strike said:

No, you're not.  I debunked one of your main "facts". 

I've heard he was rehearsing. I've heard he was practicing his draw. I've also heard they had just shot the scene and the Director wanted to shoot it again. So nothing has been "debunked", at this point. 

 

[listen2me 23 1,544]

7 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Then what's the point of an armored on set?

I am not sure.  According to reports there were many other unsafe situations and misfired guns.  Did you check out my link as to the freak that supposedly was in charge of this stuff?  

If things are going wrong.  Things are unsafe.  People are walking off set because of it.....then who is in charge? They just keep letting unsafe stuff happen until something real bad happens then say oh gee thats unfortunate?  Whoever is in charge should have stopped the filming and made conditions safer.  It doesn't seem like a situation where it came out of no where.  Several unsafe practices enough for people to walk off happened. 

At what point is it not an accident but negligence?

Yeah we almost blew Mary Ann's head off before the last cut.  But lets keep going there is only so much sunlight!

[5-Points 2,732]

21 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

I am not sure.  According to reports there were many other unsafe situations and misfired guns.  Did you check out my link as to the freak that supposedly was in charge of this stuff?  

If things are going wrong.  Things are unsafe.  People are walking off set because of it.....then who is in charge? They just keep letting unsafe stuff happen until something real bad happens then say oh gee thats unfortunate?  Whoever is in charge should have stopped the filming and made conditions safer.  It doesn't seem like a situation where it came out of no where.  Several unsafe practices enough for people to walk off happened. 

At what point is it not an accident but negligence?

Yeah we almost blew Mary Ann's head off before the last cut.  But lets keep going there is only so much sunlight!

 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

So again, the question I've asked multiple times....

SO if I own a gun store, and hire someone to sell guns, make sure guns aren't loaded, mop the floor...etc...

If someone gets shot by a loaded gun in my store, all fault is removed because "It was someone else's job"?

A number of you have said that. 

 

Additionally,   Five Points said the "gun safety rules" don't apply to actors. LOL.  Which I accurately predicted someone would say. 

 

[Fireballer 2,383]

I talked to a buddy of mine who does safety on movie sets.  There's a rumor floating that there was "target practice" being done with these guns previous to the shooting.  Oops if true, but would explain a live round getting in the gun

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,523]

10 hours ago, Strike said:

As I noted above, this was a rehearsal.  There are not supposed to be ANY kind of rounds in a gun during rehearsal.  So he doesn't have to check for blanks versus live rounds.  He just has to check for ANYTHING.  And from my understanding it's pretty easy to discern between a blank and an actual bullet anyways.  He, like the AD who seems to have a history of not giving a sh*t about gun safety, obviously didn't check to see if it was loaded with anything.

It's super easy: https://www.google.com/search?q=blank+vs+live+round&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS935US935&sxsrf=AOaemvJkcuAcWQaW7yGdtZ8ZlxyGHyPQ0A:1635255111876&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtqL2AmOjzAhVDbs0KHZ7rBGkQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1397&bih=1287&dpr=1

Simply put, blanks don't have an actual bullet in them.  There is no way to confuse the two.

Just for reference, a "round" is comprised of a primer, cap (which holds the gunpowder), gunpowder, casing (brass or steel, usually) and the actual bullet itself.  A LOT of people think of the whole round as the "bullet", but it's not.  Only one piece flies out of the end of the barrel and that is the actual bullet itself.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,523]

10 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Ok, if that's the case then Baldwin, the AD, and the armorer should all be held responsible.

The armorer is responsible for a number of things regarding weapons but he's only one safety gate in a series of safety gates.  Once the weapon leaves his hands, the ultimate responsibility falls on the person shooting the weapon.  His job is to ensure that the weapon/ammo is SAFE when it leaves his hands.  He has no control over what happens after it does.

The armorer - whether it's on a movie set OR in the military (I was in the Marines) - duties include:

• Ensuring guns are stored and locked away safely and securely when not in use
• That ALL weapons/ammo/magazines are accounted for
• Ensuring guns are mostly cleaned and working correctly
• Repairing any guns that may need it
• Disposing correctly  of any guns/ammo that are damaged or bad quality
• Ensuring that when guns are checked in or checked out they are UNLOADED of any types of rounds
  • If you hand an armorer a loaded weapon be prepared to take a verbal beating
• Transporting weapons/ammo safely and securely from one destination to another.

Armorers are typically NOT responsible for loading weapons for use.  They may give you an ammo can with rounds but ultimately the responsibility of loading a weapon - or at least a magazine to load into a weapon - is the responsibility of the person shooting the weapon.  Maybe on movie sets they have someone else doing this, but ultimately the person shooting the weapon has the responsibility that the weapon is loaded correctly.  That actor is the last safety gate.

So, IMO opinion, there are two people here that are ultimately responsible: The Armorer and Alec Baldwin.  I don't believe the AD has any culpability.  The armorer's job at the end of the day is to ensure all weapons, ammo and magazines being put into storage for the day are unloaded and put away safely and securely and that anything checking out is safe.  The fact that a magazine went out onto the set with a live round in it certainly puts the Armorer in the crosshairs.   As well as Baldwin as he was shooting the weapon. IMO, there is simply no way he can get around blaming someone else.

[5-Points 2,732]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Additionally,   Five Points said the "gun safety rules" don't apply to actors. LOL.  Which I accurately predicted someone would say. 

 

I did? 

No, I didn't. I said most actors are not familiar with the guns they use in movies and, as such, they have what are supposed to be professionals on set to ensure the safe and proper handling of the firearms being used. 

I also said, when a gun is supposed to be loaded with blanks, how is the actor supposed to check to see if they are in fact blanks? They are prohibited from loading/unloading/clearing the guns they use. They have to rely on the Armorer to load them properly. 

I never said "the rules of gun safety don't apply to actors." I said those of you using that argument are overlooking some pertinent facts. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,523]

10 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

The actor should absolutely check if the weapon is loaded with blanks, but I don't know if blanks are easily identified as opposed to live rounds.

They most certainly are.  There is no way to confuse a live round with a blank.  None whatsoever.  See my link above.

[5-Points 2,732]

12 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

They most certainly are.  There is no way to confuse a live round with a blank.  None whatsoever.  See my link above.

But on a movie set the actor is not permitted to load/unload/reload/clear or otherwise manipulate the firearm. 

At least according to the rules posted in this thread. 

[jerryskids 5,206]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So again, the question I've asked multiple times....

SO if I own a gun store, and hire someone to sell guns, make sure guns aren't loaded, mop the floor...etc...

If someone gets shot by a loaded gun in my store, all fault is removed because "It was someone else's job"?

A number of you have said that. 

 

Additionally,   Five Points said the "gun safety rules" don't apply to actors. LOL.  Which I accurately predicted someone would say. 

 

Now you have changed and are making an analogy to Baldwin the producer (who is in charge of the set), not Baldwin the shooter.  I don’t think anyone is saying that Baldwin the producer won’t be held liable.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,523]

9 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I think the question comes down to reasonable standard of care on a set.  My guess is that a lot of actors trust the experts in charge without checking the weapon, and that Baldwin could bring in a bus load of actors who will testify as such.  So I don’t think Baldwin will be found liable for firing the gun.

His liability as producer may be a different story but I don’t know how the law works on that.

Y'know, you may be right now that I think about it.  I don't think the guy who shot Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow 25 years ago faced any charges either.  So now I think Baldwin may not face any charges.  At least not as an actor but maybe as a producer like you said.

[tubby_mcgee 686]

19 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's super easy: https://www.google.com/search?q=blank+vs+live+round&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS935US935&sxsrf=AOaemvJkcuAcWQaW7yGdtZ8ZlxyGHyPQ0A:1635255111876&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtqL2AmOjzAhVDbs0KHZ7rBGkQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1397&bih=1287&dpr=1

Simply put, blanks don't have an actual bullet in them.  There is no way to confuse the two.

 

That's too much to process for a liberal.  They just point and shoot and hope for the best. 
 

[Utilit99 4,099]

If I'm an actor, no chance in hell am I taking someone's word for it that the gun isn't loaded with a live round. 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So again, the question I've asked multiple times....

SO if I own a gun store, and hire someone to sell guns, make sure guns aren't loaded, mop the floor...etc...

If someone gets shot by a loaded gun in my store, all fault is removed because "It was someone else's job"?

A number of you have said that. 

 

 

So if this happens in my store, is the shooter responsible or the person I paid to check the guns ? Meaning...I appointed the job to someone. 
 

Everyone keeps twisting it.  "Well, ya see...the prop director was hired.... ", "the prop director was in charge..." , "the prop director was paid....it was his job..."

This question gets avoided in every way possible.

Does paying someone remove the responsibility from the shooter.   Many have said in Baldwin's case it does.

How about my case? 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Now you have changed and are making an analogy to Baldwin the producer (who is in charge of the set), not Baldwin the shooter.  I don’t think anyone is saying that Baldwin the producer won’t be held liable.  

baldwin should get different charges against him for both roles he played in this murder.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

51 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

baldwin should get different charges against him for both roles he played in this murder.

Double jeopardy?

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Double jeopardy?

He would receive different charges for each role he played in the murder. As an actor it would be involuntary murder (if not murder), and for his other job, some sort of gross negligence or something like that. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

12 hours ago, Strike said:

As I noted above, this was a rehearsal.  There are not supposed to be ANY kind of rounds in a gun during rehearsal.  So he doesn't have to check for blanks versus live rounds.  He just has to check for ANYTHING.  And from my understanding it's pretty easy to discern between a blank and an actual bullet anyways.  He, like the AD who seems to have a history of not giving a sh*t about gun safety, obviously didn't check to see if it was loaded with anything.

I've read the opposite of Baldwin and his history of gun safety, what evidence is there that he has a history of 'not giving a sh*t'?

[Strike 3,979]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've read the opposite of Baldwin and his history of gun safety, what evidence is there that he has a history of 'not giving a sh*t'?

The AD has the history of not giving a sh*t.  Baldwin just never checked the weapon as any reasonable person would before pointing it at another human being

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've read the opposite of Baldwin and his history of gun safety, what evidence is there that he has a history of 'not giving a sh*t'?

How hard is it to look at the tweets he posted over the years about other people using guns "unsafely" or having made "mistakes" with him acting all focking godlike in his judgements as if he is THE expert on the topic. 

That, in itself shows extreme recklessness about guns. 

REVEALED: Alec Baldwin's old tweets reveal ignorance, cruelty regarding guns and gun safety

 

[posty 2,296]

Did that happen on the moon?

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

The AD has the history of not giving a sh*t.  Baldwin just never checked the weapon as any reasonable person would before pointing it at another human being

It's been discussed already about the multiple safety checks that were supposed to have happened before the gun got to Baldwin---including the person handing it to him telling him it was cold(and it is the AD's job to actually physically perform that check). A reasonable human being would not be expected to believe he was being given a loaded real gun.  Nothing I've read or seen produced here has shown it was his responsibility to check that gun.  

A extremely cautious person might have checked the weapon, but in this case he may not even known he had anything that could even fire a round, let alone needed to check it.

[Strike 3,979]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's been discussed already about the multiple safety checks that were supposed to have happened before the gun got to Baldwin---including the person handing it to him telling him it was cold(and it is the AD's job to actually physically perform that check). A reasonable human being would not be expected to believe he was being given a loaded real gun.  Nothing I've read or seen produced here has shown it was his responsibility to check that gun.  

A extremely cautious person might have checked the weapon, but in this case he may not even known he had anything that could even fire a round, let alone needed to check it.

You don't rely on others.  First rule of gun safety is to assume it's loaded.  No way would I ever point a weapon in the direction of another person if I hadn't checked it myself.  If you would I hope you are never in the position to actually do so.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

You don't rely on others.  First rule of gun safety is to assume it's loaded.  No way would I ever point a weapon in the direction of another person if I hadn't checked it myself.  If you would I hope you are never in the position to actually do so.

You can't drum this into the liberal's little brains hard enough. They will never understand. If baldwin checks the round, then there is hell to pay for whoever is in charge of loading the gun. But too late. bladwin didn't want to play his part in the process and someone died because of it..

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

You don't rely on others.  First rule of gun safety is to assume it's loaded.  No way would I ever point a weapon in the direction of another person if I hadn't checked it myself.  If you would I hope you are never in the position to actually do so.

From the context of everything we've seen about the subject, your assumption about not relying on others doesn't hold true on a film set. You are assuming that every actor that handles a weapon has been properly trained in gun safety, that's not necessarily the case(though I'd argue they should be). 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,523]

7 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

From the context of everything we've seen about the subject, your assumption about not relying on others doesn't hold true on a film set. You are assuming that every actor that handles a weapon has been properly trained in gun safety, that's not necessarily the case(though I'd argue they should be). 

Doesn't matter if they hold true on a film set or not - they are supposed to!  There's a reason there are gun safety rules.  Passing the buck off to someone else violates the first f****** rule.

Remember when you were little and your parents wouldn't accept the "but everyone else was doing it" excuse? Yeah that applies here too.

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Doesn't matter if they hold true on a film set or not - they are supposed to!  There's a reason there are gun safety rules.  Passing the buck off to someone else violates the first f****** rule.

Remember when you were little and your parents wouldn't accept the "but everyone else was doing it" excuse? Yeah that applies here too.

 

I've only been debating  his legal culpability and it that sense it 100% matters if it holds true on a film set.