I'm confused
He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
Why is he being dragged through the mud and the blame entirely goes on him and not whoever loaded the gun and handed it to him.
I'm confused. He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
I think it's because he shot and killed a lady. Hope this helps
Aaayyyyy
I don't see how that's a problem.
Because he pissed-off some israeli guy and now he's being publicly humiliated until he bends down and sucks that circumcised wiener as an apology. Simple as. Nothing ever is done without the approval and action of the israelites.
as a israelite, nothing makes me feel more pride than reading posts like this. shalom, my goyim
Shalom tunnel rat
Because its equally his job make sure he handles firearms correctly. Just like you'd instinctively make sure the sword you're carrying isn't actually sharp.
You're moronic
Not only did he kill the person. As the producer it was his responsibility to make sure the people working behind the scenes were properly qualified, which he failed to do.
in what way was she unqualified?
>she
I think you answered your own question
legally though
Well for one she was a scab who replaced the union workers who walked off the set in part because of safety concerns.
the unions statement doesn't say thats why there was a walkout. they reject that reason
>woman
>scab
>handed him a loaded gun
Doesn’t sound very qualified to me, moron.
i'm talking about legal shit here, obviously you can't determine someone is unqualified before they do the unqualified act. she worked on other films, so i don't know what you could point to
She never took the family out for a rooty tooty fresh and fruity. Frick that b***h
>she
She's looks qualified to my dick. If ya know what I mean! ::wink:: ::wink::
>tattoos and nose piercing
that's who died? and people are making a big deal out of it. call me when baldwin murders someone with value.
no that's the armorer also being charged and on trial next month
the woman he killed is pic related, Halyna Hutchins, and a man was also injured Joel Souza
thats a gay man, nice try
Need to work on the reading comprehension buddy.
Why do people always call her "the armorer". HER NAME IS HANNA GUTTIEREZ REED. NEVER FORGET.
>posing to show off her body
>she's fat, pudgy, pale and has never worked out a day in her life
why are women like this
>Hiring a woman to make sure lives aren't in danger
HAHA LMAO KEK
>in what way was she unqualified?
She handed him a loaded gun
why do you dipshits say this, i'm talking about pre-hiring. and there actually is reason to think that. but baldwin didn't hire her so it doesn't really matter
>but baldwin didn't hire her so it doesn't really matter
He did though
He hired a woman with an unnatural hair color and multiple face piercings to handle weapons. She's grossly incompetent but so is he.
>in what way was she unqualified?
Young. Hardly any experience. A literal nepobaby of an industry veteran.
195226060
>Hey Cinemaphile, I'm a loser with no friends and my family hates me. I'm going to act moronic for attention. Hope you'll give me some (you)s. It's the only thing that brings any joy to my empty life.
Producer Alec Baldwin hired everyone, made sure the set was improperly, and made the production a rushed mess.
He hired the armorer, so he's culpable for their negligence. Also he's been in dozens of movies where he's held a gun before and knows the first rule of gun safety is to check if the gun is loaded. Instead of doing that he decided to point and click for fun. Very negligent. He's a bad actor too.
it wasn't about it being loaded, it was about the rounds in the gun. somebody mixed in live rounds
A completely irrelevant statement. It was a revolver so all he would have to do to confirm the load is use his eyes as blanks look totally different from live rounds. The fact that the armorer he hired had real ammo anywhere close to the set is insane. Movie sets never need live ammo.
she claims she didn't have live ammo there though. the director said they were dummies but admitted he didn't check all of them. they came from her dummy box that had "suspected" live rounds mixed in. whatever that means. somebody put live rounds in the dummy box
Imagine even having live rounds on a movie set. Usually a live round on a movie set means something that goes bang, this one actually had a bullet in it.
That live round does not spontaneously combust, friend. When we shot Dallas we often time had "red shot" on set, but it was conspicuously marked and segregated from the rest of the ammunition on set (namely in the master armorer's trailer). Ask me how I know.
what is red shot?
Red shot is an industry term we used back in the late 70s when there was ammunition on set that was anything more than a bang-snap. Also the primer had a red-pink dot on it that was easily spotted on the smart side of the round. In those days we did not even consider having talent check a firearm "safe" as we would often be required to reverify once they fussed with it. We were supposd to be the last line of defense before an accident could possibly happen.
It's like your testifying to their negligence. All that is very fricked up and very negligent to the work an armorer does.
i agree, i'm just trying to figure out why they were there.
What's the armorer supposed to do in this situation? Buy 1000 blanks and weigh each one to make sure the seller/manufacturer didn't frick up?
If you've got a big box of blank bullets and you think there might be a couple real ones mixed in you must either go through he bullets one by one or you need to throw them all out. This would be obvious to a two year old, wtf is wrong with you? Do you think it would be okay to just risk it? Are you afraid of making people do their jobs?
Was there any reason to believe there was live rounds? IDK, if I buy a box of blanks I assume they're all blanks.
If studios had to individually check every single prop on the off chance a manufacturer fricked one of them up it would astronomically increase costs for little gain
>Be workin day to day as a wagie
>Some order comes in overseas
>It's from some fancy film company in the west
>Sneak a live round and sit back and wait
What the frick do blanks have to do with it you moron
The dumb frick is too stupid to understand that even pointing the gun at her, regardless of what it was loaded with, was against the rules.
Yes but what do blanks have to do with it?
The issue is a live round being mistaken for a dummy round. Blanks are a completely irrelevant subject.
Woah buddy I think you need Grand Slam to calm you down. I'll be out front to pick you up in 10 minutes.
that sounds like a lot of work. i don't have time for that shit. frickign boomers and their rules
Only that you load a revolver one bullet at a time, how the frick you wouldn't notice the weight and little hole in the casing while preparing it?
If you can’t tell the difference between a blank (all brass or platstic case with a crimped end) and a real bullet you shouldn’t be let near a firearm.
But the issue isn’t blanks, it was a live round confused with a dummy (inert) round. And anyone who can’t tell a dummy round from a live one also has no business being an armorer.
Every single dummy round should be verified inert before being loaded in a functioning weapon.
Yes. She's being paid to work on Hollywood sets as an armorer, a fricking dream job for some I'm sure. Oh no she has to count bullets well guess what that's what armory jobs are, inventory and inspection, cleaning and routine maintenance. If she didn't want to do that she could get another job.
That's bullshit. The set staff were using the gun to shoot at cans. Also, if the purpose of the gun was to shoot blanks, why use a real gun?
that cans shooting thing has never been confirmed, someone anonymous just told 'theWrap' that was happening. no one else has said that
Okay, but why did they need a real gun?
i don't know. they probably shouldn't be doing that, but i guess for revolvers its so you can see the gun is loaded with something
Real guns are used to shoot blanks you dipshit
dummies look like live rounds.
False. Here is a dummy. Does not look like a live round.
I can see how they might not want the actors to mess around with the guns at all or be in any way responsible for them. In a normal situation sure you'd check yourself but for the purposes of making a movie maybe they'd just rather have the guns strictly controlled by a professional. I'm not familiar enough with guns to know all the ways accidents can happen but it's understandable that they might not want actors fricking around with them.
BULLSHIT. He is not a bad actor.
Calm down Alec, save that fire for the prison yard.
I will find you, Matt.
First rule is not pointing a gun at something you don't want to destroy, an "unloaded" gun can and has killed people
It's not rocket surgery. If you get handed a gun, clear it yourself and have one of your buddies verify to make sure you didn't miss anything. If you just grab a gun someone hands you and just go with the "dude trust me bro" of it being cleared you're negligent and at fault.
Why would he clearly it when it was meant to be loaded with blanks for the scene? It's also dangerous to fire a blank directly at someone which is the fault of the director/cinematographer for setting the scene up like that
Because it's one of the most basic rules of gun safety? Because it doesn't matter if you're on a movie set or not when you're handling firearms?
Because every time you pick up a weapon you inspect it. It was meant to be a dummy round so the first thing to do is to verify it's a dummy round.
>Why would he clearly it when it was meant to be loaded with blanks for the scene?
Because it's literally part of the mandatory safety training they receive.
he is actually not supposed to be checking on if things are dummy rounds or not, since you can't tell. the director was supposed to do it that day, and didn't
So if someone handed you a gun, told you it was fake, then asked you to point and pull the trigger at another person you would do it without asking any questions?
what do you think Alec should have done? after having two checks, go and put the dummy on a scale and see if it weighs the same as a live round?
>what do you think Alec should have done?
he shouldn't have treated it like a toy.
answer the question.
He shouldn't have pointed at anyone and he shouldn't have pulled the trigger.
But how is he supposed to kill women if he can't shoot them?
is there any movie with guns where actors don't do that?
Yes, every film with guns avoids pointing them at people and pulling the trigger when the camera is not rolling.
why is it ok if the cameras are rolling
Not without a proper safety check. He also wasn't even doing it as part of filming, he was just fricking around and she died because of his negligence.
not only did he treat it like a toy, he did it in a god dang church.
That's the real issue, Alec is a noguns liberal (like 99% of Hollywood) so he has no idea how dangerous a gun can be, he just goes in front of the camera and says "pew pew" under his breath
They all have mandatory training.
>That's the real issue, Alec is a noguns liberal (like 99% of Hollywood) so he has no idea how dangerous a gun can be, he just goes in front of the camera and says "pew pew" under his breath
And that's exactly WHY they hire an armorer in the first place. The responsibility is on her.
If their JOB is literally to provide you a fake gun so you can pretend to shoot it in a movie set, then yes
>Be Executive Producer
>Hire non-Union workers
>UHH ACTUALLY IT'S THEIR FAULT!!
Sorry Alec, that Denny's breakfast isn't going to keep you out of prison
>duhhh duhhh DA FURWST WULE IS DDDDUHHHHHHHH DA DA FIRST DUHH RULE IS UHHHHHHH
I don't know why morons vomit this totally useless information in every single discussion of this. This isn't Bubba's Gun Range where you are teaching your mom how to hold a gun, moron. It's a prop being used in a movie, which is far far far far far beyond guns 101 and telling meemaw which end the bullets come out of. You'll have scenes where you put a gun next to someones head, and you'll have scenes where you point it at people and expensive equipment and there's not much you can do about that save for not shooting the scene period. Thousands if not tens of thousands of movies have used guns in scenes where they point it at people and shit, and gun deaths on set are still rare.
Shut the frick up.
>Prop
It's a real working revolver that's being used as a prop, it isn't a prop in and of itself
Wow, thanks for the update. Anyway, most guns used in movies are ALSO usually real guns. Fricking paramount or whatever isn't gonna go to the store and get a plastic gun that looks like shit on screen, and they aren't gonna pay the money to make some replica that has the same weight and look as something that exists.
movies create props all the time moron
>Anyway, most guns used in movies are ALSO usually real guns.
This might be the stupidest post in the thread so far, you moronic fricking homosexual.
>Real firearms are routinely used while cameras are rolling, and injuries of any kind are rare. The reason is that safety protocols for firearms on sets are well established and straight forward.
What the FRICK? I thought nobody used r-r-real guns on a set because that's super dangerous and guns are scary! AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Who are you quoting?
>The reason is that safety protocols for firearms on sets are well established and straight forward.
Too bad Alec didn't follow them.
it was a replica thats used for reenactments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_1858#Modern_use
>Several companies produce drop-in "conversion" cylinders for replicas, enabling the firing of low-pressure modern cartridges without altering the revolver's frame
JESUS CHRIST
does this mean that's why the gun didn't explode in his hand when he fired it?
>What is a prop gun?
>Prop firearms are either REAL GUNS or specifically made to be blank firing only
Oh man my finger is sore from googling a whole basic term. Oh man ouchie my arthritis. Maybe it'd be less painful to just be spewing terms I don't know about the internet to win an argument on a case I apparently know nothing about either.
I bet you homosexuals don't even know what blanks are either LMAO.
>or specifically made to be blank firing only
>seriously thinking there are no prop guns that are just molds that don't function in any manner at all
>Doesn't know about rubber guns
>Doesn't know about electronic replicas
You are living in your own moronic head if you think the average movie is going to bother with either of those options, especially if you want any scenes with muzzle flashes.
Reality is: most prop guns in movies are real guns. If you disagree with this, feel free to link me a source. You will not, because you can't
You think the Unions and insurance companies are cool with live firearms and ammunition on set? Do you know how many times accidental discharges have happened on sets?
>You think the Unions and insurance companies are cool with live firearms and ammunition on set?
Yes, given by the insane number of movies that utilize real guns as a prop, and given that it's basically the industry standard for the history of film.
>the insane number of movies that utilize real guns as a prop
Name 5
the thing used flammenwaffers and no one died
Flamethrowers are not guns. Look it up.
that's splitting hairs.
no one died.
>Make a semantic argument
>BTFO yourself
noguns liberals are too funny.
I own guns. I do not own a flammenwaffer.
I was taught proper gun safety.
Because they followed proper safety procedures and had competent men running things and not scab diversity hires.
The Captive (1915) where an extra died
Cover Up the tv show where Jon-Erik Hexum died
The Crow where Brandon Lee died
Scarface where Al Pacino burned his hand on a hot barrel
Die Hard where Bruce Willis lost hearing in his left ear after firing loud blanks under a table
Terminator 2 where Linda Hamilton suffered hearing damage after shooting a blank in an elevator without ear plugs
The John Wick series uses plenty of rubber and electric guns and the first film was made on an average budget.
Real guns do get used more but it's disingenuous to say "Oh well there's just no other options, we're all morons who routinely point real guns at people's heads." when that's just not true.
That disingenuous homosexual will say anything to absolve Alec of responsibility. He doesn't give a frick, he's just arguing for the sake of politics.
Obviously not a prop since it was capable of firing real ammo you moron
>too stupid to understand and acknowledge there are rules and regulations and procedures when dealing with guns on set
>too stupid to realise their are props that are just plastic and rubber in the shape of a gun
>You'll have scenes where you put a gun next to someones head, and you'll have scenes where you point it at people and expensive equipment and there's not much you can do about that save for not shooting the scene period.
You're incredibly ignorant of industry practices if you think they just take a real gun and point it at people's heads, or actually point guns at cameras.
First, read through this
Second, there are several methods used for the things you describe. Scenes where a gun is pointed at someone from a distance use camera tricks, it's actually pointed just off to the side of the person to avoid another Brandon Lee. Scenes where the gun must be right at someone's head use either rubber guns or nonfiring replicas if the gun needs to be operated. For pointing at the camera, they use shielding for the camera itself, point the gun off to the right or left, and people behind the camera stand to the opposite side so they're out of the line of fire.
and yet failing to adhere to the rule lead to him killing someone and now facing charges for it. I show people my pistol sometimes, It's loaded. I never point it at anyone and don't pull the fricking trigger on it.
Ok. How many flicks was he in where he had to sit through a MOVIE gun safety briefing? He also wasn't following those rules.
>Why is he being dragged through the mud and the blame entirely goes on him
Because he pulled the trigger. Ultimately, you pull the trigger and someone dies, you're going to jail and will have to be tried to determine what level of culpability you should have. Rich people getting away with killing is the last thing you want to have happen in this country.
Why the frick were there even live rounds in the vicinity? I'm no /k/ommando but that's just asking for trouble.
They were shooting for fun after the days film shoots were over.
thats the real question, if you read the armorer's case its much more interesting, she brought the dummy rounds and has the receipts for buying them, so she blamed the supplier. that didn't pan out so it makes you wonder if someone put some live rounds in those boxes, or if she did
>or if she did
I don't think she did, I remember hearing leaked audio and she was like crying or something.
seems like someone on set might have mixed live rounds in somehow. i don't know any other way this could have happened
wait... you don't think...
doing something bad accidentally can still make you feel bad
it's possible but her exact wording was "I just fricked up my whole career"
so idk. seems more negligent than malicious
yup. case closed
The armorer was a nepo baby who only got into the industry because her dad is a famous movie armorer. She already had a bad reputation of bringing live rounds to play target practise using the same guns that would be used for scenes. Nice cage once yelled at her because she fired a gun without warning anybody
Nobody told him to point a gun, prop or not, at the woman BEHIND THE CAMERA, and PULL THE TRIGGER. Why'd you pull the trigger in the cinematographer's direction??
OP's logic is anyone can feign ignorance that the gun they operated with their own hand, was to be loaded with bullets by SOMEONE ELSE. JFC!
they think he is lying about not pulling the trigger. Being it was "filmed" they want proof
So as long as you didn't load the bullets YOURSELF, what you FIRE FROM THE WEAPON is NOT YOUR DOING -- even by YOUR OWN BODY + WILL! Training the sheeple that ACCOUNTABILITY HAS LOOPHOLES!
the director is supposed to double check, you don't trust actors to know what dummy rounds are. he glanced at them, trusted the armorer, and plead guilty for that. the fault lies with whoever put live rounds in the dummy boxes
It’s negligent to point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger when you don’t intend to injure or kill them. It’s negligent to point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger at all, but even more so when you don’t want to injure or kill them but don’t bother to ensure the weapon is not loaded.
Yes, negligence gets involuntary, as though he didn't plot out a scheme to kill an Ukrainian woman in roundaboutt ways. Just casual recklessness, in a workplace bound by rules and HIERARCHY of job duties.
>buy gun
>tell friend to load it with bullets
>forget about it for a week
>walk to a random person and pull the trigger
BUT OFFICER I DIDNT KNOW IT WAS LOADED! I DIDNT EVEN PUT THE BULLETS IN THERE!
He is a killer and should face justice for his crimes. I hope they throw the book at him.
He hired scabs to work the set, including the armorer who gave him the loaded gun, the entire production suffered because of his actions, that fact that he also fired the gun is just icing.
As the producer of the film he’s also the management level. If he sends the armorer home he’s legally assuming the duty of firearm safety as there’s no hired expert in which to defer that responsibility. So even though he was also an actor on the production his role as a producer brings culpability and removes any reasonable doubt that he may have had as a hired employee.
I think it's a bit rough, he bought her family breakfast afterwards.
Why doesn't he just say he's a woman to get let off? Worked for Bruce Jenner.
>Why is he being dragged through the mud and the blame entirely goes on him and not whoever loaded the gun and handed it to him.
Well, there's two angles:
Firstly, magashits are rejoicing in the opportunity to put Mr Baldwin's balls to the fire, so to speak. They dislike him because he made fun of their Father Figure (If someone denigrated my dad I'd want to stomp his teeth in.)
Secondly: Baldwin was a producer on the show and has some degree of culpability for running a dangerous set and employing an inexperienced and female armourer.
>dangerous set and employing an inexperienced and female armourer.
You are right except this part.
She's not inexperienced. The armorer is a woman and comes from Hollywood royalty. Her family is a well-known Hollywood armorer family that has worked in the business for decades as armorers, and their family runs an armorer business for Hollywood. She was trained directly by her father (very respected Hollywood armorer for drcades), and had worked on set before.
She claims that when she stepped away from her work area for a few minutes, *someone* on set had grabbed one of her guns and loaded it with rounds without checking to see if they were real bullets or blanks. Then this person handed the gun off to the crew on set who then handed it to Baldwin telling him that she (the armorer) confirmed the gun was safe and only had blanks loaded. Then they filmed the scene of Baldwin aiming the gun at the camera for a POV shot for the trigger firing. The gun had exchanged hands multiple times before reaching Baldwin. Each saying the gun was safe.
They don't know who did this. If this story is true, I highly doubt they will ever come forward. It would nky surprise me if it was probably some lowly PA that was getting yelled at by the crew to hurry up and get the gun.
I'm also surprised Baldwin isn't getting more protection from Hollywood Elites. Usually they cover up stuff like this and keep the story buried ad much as possible. I guess he's fallen out of favor?
She is inexperienced, she got the job from nepotism, didn't pay attention when her dad told her what to do(ew sexist much?!) probably scoffed and flipped her hair when told to focus, ignored everyone (or was on her phone) and her dad got her a job and she didn't know anything.
>I'm also surprised Baldwin isn't getting more protection from Hollywood Elites.
If he wasn't Alec Baldwin he would have been in custody this entire time. There were too many people around and involved for them to cover the story up.
nicolas cage went insane at her because she blew his eardrums out. not even making this up.
>She claims that when she stepped away from her work area for a few minutes, *someone* on set had grabbed one of her guns and loaded it with rounds without checking to see if they were real bullets or blanks
According to Reuters:
>Gutierrez-Reed said she loaded the live round into the "Peacemaker" revolver used by Baldwin thinking it was a dummy round.
Whats the source for your version?
>She was trained directly by her father
He came out and said as much, then walked it back when he realised that was going to damage his business and possibly expose him to a lawsuit.
Wasn't the actual story she'd used that gun atva range recently with live ammo for whatever reason
That's one I had heard as well. Still looking for the source.
maybe because he didn't need to unload the whole mag on her
any update on the girl armorer who fricked it all up?
she's still awaiting trial, she has a lot of charges, maybe bribery with narcotics too. she tried to sue the supplier of the dummy rounds. her cases are much more wild.
>Reminder he still hasn't been charged with attempted manslaughter for shooting the Directors
new mexico doesn't have any attempted manslaughter, most states don't have anything like that since its a contradiction but certain ones will have it for certain DUI circumstances
So in New Mexico you can just go around shooting people by accident as long as they don't die?
no. that's a completely different scenario. i'm saying there's no attempted manslaughter. going around shooting people would be attempted murder but you can't attempt to do a manslaughter because it lacks the 'attempt' part, which is what makes something manslaughter
Then it should be gross negligence at least
well you're mixed up because he didn't shoot at anyone else. nothing i can find on that
then how did two people get shot
>Baldwin's stunt double had accidentally fired two blanks when he was told a prop gun was 'cold', and the film's prop master shot herself in the foot with a blank round.
>Why is he being dragged through the mud and the blame entirely goes on him and not whoever loaded the gun and handed it to him.
Alec Baldwin played Trump on SNL for a time.
rent free
>Cinemaphile: famous people have a separate justice system! they are immune from consequences!
*famous person being investigated by the state like any citizen would be and facing same consequences any normal person would*
>also Cinemaphile: why is he being dragged through the mud? I'm confused
>Cinemaphile is not one person but several thousand people with different opinions about a lot of things
Nah, all these posts are me
even “yours”
do they really want to set this guy off again? he's a loose cannon
Nobody actually believes his guilty, the people claiming he deserves prison literally just hate him because he mocked Trump
I'm a libtard troony who hates Trump and think if a jury convicts him and a judge sentences him to prison he should go to prison
Why should he be immune from going through a trial like anyone else?
He's not guilty of murder, but anybody else in that position would have been tried for manslaughter so he should be too. Just because you allow politics to alter your morality on a whim does not mean everybody else are guilty of the same thing
nah, they wouldn't. film sets have different rules. it really depends on what version of events is true. this isn't clean cut
He killed a person on accident. It warrants a trial and the government agrees
i agree it should have a trial. i don't think he's going to get charged unless some more information is out this time. if he's lying about the trigger and they're able to determine that, thats what will frick him
i misread your comment btw, i thought you said something else.i agree with you
>i don't think he's going to get charged
He is charged as per a grant jury. The word you want is convicted.
>film sets have different rules
Do you morons ever stop to think about how this sounds?
>Yeah, my house has different rules. I'm allowed to dryfire my gun while poi-BANG
>oh, woops. good thing my house has different rules
Hey did I hear you ducking imply consenting adults can't do things in the privacy of their own home?
you can't blow up your car in your driveway. you can on a film set.
This is a fine example of what I was talking about. We used to have a saying back then: "Broken omlettes, broken eggs!" The point being that when you shoot film you often break laws. But not real laws.. Because it is a MOVIE.
>>Yeah, my house has different rules. I'm allowed to dryfire my gun while poi-BANG
actually you can do this. the only violation here would possibly be discharging a weapon within city limits, but if your outside of city limits, yeah, you can put holes in your tv, legally.
The example is about shooting you, not the tv.
>Nobody actually believes his guilty,
The fact that he shot a woman dead isn't in dispute
Alec was hated long before Trump. He's been virtue signaling constantly for decades but is primarily known for having an extremely short temper and being extremely abusive to basically everyone around him. Nobody likes hypocritical liberals especially ones that are extremely good friends with the Clintons.
I want to see entire film unions sued into oblivion because their rules about not having hte person using the firearm checking or manipulating the firearm as a legal shield for them is in itself a gross breach of the actual legal responsibility. It's literally making grossly negligent felonious behavior policy and they should be destroyed for it.
the union people left the set before this happened. the people working were not part of the union. unbelievable how stupid this board is
I speaking for the purposes of the industry as a whole you moron. Everyone defending this goes on and on about their policy, how they don't let actors check the weapons because then it would need to be re-checked by their armorer and producer in an infinitely repeating loop of re-checking the weapon.
This isn't a defense because your gay ass private set, unionized or otherwise, doesn't get to change legal responsibilites.
Explain how society would be negatively affected if guns on set had to be infinitely checked in a loop by different people.
When I say infinitely, I mean literally infinitely. Again, their own argument;
>Armorer checks gun
>Producer checks gun
>Actor "isn't supposed to" check the gun checks the gun
>armorer and producer now have to take the gun away and re-check the gun
>Actor checks the gun again because that is his legal responsibility to do when someone hands him a gun to manipulate
>repeat forever
Obviously, it's a moronic argument and actors who have to manipulate black guns should just be trained to the necessary standards and check the weapon with the armorer and producer.
This loop is very accurate and resulted in more than one armorer being fired. Case in point is Jim Hawley, a hell of an Egyptian I worked with when I forst got into the business. Of course, back then it was unheard of to take lip from an immigrant like that, so he was let go.
you're attributing the mess up to unions, the union wasn't involved. it makes no sense
>you're attributing the mess up to unions
No, I attribute it to Alec Baldwin. I'd also like to see various organizations flipping out over the attack on their "authority" to tell people how they can operate firearms in violation of actual laws.
There are tons of places you can blow up your car, that was a terrible example.
yes, different places, firms, and operations have different laws. congratulations
Not about pointing guns at people you mongoloid
>pick up gun
>assume its unloaded
>fire at people
>they die
>WHAT THE FRICK HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW IT WAS LOADED
iirc, it's because he was also a producer and cheaped out on getting a competent weapons master
apparently rule on set is to treat all guns even props like their loaded and real. so why aim and fire directly at another human being???
well no one says he aimed at all. and what do you mean? have you ever watched a movie? people point guns at each other all the time
>I'm confused
That’s because you’re stupid.
>He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
It wasn’t a prop gun and so fell under the responsibility of the armorer, not the property master.
He also negligently handled the weapon, breaking several safety rules, including those created by SAG-AFTRA after Brandon Lee’s death.
>Why is he being dragged through the mud and the blame entirely goes on him and not whoever loaded the gun and handed it to him.
The armorer is also in the shit, but New Mexico law doesn’t recognise “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” as a legal defence. Baldwin was negligent in his handling of the weapon and absolutely deserves to be charged.
the legal concept is called contributory negligence
is the frickup 100% on him? definitely no. but as actor, as well as the set producer he could have prevented it. he'll get a large civil verdict entered against himself and the production llc, and that will probably be the end of it
Because ftm troons don't understand real penis sizes they all ask for 7 inch dongs, because they'd want the perceived "ideal size". Many don't understand the girth and size is too much for most girls and so none of them can even stick their hairy disgusting gangrenous thigh sauseges into a woman's slit.
He hired a woman to do a man's job
He should hang. Diversity and feminism is all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Now pay the price
Literally a witch hunt by Alec Baldwin haters who are mostly conservatives since he's an outspoken Liberal.
He even makes chuds Matt Stone and Trey Parker seethe who tried making fun of him in their lame Team America movie
He killed a woman
Yes, mocking Trump gets you a Kill a Woman Cinematographer For Free card.
Man that easily secures Biden's victory
2-TIERED justice system for libem leftists now!! We DEMAND.
Jews have completely reversed themselves and are now throwing their support behind the GOP so they can genocide Palestinians. Baldwin will be sacrificed to this end (his protection has been withdrawn). I'm afraid that Mr. Baldwin is in for eighteen months of butthole defense in a New Mexican prison
> props departments job to check, not his.
All actors get a mandatory safety training to handle firearms. The training includes things like:
>"only accept the weapon from the assigned handlers"
Baldwin accepted the gun from some random person. The weapons handler wasn't even on set that day.
>"if you aim at someone, you intend to kill them AKA you assume every gun is loaded with real ammo"
Baldwin was playing with the gun and aiming it at people (and shooting at them).
But you're right, this clusterfrick of a production already had actors and the crew complaining about the lack of safety. So the producers should probably be hold accountable.
it wasn't a random person, it was the director, who said he checked. nobody says he was aiming at people, but that it went off right after he un-holstered it
> It was the director who checked.
Oh, you mean the guy who got shot. Sure homosexual sounds solid.
>nobody says he was aiming at people
He pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger.
'aiming' is an inventive term.
you you stupid homosexual, you can't point a gun at someone, but you can on a film set. you can't pay people to have sex, but you can on a film set. Film sets have different rules, in your scenario at the gun range, those also have different rules than film sets.
You can do all those things outside of a film set so long as it’s play-pretend like it is on a movieset. Play-pretend doesn’t fall under their own set of laws. Are you like 13 years old or something?
i can go 130 miles on a road with a car and blow it up just because i'm 'playing pretend'
but i can get permits to do it for a film
>you can’t pretend to buy sex outside of a film set
Moron
porn you dipshit, its not pretend.
Even under the safety guidelines of SAG, Baldwin, the armorer, and the assistant director fricked up multiple times.
Under the law AND under the guidelines of the film industry, they were negligent.
he didn't though. in the property masters absence, he was to consult who was in their stead, which was the director. thats why the director plead guilty
Show me where you’re allowed to shoot people on a film set you fricking spacker.
you're inventing things i didn't say. the law is going to look differently on the hierarchy of responsibility on a set vs at a gun range. the scenarios are distinct because of expectations.
>nobody says he was aiming at people
I say so, considering he SHOT TWO PEOPLE
he did not shoot two people. aiming is different than just firing and hitting someone
"Yes officer it's all good, I shot him but I wasn't aiming."
honestly, i just think its good to be accurate. there's no reason to bring in the idea he was aiming, there's a clear intention when you do because you want to make this seem more purposeful so its just annoying
He aimed at her and pulled the trigger, there's no getting around that.
He was producer and was aware of multiple prior incidents in the production, yet he chose to act recklessly and wave a gun around.
>t. no guns moron
>I'm confused
Because you don't understand the law.
>He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
This is what you don't understand about the law. A gun is viewed in law as inherently dangerous. The same goes for things like explosives, certain chemicals, heavy machinery, ect. You are deemed legally to be aware of the potential for this item to cause great bodily harm or death.
Baldwin talked to the cops. He admitted that he knew it was a real gun. He knew it was a real gun when he decided not to check to see if it was loaded. He knew it was a real gun when he wienered it. He knew it was a real gun when he aimed it a person. He knew it was a real gun when he pulled the trigger. He's guilty under New Mexico's statutes. The armorer may also be guilty but that doesn't absolve Baldwin of his own action.
Had this happened under different circumstances would you feel he was not responsible? If Baldwin was at a gun range and the range master handed him a real gun, told him it was a real, told him it wasn't loaded and Baldwin then, without checking for himself, wienered it, pointed it at another person and then pulled the trigger, would he have any responsibility then?
This is no difference legally the two scenarios.
this is wrong though, there are different laws regarding filming and gun ranges. film sets have a lot of laws only applicable to them
>He thinks that film set rules override state and federal law
Jesus Christ you’re a fricking moron.
Are you brain damaged m8?
The best question is “would Baldwin have checked the weapon if he was supposed to put the barrel in his mouth and pull the trigger?”
They found out, through forensic testing, that he lied about not pulling the trigger. Big mistake to lie
yep exactly, if he hadn't gone on TV and run his big mouth it wouldn't be like this
imagine thinking Alec Baldwin wouldn't run his big fat stupid mouth
I never expected him to do anything less, but it's why I have zero sympathy for him
He's not even sorry
>He's not even sorry
That was extremely apparent from the beginning. All the "progressive compassionate" lefties couldn't give less of a frick that he killed her though. He mocked trump so in their mind that gives him a permanent pass.
What are you talking about? He took the family out for breakfast and apologized. What more do they want from him? Money? Are they really gonna stoop that low? Life moves on, let it go
>Life moves on
Not hers. Because he killed her.
Come on dont be so melodramatic
>person dies
>uuuuuuuuuuhhhhh don't be so melodramatic bro
So Alec made a little mistake. Big fricking deal. It was like a year ago, move on
He should have taken them to IHOP instead, that's more expensive
>so, I killed your mum
>pass the syrup pls
For real though what kind of small talk do you think they would make? Or would they just sit there in silence picking at their grand slams
>so you kids play any sports?
>I miss mom
>yeah I know, it really wasn’t my fault though, I am sorry though
>…
>so Matt you’re a lawyer right? How’s work going?
>oh you’re going to be taking some time off? I can understand that…
>you know really, I didn’t pull the trigger. I just didn’t, it was a tragic accident with no one to blame and I’m just as upset as you are
>you guys should really look me up if you’re ever in the Hamptons
I have thought this out over and over. a few times I kicked myself right in the fricking feels.
>hey you guys want to hear my Donald trump impression?
Technically not true. The forensics said that the gun couldn't have gone off without the trigger being pulled. Now, did Alec 100% pull the trigger or did the Reach Around Ghost do it?
Trump pulled the trigger with his mind.
Scientistic gibberish. Not everything takes a college degree. Look up what "Cowboy Action" is. You absolutely can fire a revolver with the hammer, in fact, not trying to blow your mind here but, the trigger moves the hammer.
Nah the Reach Around Ghost did it.
not all guns are the same. especially guns used on movie set.
your time at the range does not make you more of an expert than the team of FBI forensics anslysts who have spent weeks examining every little thing about this specific gun
>your time at the range does not make you more of an expert than the team of FBI forensics anslysts
Honestly it probably does given the absolute state of the FBI
it was a type of gun used in cowboy shooting. we know what the replica was of
so all he needs is an expert witness or a video of that in court and he's good
>Should he be convicted, Baldwin could face up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
meanwhile it's been almost 2 years since the incident, jesus christ convict him or don't
He was supposed to fire a blank. It was a rehearsal. Why the frick did he even need to pull the trigger during a rehearsal anyway. Everyone involved with this was dumb
By his own words, he was not supposed to fire. He was only practicing his cross-draw and "the gun suddenly went off" while his finger wasn't on the trigger.
The reason they’re moving forwars with the indictment is because they found out he lied about not pulling the trigger. Forensics found out that he had to have pulled it for the round to go off
For sure, I'm just rebutting the idea that the gun was intentionally fired for the purpose of a rehearsal.
The likeliest answer is that Baldwin had his finger on the trigger like an idiot as he was drawing.
>The likeliest answer is that Baldwin had his finger on the trigger like an idiot as he was drawing.
That woudn't make it shoot. It's a single-action old west style revolver. Shooting is a two-part process. The trigger does nothing until the hammer is wienered back
The way I understand it, the movement of the crossdraw is meant to be that he pulls it out and wieners it quickly. If the trigger is pulled the whole time, once he lets go of the hammer the gun goes off.
The weapon is a Pietta replica single-action revolver with a hammer bar safety, it literally cannot discharge unless manually wienered and the trigger is pulled.
Pic related, straight from the user manual of the relevant model of handgun.
not saying this is what happened but if you look up the director i could imagine him handing baldwin a wienered handgun.
i guess if its a quick draw that might have been the idea for the scene too.
It was the second assistant director IIRC that handed him the pistol. The actual director was wounded by the same bullet that killed Hutchins.
thats not true at all
>"the gun suddenly went off" while his finger wasn't on the trigger.
He lied and she died.
They were framing a shot, similar to a rehearsal, and there was not supposed to be any gunfire at all, blank or otherwise. When asked to do another framing setup, Baldwin allegedly said “how about I just shoot you instead?”, wienered the hammer, aimed the pistol at Hutchens, and pulled the trigger. Blanks were not involved and there was no reason at all for Baldwin to have wienered, aimed or fired the weapon.
Because he didn't call the based department.
If I handed you a gun and assured you it was not loaded, then you fire it and kill somebody on accident, you are still partially at fault. It is still your responsibility to check the gun. That is the basics of gun safety, which Baldwin should be very familiar with. He is also a producer on the film, further increasing the onus on him to ensure things are safe. He shouldn't get locked up without the key forever but he absolutely needs to face serious consequences.
>If I handed you a gun and assured you it was not loaded, then you fire it and kill somebody on accident, you are still partially at fault. It is still your responsibility to check the gun
What if you were also a magician and used a mirror to make it appear unloaded, though it was? Should I have to thoroughly check for any and all tricks first?
Literally yes. It takes TWO SECONDS to check a gun once it's in your possession, there is no reason for any reasonable person to avoid doing so. Baldwin himself said he elected not to check because he didn't want to shame the newbie armorer.
Yes, if a magician hands you a gun and tells you it’s unloaded, and you choose not to get it yourself, but instead point it at someone in the audience, squeeze the trigger and shoot some dude in the head, you would still be tried for manslaughter
we all do agree there was a magician involved though, right?
>ackshually, ignorance means you are immune from prosecution even if your ignorance accidentally kills someone
Brain damaged
I can't believe everyone just ignores that there was a mysterious bald man seen on set that no one on the crew seemed to know. Did everyone just forget? It's like he was never even there or something.
because its a clear case of involuntary manslaughter by negligence, since he didn't check the gun
it's the same as e.g. skipping your yearly car service/review and then killing a pedestrian on a crossing because of brake failure
also the fact that he's lying about not pulling the trigger outed him as a sociopath
Because the person responsible for a weapon is the person holding it.
>he involuntarily slaughters a wo(man)
>charged with involuntary manslaughter
how is this so hard for redditors to figure out?
He was handed a gun by the idiot he hired. He failed to inspect the gun himself, and there was no reason to point the gun at anyone, or pull the trigger. He might be able to get away with it because he’s rich, but don’t expect acting like a moron to be a viable method for you to escape justice. The blame lands on him any way you slice it, but the c**t he hired should face charges as well.
He’s a lot less rich now and has been selling off things like his real estate portfolio. He knows trouble’s on the way.
where do you get the idea he hired the director? i don't think thats been established, i don't even think he was in charge. the guy was the director who handed him the gun
>pulling the trigger
intent
I think it’s because he sidled up to her, presented the pistol to her forehead and growled “did I fire six shots, or only five? Then he fanned the revolver, striking her with six shots in the head. He spun it around his finger, blew on the barrel, chuckled, then whispered “my bad, guess I didn’t fire anything.” He then walked off, spurs clinking. When he was almost out of the room, he looked back over his shoulder and said “You get what you fricking deserve!”
Imagine trying so hard to be funny and failing so spectacularly.
I don’t have to imagine. I live that life every day. Every post a new disaster. Nnx8k
There are universal firearm safety rules that do not magically go away when you are a celebrity or for that matter the Vice President.
if there was no payout possible nobody would bother with any law action against him. the people who do are just looking for a fat payout
The fricking balls on that widower prick. Alec bought them pancakes and said sorry, and this is how they thank him? Ungrateful pricks
Yeah, I'm sure the husband and kids are just in it for the money
THIS homie COULDN'T HOLD HIS LOAD LMFAO
BUSTED ALL OVER SOME LADY AND THEN TOOK HER KIDS OUT FOR BREAKFAST
Some of you haven't watched this and it shows. Baldwin basically prosecutes himself.
It was self defence. She was coming right for him.
He's not guilty of anything
You’re just saying that because you’re an incel who hates women and you’re glad Alec took one out behind the barn
>He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
When you're literally the one who pulled the trigger, you can't just say "it's not MY fault!"
Derrick Choven was handed a loaded Black with a history of violent crime and 12 different drugs in his system plus covid, and he got 25+ years after Fenty Floyd OD'd.
He's liable because of his own volition he decided to aim and fire the gun at the cinematographer, not of which is in the script nor was he told to do so
is this meme event getting revived comms for a future ~~*event*~~?
It's because he was just charged with manslaughter
It wasn't voluntary. Also, he was never charged for shooting the director. which should've been attempted manslaughter
>hire people to check thing
>thing gets passed to me
>use thing
>accident happens
>"erm sweaty, it's your fault for not also checking it"
>mfw I'm hiring a ton of people of people to check things that are completely redundant because I have to check everything anyway and expected to have the same level of knowledge as them
Yes that's how it works in any professional industry
I have worked in both chemical labs, hospitals and had a FFL to sell firearms. You don't cut corners and every step is necessary by every party, you are paying for the extra employees to bring the possibility of an "accident" to zero.
>Yes that's how it works in any professional industry
Yeah no.
If a qualified electrician signs off on work and it ends up sparking off and burning the entire building down, the owner isn't held responsible for shit.
That's not a comparable situation at all. The law does not treat a building as an inherently dangerous object.
The project manager running the site is definitely getting sued for hiring the subcontractor, I've done enough corporate remodels to know that.
He is the producer and the armourer wasn't even on set, why would he have a gun at that point?
he was an actor for the movie, there were a lot of producers. it was a scene he was rehearsing.
>You see your Honor, it's impossible for me to have killed that woman
>Because I didn't pull the trigger
He was in charge of production, he is in the one ultimately responsible for anything that happened on his set. You also ALWAYS check any gun you're handed yourself. ALWAYS. No exceptions. He is 100% at fault and deserves punishment.
he was not in charge of production. he was a producer, which you would think Cinemaphile would understand can mean anything. he wasn't executive producer.
The director was supposed to check, they are dummy rounds, the actor can't tell because they look the same.
>the actor can't tell because they look the same.
Wrong, Baldwin not only knows the difference but took the time to explain the difference with physical examples when police asked.
?feature=shared&t=2957
obviously he couldn't. you can see when he goes to shake and listen for the rattle. he even said in that interrogation you can make them more cosmetic. I'm looking a bunch of shit up on this and every expert is saying a visual check isn't good enough
Weird, every expert I've seen say that actors are expected to do a visual check anyway and that dummy rounds have the primers punched out which are a clear sign.
well i don't know, i just watched videos of them saying you have to listen for the rattle because a lot of them look identical. so whatever, i'm not an expert, i've never seen a dummy round before
Doesn't matter, he is getting compensated with salary that he is only entitled to if he has a supervisory role. Whether he was actually fulfilling the responsibilities of the role or not, his employer classification makes him liable. Perhaps he should put a suit against his employer for mis categorizing him as an employee.
no because that isn't his responsibility. just because you're a producer doesn't mean you run the set. Producer doesn't have inherent responsibilities, its not about being categorized in any way. a writer can be a producer, they aren't suddenly in charge of the prop department, same way an actor isn't
If I am a part owner of a firm doing construction and I maim an employee because my forman tells me nah brah its cool
I'm fricking liable for the dumb action and his judgement.
producer is a credit. its akin to being an investor in a lot of cases. investors aren't liable
DIE YOU FRICKING b***h
he was handling it stupidly
>He was handed a loaded gun which it was the props departments job to check, not his.
Legally, it's your job to check the gun you were handed. Unless you are legally declared to be mentally incapable or are not a legal adult, that is your legal obligation.
Made up hollywood rules are not relevant.
>Actor and Producer, different obligations
>prior safety standards experience from past work
>safety walk off by staff; after hours plinking
Arizona has laws which his culpability as Producer gets him on the hook.
>it was the props departments job to check, not his.
False, especially if it was a real firearm. As Producer he was obliged to on top of the Armorer as well. Then there's the individual practical check as an Actor one needs to do anyways just as a self-preservation thing. Procedurally he fricked up doubly as Actor/Producer, the twice again brandishing it at Hutchins + pulling the trigger. Five times over if he hired the nepobaby yung gun Armoress himself.
this wasn't in arizona. jesus christ everyone how hard is it to look something up before you talk
Alec did nothing wrong
HE PAID THE WEIRGELD FOR FRICKS SAKE
HE BOUGHT THE GRAND SLAM AND THE HOBBIT HOLE BREAKFAST TOO
WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?
he "jokingly" pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger. he exercised poor gun safety
actors are required to view the gun being loaded, and unloaded, in the presence of the armorer. if there is no armorer present, they are required to call SAG AFTRA to report the violations.
the armorer was not on set. alec baldwin proceeding without the armorer is negeligence.
why was the armorer not on set? well, they had replaced half the crew with non-union members because half the crew walked off set just 24 hours ago
why did the half the crew walk off set? concerns over firearms safety and handling, after 2 negligent discharges had occurred in the past week, one resulting in in an injury.
the armorer should of been fired. who hired, and was responsible for the armorer being there, (when she wasnt)?
alec baldwin, the director
alec baldwin was NOT the director, the director plead guilty. holy fricking shit this board is moronic
he was a producer. same rules apply. it applies to literally everyone on set whose apart of SAG. which alec is. and has been, for about 40 years.
prop master duties fell to the director. director claimed he did the check. thats why the director plead guilty.