What's new
By:
Filters

Alec Baldwin Shot a Lady

Without watching 41 minutes of that testimony, it's almost abundantly clear they were licking each other's gashes.
 
Damn, Me and Exwrench get it all figured out and then you two mental giants join back in. :lmao:

CrustyJeep said:
Jesus Fucking Christ... :confused: He's been charged, yes. He hasn't been convicted. You understand the difference, right? The armorer has actually been convicted, and she isn't even the one who pulled the damned trigger, because it was her fucking job to make sure nothing bad happened when some retard (AB) started pulling the trigger.

Not reading all your bullshit. The actual issue is actually pretty well understood by a few of us here... You not being one of us.
Click to expand...

Filthy McChevy said:
This is what happens when someone asks for cliffs notes on over 1000 posts. :shaking:
Click to expand...
 
aczlan said:
If they had a training class at the beginning of the film that he signed as having attended where they covered firearms safety and specifically said not to point it at a person, would that make a difference?


Aaron Z
Click to expand...
No, because he is an elite celebrity, and they have different rules. If you or I shot someone under the same circumstances, we would already locked up
 
TO BE CLEAR:

AB can be charged criminally as the shooter.
ExWrench said:
Jesus Crisco, are you retarded or trolling? :homer:

Here's what you quoted: That's a job performance issue, not a crime. It could also be a civil damages issue, but not a crime.

Based on that, it sounds like AB may be civilly liable but not criminally. Now show me where I missed something, fucktard.

You're high on glue, chief :flipoff2:
Click to expand...

AB can be charged criminally as the shooter. He can be sued for liability in a civil case related to the hiring of the armorer. He can also be sued on a separate civil cause of action based on his own personal action of firing the gun. Whether that results in a conviction or judgment of damages is less easy to determine.

The criminal case against him as the shooter will revolve around whether he was instructed to point a gun at someone he wasn't supposed to, and whether he pulled the trigger. It will (should) NOT revolve around whether he knew the gun was "cold" or not. It is not dissimilar to other cases involving actors playing with blanks, thinking they are harmless. AB says he was instructed to do what he did, and that he did not pull the trigger. If that is indeed true, I do not believe he will be criminally responsible.
 
Ksand said:
No, because he is an elite celebrity, and they have different rules. If you or I shot someone under the same circumstances, we would already locked up
Click to expand...
Everyone keeps saying this, yet no one has shown an example of a non-elite actor shooting someone after being handed a prop gun by a professional armorer, being told it was safe, while making a movie.
 
300sniper said:
Everyone keeps saying this, yet no one has shown an example of a non-elite actor shooting someone after being handed a prop gun by a professional armorer, being told it was safe, while making a movie.
Click to expand...
You can't honestly think our scam of a court doesn't treat the elite differently
 
CrustyJeep said:
Did you actually read the page you linked? The circumstances of that shooting is nothing like this one, and in no way could it have been the fault of the actor. He wasn't even charged. Red herring much?
Click to expand...
Yes, any one of 5 things could have stopped that from happening
  1. A gun was pointed at someone, don't point a gun at someone
  2. Armorer used a dummy round that still had a good primer, should have made certain the primer was discharged first
  3. Armorer and the actors should have called to stop and see what went wrong when the primer went off on what should have been a dummy round
  4. Armorer did not verify that the barrel was clear before swapping from dummy rounds to blanks
  5. Neither actor verified that the barrel was clear before the shot (did they even verify that the rounds were blanks?)
Aaron Z
 
aczlan said:
Yes, any one of 5 things could have stopped that from happening
  1. A gun was pointed at someone, don't point a gun at someone
  2. Armorer used a dummy round that still had a good primer, should have made certain the primer was discharged first
  3. Armorer and the actors should have called to stop and see what went wrong when the primer went off on what should have been a dummy round
  4. Armorer did not verify that the barrel was clear before swapping from dummy rounds to blanks
  5. Neither actor verified that the barrel was clear before the shot (did they even verify that the rounds were blanks?)
Aaron Z
Click to expand...
1. Don't be stupid. That's part of making a movie. Which is why there is such as thing as dummy rounds and professional armorers.
2. Yep.
3. I've never fired a primer-only round and had the bullet lodge in the barrel. Are you certain there would have been any indication that it happened?
4. Armorer pulled a now-spent cartridge out and didn't think, "where's :idea: the bullet"? Nuts.
5. I barely expect an actor to know what ammo looks like what. No one expects them to do a full inspection.

OK, great! Now, did some non-elite actor get thrown under the jail for shooting someone? No, no they did not.
 
CrustyJeep said:
1. Don't be stupid. That's part of making a movie. Which is why there is such as thing as dummy rounds and professional armorers.
Click to expand...
Which is why the actors union says:
1000093450.png

As well as Safety Bulletin #1 (take special note of #5)
1000093454.png


CrustyJeep said:
2. Yep.

3. I've never fired a primer-only round and had the bullet lodge in the barrel. Are you certain there would have been any indication that it happened?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the round was supposed to be a dummy round, no primer, no powder, just a shell with a spent primer and a bullet (either a real, or a wax bullet so it looks like a live round when loading it on screen or if looking into the cylinder of a revolver from either end).
As such, when the trigger was pulled and the primer went off, that should have triggered a "everyone stop, why did this supposedly inert dummy round just make a noise" to verify:
1. What happened
2. Were any of the other "dummy" rounds not fully inert?
3. What happened to the bullet that had been in that shell?
4. Is the barrel clear?
Sadly, as I understand it, most of the changes referenced (requiring actual checks of weapons in the contracts) were enacted in response to that incident.

CrustyJeep said:
4. Armorer pulled a now-spent cartridge out and didn't think, "where's :idea: the bullet"? Nuts.
Click to expand...
Yep
CrustyJeep said:
5. I barely expect an actor to know what ammo looks like what. No one expects them to do a full inspection.
Click to expand...
Right, but if the gun hasn't made a noise in any other run throughs, you were specifically told that it was loaded with inert dummy rounds, now it made noise AND you are pointing it AT SOMEONE'S HEAD, even the stupidest of actors should be able to tell the armorer (or whoever retrieved the gun to switch from dummy to blank rounds) "hey, this gun made a different sound last time I pulled the trigger , can you double check and make sure nothing is wrong before I point it at someone's head again?"

CrustyJeep said:
OK, great! Now, did some non-elite actor get thrown under the jail for shooting someone? No, no they did not.
Click to expand...
Nope, however:
1. That was a far less egregious failure than this one
2. The reforms from that incident have been in place for over 30 years (IIRC that was in 1993)
3. There HAD been incidents of LIVE ammo being accidentally loaded into and being discharged from weapons on the set earlier in the filming :eek:
4. There was no reason for AB to have his finger on the trigger if he was practicing his draw for the camera, in fact, there was no reason not to have it be a dummy gun (ie: a plastic replica of the same size and weight)
5. There was no reason for Hutchins or the camera operator to be in the line of fire, they should have been watching from the side on a remote monitor

Aaron Z
 
Last edited:
aczlan said:
As I understand it, the round was supposed to be a dummy round, no primer, no powder, just a shell with a spent primer and a bullet (either a real, or a wax bullet so it looks like a live round when loading it on screen or if looking into the cylinder of a revolver from either end).
As such, when the trigger was pulled and the primer went off, that should have triggered a "everyone stop, why did this supposedly inert dummy round just make a noise" to verify
Click to expand...
I'm questioning the part about the noise. If the bullet never leaves the barrel, and it's just the primer going off, would there actually be any noise? Would anybody notice anything at all?
 
surpip said:
Primers make a pretty decent pop.
Click to expand...
Sure, in open air. But until the bullet leaves the barrel, a gun is a fairly closed system.

Go to 10:00. He fires three primer-only rounds. The third round squibs. There's no recoil, and it sounds like little more than the hammer dropping.

 
Last edited:
Sandy Johnson said:
-10 points for not saying:
  • her career was shot
  • it would put a muzzle on her aspirations as a armorer.
  • She got too cocky



Like how I did those with bullet points?
Click to expand...
wow... shooting from the hip today with your comments.
Are you loaded? Little early don't you think?
Not your regular caliber of comment

:flipoff2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh