Revisting Baldwin shooting that lady

[tubby_mcgee 686]

Reading comments on a current story on Fox New, lots of  (I assume) liberals saying that the "Treat every gun as though it's loaded" rule doesn't apply to Baldwin because he was never taught that.   Then they go on to rationalize how it's not Baldwin's fault (again, because he was never taught any gun safety).

How solid of an argument do you think that is?

[wiffleball 4,645]

Well, since Baldwin is an odious human being, I don't care. The Armorer seems wildly unqualified however. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

[zsasz 199]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Reading comments on a current story on Fox New, lots of  (I assume) liberals saying that the "Treat every gun as though it's loaded" rule doesn't apply to Baldwin because he was never taught that.   Then they go on to rationalize how it's not Baldwin's fault (again, because he was never taught any gun safety).

How solid of an argument do you think that is?

 

. My first inclination is to think that if I were to hire someone (who presumably is experienced in whatever field he claims to be) and then, by a result of his incompetence, but with no real incompetence on my part..... someone dies at my hand; there's an argument to be made as to the severity of my culpability.  If I were to hire a qualified mechanic to fix my brakes; he says he fixes them and then when I leave his shop (as long as I'm not breaking any traffic laws), the brakes don't work and I run someone over....what would happen to me?  Of course, I'm not sure if he wasn't being incompetent when the person was killed. She just got involuntary manslaughter....I'd imagine the most he'd get would be the same.  

 

[Nomad99 410]

He is an anti gun, anti 2nd amendment weasel. He didn't pay attention to safety training. He put his anti gun soapbox to the side in order to make money filming a movie using guns......talk the talk....then walk the walk.

[KSB2424 3,083]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

I agree with Worms here.  It’s Hollywood, make-believe.  No way in hell should a live round be given to an actor in that situation. 

JFC, I have to go shower now. 

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

Help Bruce Lees son understand that from the heaven’s. Oooops

[tubby_mcgee 686]

3 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

So does the girl who Baldwin killed think it's real life? 

So you're saying  "treat every firearm as though it's loaded" is a bunch of horse pucky?

[weepaws 2,460]

2 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So does the girl who Baldwin killed think it's real life? 

So you're saying  "treat every firearm as though it's loaded" is a bunch of horse pucky?

No she doesn’t, she’s dead.  

[lickin_starfish 1,482]

And here we're have weepaws showing his true self.

A supposed Christian, but he doesn't believe in the afterlife.

[Nomad99 410]

10 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Reading comments on a current story on Fox New, lots of  (I assume) liberals saying that the "Treat every gun as though it's loaded" rule doesn't apply to Baldwin because he was never taught that.   Then they go on to rationalize how it's not Baldwin's fault (again, because he was never taught any gun safety).

How solid of an argument do you think that is?

He WAS taught gun safety........during the entire training,  he remained on his cell phone talking with someone. 

[MLCKAA 395]

9 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

There is no way he should be held responsible for that woman’s death.

[MDC 5,893]

6 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So does the girl who Baldwin killed think it's real life? 

So you're saying  ”treat every firearm as though it's loaded" is a bunch of horse pucky?

Don’t actors aim guns at each other all the time while filming movies?  

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The issue is there was a live round where there shouldn’t be. And apparently there were a number of them all over the set so it was basically a ticking time bomb.

So unless it can be shown that Baldwin put the live rounds there or that he knew they were there, I can’t see how this could possibly be on him.

You know, I did wonder when this was first reported, if there wasn’t some lovers’ triangle thing or something else going on involving Baldwin and the cinematographer and possibly the director. So I was open to that possibility and would remain so if there were any reasonable suspicion on that. But it seems there is no evidence of that whatsoever and that the live rounds almost certainly came from the armorer or supplier, and that the armorer was definitely not up to the task of ensuring that all rounds were dummies.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Baldwin points and shoots a real gun at someone without checking to make sure it wasn't loaded. 

What an idiot. Enjoy a few years in prison. Hope you make some friends. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:47 PM, Mike Honcho said:

Guess a little more thing to say then.  I think Armorer(Hannah Gutierrez Reed) bears responsibility, the AD(who copped a plea deal), and if by all accounts safety was suspect on the set, all named producers(Baldwin is listed as a producer).  

As an actor though, I don't think he bears responsibility.  IMO, that's going to be the tough thing to distinguish, but since they didn't name any other producers I think despite what the DA said, she's going after as him specifically for his actions as an actor. See how the trial shakes out. 

 

[Strike 3,979]

Armorer found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter yesterday.  If they get Baldwin too justice will have been served.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Armorer found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter yesterday.  If they get Baldwin too justice will have been served.

You are wrong, still. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

Liberals are only ok with legal gun owners being responsible for the use of guns, not anyone else.  I think this thread proves at least that much.

[seafoam1 1,879]

33 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Liberals are only ok with legal gun owners being responsible for the use of guns, not anyone else.  I think this thread proves at least that much.

You can legally shoot all the people you want as long as you claim to not know how to use the gun you just used to shoot someone.  -Liberal logic

[tubby_mcgee 686]

11 hours ago, MDC said:

Don’t actors aim guns at each other all the time while filming movies?  

They do.  You treat it as though it's loaded every time it exchanges hands or you pick it up. 
Did he do that?
Nope.  Had he, the woman wouldn't have been shot and killed.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to handle a gun.  You just can't be a focking retard. 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

And remember folks, its always the guns fault, unless a white cop shoots a black man, thennnnnnn....the script magically changes and it's the cops fault.  
 

[MDC 5,893]

5 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

They do.  You treat it as though it's loaded every time it exchanges hands or you pick it up. 

Is that actually protocol on movie shoots? Because they have someone on set who is paid to do that. If you treat guns as though they’re loaded all the time nobody would ever point a firearm at anyone else on film.  

[tubby_mcgee 686]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Is that actually protocol on movie shoots? Because they have someone on set who is paid to do that. If you treat guns as though they’re loaded all the time nobody would ever point a firearm at anyone else on film.  

Lemme get this straight.  If I decide to film a movie in my back yard, and I hire someone to make sure the gun isn't loaded, and shoot someone's face off, all i have to do do is say "Nope. Not my fault. I hired that person over there to make sure it wasn't loaded"  and I'm not at fault?

That's how it works?  Seems like a fairly simple process. 

MDC ...if I did that....would that get me a lesser charge/no charge or people defending me saying "he's innocent. He paid Jimmy to make sure it wasn't loaded!"
 

[MDC 5,893]

4 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Lemme get this straight.  If I decide to film a movie in my back yard, and I hire someone to make sure the gun isn't loaded, and shoot someone's face off, all i have to do do is say "Nope. Not my fault. I hired that person over there to make sure it wasn't loaded"  and I'm not at fault?

That's how it works? 

MDC ...if I did that....would that get me a lesser charge/no charge or people defending me saying "he's innocent. He paid Jimmy to make sure it wasn't loaded!"
 

You answer my question first. Do actors on set always treat guns as if they’re loaded? And if so, how do they ever film gun scenes? 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

You answer my question first. Do actors on set always treat guns as if they’re loaded? And if so, how do they ever film gun scenes? 

Why wouldn't they?   The "treat it as though its loaded" is for every time it changes hands, or its getting picked up out of a vehicle, or off a table, etc. 

You check it.  That's what that means...buuuuuuuut....a liberal like yourself...who knows ZERO about firearms...wouldn't know this.  Just like Baldwin didn't know it. 

 

You seem to think liberals are on a different set of rules when dealing with gun safety. 

"Uhhh....geeeeee we were never taught how to handle guns, so we can just kill people with them, then say gosh I didn't know that guns were dangerous or that guns did that!"

 

[MDC 5,893]

Just now, tubby_mcgee said:

Why wouldn't they?   The "treat it as though its loaded" is for every time it changes hands, or its getting picked up out of a vehicle, or off a table, etc. 

You check it.  That's what that means...buuuuuuuut....a liberal like yourself...who knows ZERO about firearms...wouldn't know this.  Just like Baldwin didn't know it. 

From what I’ve read the responsibility for checking and loading / unloading firearms on set is with the property manager / armory:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488.amp

Why would the actor feel the need to check the firearm when somebody is getting paid to do it? Would a layman even know what a blank looks like vs a live round? 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

From what I’ve read the responsibility for checking and loading / unloading firearms on set is with the property manager / armory:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488.amp

Why would the actor feel the need to check the firearm when somebody is getting paid to do it? Would a layman even know what a blank looks like vs a live round? 

So if I pay someone to do my gun safety for me, that's my get out of jail free card if shoot someones face clean off?

Does that seriously make sense to you?

[MDC 5,893]

4 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So if I pay someone to do my gun safety for me, that's my get out of jail free card if shoot someones face clean off?

Does that seriously make sense to you?

Doesn’t matter if that makes sense to me - that seems to be industry standard on film sets. 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

Just now, MDC said:

Doesn’t matter if that makes sense to me - that seems to be industry standard on film sets. 

So then, it should hold true.  I blow both of someones ears off with 1 shot, and if I had hired someone to make sure gun wasn't loaded, I'm good---or at the least will face a lesser charge.

I'm learning new things every day. 

[MDC 5,893]

Just now, tubby_mcgee said:

So then, it should hold true.  I blow both of someones ears off with 1 shot, and if I had hired someone to make sure gun wasn't loaded, I'm good---or at the least will face a lesser charge.

I'm learning new things every day. 

Okay.  

[IGotWorms 3,315]

14 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

I'm learning new things every day. 

 

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

On 3/7/2024 at 7:03 PM, tubby_mcgee said:

Lemme get this straight.  If I decide to film a movie in my back yard, and I hire someone to make sure the gun isn't loaded, and shoot someone's face off, all i have to do do is say "Nope. Not my fault. I hired that person over there to make sure it wasn't loaded"  and I'm not at fault?

That's how it works?  Seems like a fairly simple process. 

MDC ...if I did that....would that get me a lesser charge/no charge or people defending me saying "he's innocent. He paid Jimmy to make sure it wasn't loaded!"
 

Yes, if you hired a professional armorer to guarantee the safety on the set and that armorer gave you a prop that they loaded, and said it was loaded with dummies, but contained a live round because they didn't inspect all of them, you would not be at fault. Movies are not real life, the people who handle the guns did not buy them or can be expected to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of how they work.  That's why armorer's are there, to guarantee the safety of people who are PRETENDING to be knowledgeable.

And now that the armorer has been found guilty, it makes the chances of convicting Baldwin even less-since someone else was found at fault for  the death of Halyna Hutchins.

Quote

NBC News

Juror Albert Sanchez said “pretty much not checking the weapons” was a major factor in his decision in the Gutierrez-Reed case.

“Just handing them over, like ‘here.’ Not checking — that was a big deal,” Sanchez said. “I mean, you can’t do that. And if you have live rounds there and you don’t even know it?”

Dave Halls, the film’s safety coordinator, who pleaded no contest to negligent use of a deadly weapon last year as part of a plea deal, also took the stand. It was the first time he had spoken publicly about what happened that day. He emotionally testified that he should have checked the gun more thoroughly, admitting that he “did an improper check of that firearm.”

Halls went on to say he did not recall seeing Gutierrez-Reed spin the entire cylinder around to ensure all of the bullets were dummy rounds. Wiping away tears, he said, “I let a safety check pass.”

During opening statements, another special prosecutor, Jason Lewis, called Gutierrez-Reed’s behavior on the set “sloppy” and “unprofessional.”

 

Baldwin is dependent on these people giving him a safe prop, they failed and that's why they were found negligent---he's not an expert and would not have the expertise to know that their were live rounds chambered. 

[Strike 3,979]

21 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Baldwin is dependent on these people giving him a safe prop, they failed and that's why they were found negligent---he's not an expert and would not have the expertise to know that their were live rounds chambered. 

Uh, part of the actor's rules for using guns is that they are given TRAINING on them BEFORE using them.  The evidence in this case says Baldwin didn't listen when he was given this training and spent the entire time talking on his cell phone.

And the fact that the armorer was found guilty doesn't change the odds of him being convicted.  They're separate trials with separate evidence and separate theories of liability.  The FACT that he was not only an actor on this project but also one of it's producers who happened to be on set due to his acting duties may in and of itself make him culpable.

[BufordT 371]

I always figured the guns they used for movies/tv were fake toy guns. Stoopid me. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Uh, part of the actor's rules for using guns is that they are given TRAINING on them BEFORE using them.  The evidence in this case says Baldwin didn't listen when he was given this training and spent the entire time talking on his cell phone.

1. Don't type "uh"---that's stupid.

2. If you are going to reference rules-cite them. 
Him not listening, but being able to use the guns is going more evidence the armorer didn't do there job. They are responsible for their students following the rules. If he was talking on his cell phone the entire time, they shouldn't have allowed Baldwin to have a gun.

 

Quote

And the fact that the armorer was found guilty doesn't change the odds of him being convicted.  They're separate trials with separate evidence and separate theories of liability.  The FACT that he was not only an actor on this project but also one of it's producers who happened to be on set due to his acting duties may in and of itself make him culpable.

1. The fact that armorer was found guilty will definitely change the odds. The first thing his attorney is going to say, "Someone else has already been found guilty of this crime".  That absolutely impacts the case.
 

2. There were 4 producers on this production, why were no others charged if being a producer made them culpable(other than he made fun of DJT). Maybe because different producers have different responsibilities.  And his responsibilities weren't in the hiring of the armorer. 

 

Quote

 

the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that Baldwin was not in charge and was not the one culpable for lax oversight.

“He didn’t actually have employees on-site that he or his delegated persons would manage or oversee,” said Lorenzo Montoya, OSHA’s lead investigator, in a deposition last month. Aside from his personal assistant, Montoya said, “He has no employee presence. He’s just him.”

 

As an actor, he was not an expert, and is not required to know the difference between dummy rounds and live rounds. 

Quote

The union argued that Baldwin was not responsible for firearms safety, and that if the prosecution rests on such a responsibility, “that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set.” “An actor's job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert,” the union said.

Exactly how does the non-expert, who doesn't know the difference between live rounds and dummy rounds-who is told the gun is as dangerous as a rock because it's filled with dummy rounds by two people(both whom have plead or found to be guilty) bear the responsibility here?

 

***This will be end up being another thread Strike pretends doesn't exist when he's proven wrong.

[5-Points 2,731]

On 3/6/2024 at 5:57 PM, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you understand this, because it’s sort of a critical distinction here:

Baldwin was an actor in a movie. It was all make believe including, as it was supposed to be, the gun.

So yeah, it’s not real life or anything. Well it wasn’t supposed to be anyways.

HTH!

Not exactly

On 3/7/2024 at 4:11 AM, MDC said:

Don’t actors aim guns at each other all the time while filming movies?  

No.

Actors are trained that even though a gun is (supposedly) loaded with blanks, they are still dangerous to the point of being life threatening. 

They are, therefore, trained to point the gun to the side of, or over the head of the actor they are supposed to shoot. 

They then play with camera angles to make it appear that the gun is actually being pointed at the actor who is supposed to be shot. 

Given his time in the business, he knew better. He's just a fockin doosh who thought he'd get away with breaking the safety rules this time. He was wrong. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Not exactly

No.

Actors are trained that even though a gun is (supposedly) loaded with blanks, they are still dangerous to the point of being life threatening. 

They are, therefore, trained to point the gun to the side of, or over the head of the actor they are supposed to shoot. 

They then play with camera angles to make it appear that the gun is actually being pointed at the actor who is supposed to be shot. 

Given his time in the business, he knew better. He's just a fockin doosh who thought he'd get away with breaking the safety rules this time. He was wrong. 

Maybe, guess we’ll have to see what the expert witness testimony is as that may well decide the case. I do see what you’re saying and as I understand even blanks can cause serious harm if things go wrong 

[5-Points 2,731]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Maybe, guess we’ll have to see what the expert witness testimony is as that may well decide the case. I do see what you’re saying and as I understand even blanks can cause serious harm if things go wrong 

Blanks, from my understanding, use the same brass and primers as "live" rounds. They just use a much smaller powder charge and a paper or wax "wad" to hold the charge in place. But when the trigger is pulled, that paper or wax wad can act as a projectile. So they are usually only "deadly" from close range, as occurred in the Brandon Lee incident.

But, accidents do happen. Which is why actors are trained not to aim directly at each other when shooting. 

 

 

[MDC 5,893]

42 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Not exactly

No.

Actors are trained that even though a gun is (supposedly) loaded with blanks, they are still dangerous to the point of being life threatening. 

They are, therefore, trained to point the gun to the side of, or over the head of the actor they are supposed to shoot. 

They then play with camera angles to make it appear that the gun is actually being pointed at the actor who is supposed to be shot. 

Given his time in the business, he knew better. He's just a fockin doosh who thought he'd get away with breaking the safety rules this time. He was wrong. 

How do you know he wasn’t aiming to the side of or over her head and shot her anyway? Assuming Baldwin has no particular firearms training. 

Anyway, whatever. It’s a sad situation but doubt he’s going to see any jail time.