What's new

Alec Baldwin Shot a Lady

If it would have been Baldwin shot and killed, liberals would be demanding charges as it was a Right wing conspiracy!
 
Obviously, I do not disagree but would it make this person's arguement any different?

How can any person then be responsible if they assumed that the person before them unloaded, had the safety on, loaded blanks, etc. into a gun?
IMO on a movie set it's reasonable to expect that a prop gun that you are handed by an armorer or propmaster is safe to use as a prop gun, outside of that there isn't a reasonable expectation that it will be so.

Aaron Z
 
This may have been stated, I didn’t read all the thread. The thing that killed Brandon Lee was an unknown barrel obstruction ( I think it was a dummy round) that was fired out from the force of a blank loaded in behind it. Anyone could have checked and verified it was a blank but that wasn’t the problem.

So its not as simple as just verifying if the gun is loaded with a real round.
 
Why was he shooting/aiming at the cinamatogpher ?
 
Why was he shooting/aiming at the cinamatogpher ?
s-l300.jpg
 
Why was he shooting/aiming at the cinamatogpher ?
This was my thought. If he was supposed to be aiming/shooting at them, it's an accident, but if he was just joking around, it's manslaughter. I don't care if the gun had something in the barrel or whatever reason it's considered "hot". I hope they are doing a serious investigation.
 
that's my point. Actors are portraying people that they are not. Do you think an actor flying a ww2 plane actually knows how to fly a ww2 plane? No, they are told what to do, and filmed. In most cases, actors don't know what they are doing. they are just made to look good doing so. that's why it's called "acting"

:flipoff2:
The difference is pretending to fly a plane, really pulling the trigger.
 
That you mount your own tires.

But regardless, you trust someone did their job correctly and the tires are made safe.
:lmao: I've never had a tire shop mount my tires on my vehicle, if the are 16" or less I'll mount them on on the wheels as well.

A tire blowing out is pretty far from pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.
 
:lmao: I've never had a tire shop mount my tires on my vehicle, if the are 16" or less I'll mount them on on the wheels as well.

A tire blowing out is pretty far from pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.
Sure…

How is a tire blowing out any different than a prop gun, deemed “cold” by two people who’s job is to check it is cold, being intentionally discharged by an actor while filming/rehearsing a movie scene? You trusted the tire manufacturer to make a safe and roadworthy tire.
 
Sure…

How is a tire blowing out any different than a prop gun, deemed “cold” by two people who’s job is to check it is cold, being intentionally discharged by an actor while filming/rehearsing a movie scene? You trusted the tire manufacturer to make a safe and roadworthy tire.
If you have a tire failure and crash it's still going to be your fault.

I stand by what I said he had no buisness "operating" that gun not knowing how it worked. It's his fault, he didn't give enough fucks about his career to learn the tools of his trade.
 
If you have a tire failure and crash it's still going to be your fault.

I stand by what I said he had no buisness "operating" that gun not knowing how it worked. It's his fault, he didn't give enough fucks about his career to learn the tools of his trade.
If you have a tire failure, it’s not going to be criminal.

And sorry, I’m sitting here picturing you driving down the highway on four unbalanced mismatched used tires!
 
If you have a tire failure, it’s not going to be criminal.

And sorry, I’m sitting here picturing you driving down the highway on four unbalanced mismatched used tires!
Fawking stalker :laughing:.
My tires all match and I have a bubble balancer.
 
I think the argument is getting confused here. If a tire blows out and you hit a bus load of nuns, the burden of proof is on the nuns to prove negligence. I’d call that a passive or indirect action.
If you pull the trigger of a gun, swerve into traffic, stab someone with a knife, the burden of proof is on you to say there was some defect or unknown “something” as to why you aren’t liable. I’d call this an active or direct action.
I don’t know the legalese but there’s a ton of case law that lays out what I described and it’s at least correct on the broad points.

Now, that’s not to say I believe this was more than a tragic accident, but a reasonably avoidable one if all parties involved had more of an idea what they were doing. The ‘reasonably avoidable’ part is what will open up Baldwin and others to criminal and civil penalties, possibly. It definitely would if it were you or I involved.
 
I think the argument is getting confused here. If a tire blows out and you hit a bus load of nuns, the burden of proof is on the nuns to prove negligence. I’d call that a passive or indirect action.
If you pull the trigger of a gun, swerve into traffic, stab someone with a knife, the burden of proof is on you to say there was some defect or unknown “something” as to why you aren’t liable. I’d call this an active or direct action.
I don’t know the legalese but there’s a ton of case law that lays out what I described and it’s at least correct on the broad points.

Now, that’s not to say I believe this was more than a tragic accident, but a reasonably avoidable one if all parties involved had more of an idea what they were doing. The ‘reasonably avoidable’ part is what will open up Baldwin and others to criminal and civil penalties, possibly. It definitely would if it were you or I involved.
It’s a prop gun on the set of a movie. Not a teenager fucking around with his dad’s gun.

The prop gun on the set was deemed safe by the two people who’s job is to make sure it is safe, just like you trust your tire manufacture made your tires safe.
 
I feel bad for him if it was truly pointing it at the camera as directed and pulling the trigger, not screwing around. It would be different to kill someone innocent that you knew and worked with versus some meth head breaking into your house at night.

There is zero excuse for live ammo on a movie set, especially where you’re required to violate the two most important gun safety rules. Literally don’t point it at anyone or pull the trigger and you’ll never had an issue.

My sympathy stops the minute he starts blaming the gun or pushing for gun control based on this. Apparently he’s come out in the past against the NRA and trying to restrict the 2nd amendment.

What pisses me off the most about the left is not that they have a different point of view, people are entitled to have opinions, even dumb or unconstitutional ones. I cannot stand the hypocrisy that is so commonplace among them however. If you want to “take a stand” for gun control, stop doing movies where you use guns. Just quit and tell them no. There are Christian actors who will not do sex scenes on camera, even non-nude ones. You shouldn’t be allowed to use something you rail against to make a buck in the name of entertainment.
 
It’s a prop gun on the set of a movie. Not a teenager fucking around with his dad’s gun.

The prop gun on the set was deemed safe by the two people who’s job is to make sure it is safe, just like you trust your tire manufacture made your tires safe.
It was handed to the producer/actor by someone who had no authority to touch it. It was deemed cold by someone who had no authority to make that determination. This according to the articles I linked that no one seems to understand or have bothered to read. In those articles only the AD called the weapon cold, there is no mention of him opening the cylinder to support his contention. From what I have read only one person said it was a cold weapon.
 
That union was making it clear that none of its members were on that set, they made no mention of the NM props department, not sure what your beef with the CA union is?
 
We were discussing this at breakfast with my family this morning when my wife brought it up.

My 10yo daughter said "treat, never, keep, keep what's so hard about that?"
 
So the CA union is going to hang it on the local NM people in the props dept
i suspect in the chain of custody of the "prop" that liability rests with the propmaster/armorer. On set there is no expectation that actors do anything but what the director wants, and the director and actors usually have a technical advisor for guidance. EG Director says, shoot X in the face and tech says better to try for center of mass with a handgun at 25 yards. Actor instruction is very rudimentary. Eg aim gun over left shoulder of A cam operator. I have never heard anyone ever talk about sight alignment on set.

Cast driver
 
That union was making it clear that none of its members were on that set, they made no mention of the NM props department, not sure what your beef with the CA union is?
“Local 44 has confirmed that the Props, Set Decoration, Special Effects and Construction Departments were staffed by New Mexico crew members,” the email said. “There were no Local 44 members on the call sheet.”
Hmm they are Ca! :flipoff2:
I miss read it
 
This may have been stated, I didn’t read all the thread. The thing that killed Brandon Lee was an unknown barrel obstruction ( I think it was a dummy round) that was fired out from the force of a blank loaded in behind it. Anyone could have checked and verified it was a blank but that wasn’t the problem.

So its not as simple as just verifying if the gun is loaded with a real round.
This, sort of. The "gun" was previously used with a dummy round that had a hot primer, it lodged the bullet in the barrel. No one noticed or checked. A day later the gun was loaded it with blanks and the rest is history.

A proper dummy round has a spent primer in the casing with a BB dropped in before the bullet is pressed in. If it rattles when you shake it and the primer is dented, it is safe.
 
Is this in here yet?:


Gutierrez-Reed, the daughter of veteran Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, said on the Voices Of The West podcast that Rust was only her second film as a head armorer.

She had just finished shooting the movie "The Old Way" with Clint Howard and Nicolas Cage. "It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career," she said on the podcast.

"It was also my first time being head armorer as well," Gutierrez-Reed said. "I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly."

Gutierrez-Reed added that she was initially fearful of loading blanks. "I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like 'oh, I don't know anything about it,'" she said. But her famous father, she said, helped train her up.
 
Is this in here yet?:


Gutierrez-Reed, the daughter of veteran Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, said on the Voices Of The West podcast that Rust was only her second film as a head armorer.

She had just finished shooting the movie "The Old Way" with Clint Howard and Nicolas Cage. "It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career," she said on the podcast.

"It was also my first time being head armorer as well," Gutierrez-Reed said. "I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly."

Gutierrez-Reed added that she was initially fearful of loading blanks. "I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like 'oh, I don't know anything about it,'" she said. But her famous father, she said, helped train her up.
That's nice buuuut...


WHY IN THE FUUUUUCK WERE THERE LIVE ROUNDS ON SET? :homer:
 
That's nice buuuut...


WHY IN THE FUUUUUCK WERE THERE LIVE ROUNDS ON SET? :homer:
Maybe there weren’t? I don’t know if we can trust any info at this point.

The more I read, prop guns shouldn’t be able to load live ammo.

I think more will come of this, but the people that hate Baldwin will continue to blame him for making a movie, regardless if this was his fault or not…
 
Top Back Refresh