Revisting Baldwin shooting that lady

[5-Points 2,745]

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

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

I was responding to this post. Actors are trained specifically to not aim directly at other people when firing weapons on set. 

19 minutes ago, MDC said:

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. 

The fact that he hit her would indicate that he was pointing the gun at her when he pulled the trigger.

The fact that he didn't take precautions to ensure he wasn't aiming directly at her when pulling the trigger should result in a finding of some responsibility for her death.  

 

[IGotWorms 3,351]

15 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I was responding to this post. Actors are trained specifically to not aim directly at other people when firing weapons on set. 

The fact that he hit her would indicate that he was pointing the gun at her when he pulled the trigger.

The fact that he didn't take precautions to ensure he wasn't aiming directly at her when pulling the trigger should result in a finding of some responsibility for her death.  

 

He could have poor aim. Or if his story is true and he didn’t even pull the trigger (seems doubtful to me but I’m no expert), then he may well have been in the act of aiming it away from her

[seafoam1 1,879]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

He could have poor aim. Or if his story is true and he didn’t even pull the trigger (seems doubtful to me but I’m no expert), then he may well have been in the act of aiming it away from her

Yeah. Involuntary manslaughter. 

[IGotWorms 3,351]

4 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Yeah. Involuntary manslaughter. 

I doubt it. Doubt it’ll ever even really go to trial. But we’ll see

[5-Points 2,745]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

He could have poor aim. Or if his story is true and he didn’t even pull the trigger (seems doubtful to me but I’m no expert), then he may well have been in the act of aiming it away from her

He could've not "aimed" but merely pointed the gun in her direction and got "lucky." He had to have pulled the trigger though. Revolvers don't fire without the hammer being pulled back, which rotates the cylinder to align the next round, so when the hammer is released (trigger is pulled), the primer is struck, which ignites the powder, that causes the projectile to exit the barrel. 

If he'd dropped the gun and it landed on the hammer, that could've discharged the round. But that's not what is being claimed. He's claiming he simply pointed the gun towards her and it went off. That just isn't possible. 

He may escape justice in this case but he definitely bears some culpability. I'm not saying it was intentional. But, based on the limited training he received, he should've known better than to do what he did. 

[Nomad99 440]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

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. 

 

 

This is why a simple check by the user...Baldwin in this case....would have exposed that live rounds were present. They are DISTINCTLY different than blanks. Say what you will, I think he has a responsibility to do so. Given his stance on how dangerous guns are, I don't give him a pass. Bad enough he'll take a check for making a movie full of gun violence given his stance.

[5-Points 2,745]

3 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

This is why a simple check by the user...Baldwin in this case....would have exposed that live rounds were present. They are DISTINCTLY different than blanks. Say what you will, I think he has a responsibility to do so. Given his stance on how dangerous guns are, I don't give him a pass. Bad enough he'll take a check for making a movie full of gun violence given his stance.

A visual inspection of the loaded weapon might not have been enough. He would've had to have been able to feel the weight of the blank vs a live round and known the difference. 

His responsibility lies in pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger. Which he had to have done, whether he meant to or not. 

[IGotWorms 3,351]

29 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

He could've not "aimed" but merely pointed the gun in her direction and got "lucky." He had to have pulled the trigger though. Revolvers don't fire without the hammer being pulled back, which rotates the cylinder to align the next round, so when the hammer is released (trigger is pulled), the primer is struck, which ignites the powder, that causes the projectile to exit the barrel. 

If he'd dropped the gun and it landed on the hammer, that could've discharged the round. But that's not what is being claimed. He's claiming he simply pointed the gun towards her and it went off. That just isn't possible. 

He may escape justice in this case but he definitely bears some culpability. I'm not saying it was intentional. But, based on the limited training he received, he should've known better than to do what he did. 

You seem to be starting from the assumption that he is criminally culpable and then figuring out how to get there. It’s possible you’re right but I think if you start from a more objective position it’s obvious that the armorer and whoever introduced the live rounds (if not the armorer) are the culpable parties, with Baldwin well behind and probably not actually criminally culpable at all.

Bottom line, there should not have been a live round in that gun. Period, end of story imo

[Nomad99 440]

8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

A visual inspection of the loaded weapon might not have been enough. He would've had to have been able to feel the weight of the blank vs a live round and known the difference. 

His responsibility lies in pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger. Which he had to have done, whether he meant to or not. 

It was a revolver....the cylinder is open. Half cocking it allows you to rotate the cylinder. You can easily see the nose of a live round where each shell sits in the cylinder. 

[5-Points 2,745]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You seem to be starting from the assumption that he is criminally culpable and then figuring out how to get there. It’s possible you’re right but I think if you start from a more objective position it’s obvious that the armorer and whoever introduced the live rounds (if not the armorer) are the culpable parties, with Baldwin well behind and probably not actually criminally culpable at all.

Bottom line, there should not have been a live round in that gun. Period, end of story imo

Agreed. I'll take it one step further. There shouldn't have been live rounds on the set. 

I'm no fan of Alec Baldwin. I think he's a focking doosh. That said, I don't think the guy should be found solely responsible for this woman's death. 

However, I think he was negligent with regards to his handling of the firearm in his possession. Whether or not he believed the gun was loaded with blanks is irrelevant. He knew, or should've known, that even guns loaded with blanks can be deadly and handled that gun accordingly. He clearly did not. 

[5-Points 2,745]

5 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

It was a revolver....the cylinder is open. Half cocking it allows you to rotate the cylinder. You can easily see the nose of a live round where each shell sits in the cylinder. 

True. 

[IGotWorms 3,351]

2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Agreed. I'll take it one step further. There shouldn't have been live rounds on the set. 

I'm no fan of Alec Baldwin. I think he's a focking doosh. That said, I don't think the guy should be found solely responsible for this woman's death. 

However, I think he was negligent with regards to his handling of the firearm in his possession. Whether or not he believed the gun was loaded with blanks is irrelevant. He knew, or should've known, that even guns loaded with blanks can be deadly and handled that gun accordingly. He clearly did not. 

Agreed.

But I think the matter pretty much ends there.

I’m not a huge Baldwin fan but it seems to me that many of the people calling for his conviction are politically motivated. They could still be right, but I think it calls into question their motives and objectivity 

[5-Points 2,745]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Agreed.

But I think the matter pretty much ends there.

I’m not a huge Baldwin fan but it seems to me that many of the people calling for his conviction are politically motivated. They could still be right, but I think it calls into question their motives and objectivity 

Like you said, we'll see. 

He isn't entirely guilty but he isn't completely innocent either. 

 

[MDC 5,920]

3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

I was responding to this post. Actors are trained specifically to not aim directly at other people when firing weapons on set. 

The fact that he hit her would indicate that he was pointing the gun at her when he pulled the trigger.

The fact that he didn't take precautions to ensure he wasn't aiming directly at her when pulling the trigger should result in a finding of some responsibility for her death.  

 

Unlike you I have no feelings about Baldwin so I’m not personally invested in the outcome of this case. It just seems to me if the industry hires a supposed expert to assume responsibility for the handling of firearms that’s who should be held liable. I’ll be surprised if he serves any jail time for it.

  

[5-Points 2,745]

11 hours ago, MDC said:

Unlike you I have no feelings about Baldwin so I’m not personally invested in the outcome of this case. It just seems to me if the industry hires a supposed expert to assume responsibility for the handling of firearms that’s who should be held liable. I’ll be surprised if he serves any jail time for it.

  

I don't have to have personal feelings for someone in order to want justice to be served. The industry provides the "expert", in part, to train the actors on the safe handling of firearms. Baldwin didn't follow his training and a woman ended up dead as a result. He bears some responsibility for that. Whether it amounts to jail time or not remains to be seen, but I doubt it will. People don't always go to jail for negligent homicide, which is what I think this was. My guess is he gets probation. 

[MDC 5,920]

3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

I don't have to have personal feelings for someone in order to want justice to be served. The industry provides the "expert", in part, to train the actors on the safe handling of firearms. Baldwin didn't follow his training and a woman ended up dead as a result. He bears some responsibility for that. Whether it amounts to jail time or not remains to be seen, but I doubt it will. People don't always go to jail for negligent homicide, which is what I think this was. My guess is he gets probation. 

Okay. Again I don’t really care other being sort of amused at Geeks saying he should go to jail for murder because they don’t like his politics. That’s not going to happen.  

[Strike 4,018]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Okay. Again I don’t really care other being sort of amused at Geeks saying he should go to jail for murder because they don’t like his politics. That’s not going to happen.  

No one said he should go to jail for murder.  But what he did was at minimum negligent and more likely some form of manslaughter.  And this has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with someone being dead as a result of his ILLEGAL actions.

[MDC 5,920]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

No one said he should go to jail for murder.  But what he did was at minimum negligent and more likely some form of manslaughter.  And this has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with someone being dead as a result of his ILLEGAL actions.

You should take a spin through this thread: Link

Several Geeks said he should go to jail for murder and it’s obviously about politics for the GC.

[Gepetto 991]

19 hours ago, MDC said:

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. 

https://nypost.com/2021/10/22/one-shot-fired-by-alec-baldwin-tore-through-two-people-on-movie-set/

[IGotWorms 3,351]

21 minutes ago, Strike said:

No one said he should go to jail for murder.  But what he did was at minimum negligent and more likely some form of manslaughter.  And this has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with someone being dead as a result of his ILLEGAL actions.

You must think we were born yesterday

[IGotWorms 3,351]

How about a thought experiment?

What if it had been Clint Eastwood instead of Alec Baldwin?

Eastwood isn’t my favorite though I don’t have it out for him like the righties do for Baldwin. Hell, Unforgiven is one of my all-time favorites. Anyway, my take would be pretty much the same as with Baldwin, that there shouldn’t have been live ammo in that gun or anywhere on set, and that it is the people that 1) introduced live ammo and 2) failed to detect its introduction that should be held responsible. I.e., the armorer and likely the supplier.

The difference is, I bet a lot more of you would be agreeing with me, if it had been Clint Eastwood who was acting in that film, rather than the liberal, Trump-hating Alec Baldwin.

[Strike 4,018]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

You should take a spin through this thread: Link

Several Geeks said he should go to jail for murder and it’s obviously about politics for the GC.

I've read that thread.  I'm not going to read it again.  I don't doubt someone said that possibly but I would posit that their true beliefs would be more along the line of manslaughter.  I will concede that the word murder may have been thrown out there though.  Many people post/speak imprecisely. 

[Strike 4,018]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You must think we were born yesterday

Well, on that point I speak for myself.  I focus on issues, not politics.

[MDC 5,920]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

I've read that thread.  I'm not going to read it again.  I don't doubt someone said that possibly but I would posit that their true beliefs would be more along the line of manslaughter.  I will concede that the word murder may have been thrown out there though.  Many people post/speak imprecisely. 

Yeah, you were wrong. And the political stuff started from Page 1. HTH.

[Strike 4,018]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

Yeah, you were wrong. And the political stuff started from Page 1. HTH.

Ooh you got me for not being aware of what ALL geeks post.  Hear that @TimHauck.  MDC proved me WRONG!!!!  

[MDC 5,920]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

Ooh you got me for not being aware of what ALL geeks post.  Hear that @TimHauck.  MDC proved me WRONG!!!!  

I didn’t get you for not being aware of what all Geeks post. I got you for claiming “no one” called it murder or made it about politics. 

[TimHauck 1,829]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Ooh you got me for not being aware of what ALL geeks post.  Hear that @TimHauck.  MDC proved me WRONG!!!!  

Did you admit you were wrong about there being female pirates?

[BunnysBastatrds 1,937]

 

 

 

[tubby_mcgee 691]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:54 AM, Mike Honcho said:

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.

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. 

So If I pay Jimmy Jinkins $7 to make sure the gun isn't loaded, I can blow someone's eyebrows out the back of their head and then say "wuddn't muh fult.  Talk to Jimmuh"

Good to know. 

 

lol "professionial gun safety keeper trackerer" --  the real term for "armorer".

You can't focking shoot someone and say "It's someone else's fault".    Name 2, 3, 10 etc other instances in the USA where someone has shot and killed someone, and the shooter got a lesser charge by saying "some other dude is at fault for loading the gun"

Go.

[tubby_mcgee 691]

20 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

 

What if it had been Clint Eastwood instead of Alec Baldwin?

 

It wasn't Eastwood. 

Same reason why the following isn't a scenario:

 

What if  a gang NRA members and the local trap team had gold chains around their necks and face tattoos looted a Target, and then they turned their glocks with serial numbers sanded off,  sideways and fired 80 rounds into the local Lutheran Church choir for stepping on their turf?

 

[Mike Honcho 4,055]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

So If I pay Jimmy Jinkins $7 to make sure the gun isn't loaded, I can blow someone's eyebrows out the back of their head and then say "wuddn't muh fult.  Talk to Jimmuh"

Good to know. 

 

lol "professionial gun safety keeper trackerer" --  the real term for "armorer".

You can't focking shoot someone and say "It's someone else's fault".    Name 2, 3, 10 etc other instances in the USA where someone has shot and killed someone, and the shooter got a lesser charge by saying "some other dude is at fault for loading the gun"

Go.

Really, you think that's what I said--you can hire anyone for that role. 
 

Quote

They are their own independent department on set. “Some people will join the Prop Masters' Union but that is really a different category. It is very expensive and difficult to become certified as an Armorer, which varies from state to state; therefore, an aspect of the job is that it can be niche.

 

[seafoam1 1,879]

Jail time for Baldwin. 

[IGotWorms 3,351]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

It wasn't Eastwood. 

Same reason why the following isn't a scenario:

 

What if  a gang NRA members and the local trap team had gold chains around their necks and face tattoos looted a Target, and then they turned their glocks with serial numbers sanded off,  sideways and fired 80 rounds into the local Lutheran Church choir for stepping on their turf?

 

Thank you for proving my point

[seafoam1 1,879]

23 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

How about a thought experiment?

What if it had been Clint Eastwood instead of Alec Baldwin?

 

A crime is a crime. 

Bye bye Eastwood.

If you retired and took a job at Home Depot as a handyman, and someone asked you to use a forklift to get a pallet of concrete mix off a top shelf in one of the aisles but you didn't know how to use the equipment, would you just jump  in and use the equipment?

Ever think that some people are just bad or lazy at their jobs and you need to be the voice of reason to prevent disaster because in the end it's on you?

[tubby_mcgee 691]

3 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Thank you for proving my point

Proving your point?  You didn't understand my point.

Eastwood isn't a liberal who just shoots someone then points to a 3rd party and say "Uh...it's THAT persons fault.  They were supposed to make sure ....."

Eastwood didn't shoot someone in the face.  He's not a stupid liberal.

Just like the NRA will never team up with the trap club, and have face tattoos and loot a Target and shoot up a church with sideways Glocks.   Its NOT WHAT CONSERVATIVES DO.

It IS what LIBS do.  

 

Annnnnd IF Eastwood did it, he should go to jail like anyone else should.  Fock hollywood and their special privileges.  Hell, if he got the death penalty immediately after court sentenced him, it would be the best thing we could have. These focking schmucks that think they can get special treatment because "Dey Famous" -- fock them all.