Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Thanks. Same here. Sort of. As in more likely than not.

Yeah, there's not much difference, if any, between the two phrases. Someone, probably a lawyer, at some time seems to have decided to use "preponderance" because it sounds all grand and stuff.

Not nearly the difference between, say, "vaccine" and "treatment."

TheRedneck

'The Scintilla of Truth' is another law school standard.
I would always hear first year students
working this into their conversation.

It's probably used for pre-trial charge selection or case accreditation
more than actual case work.

The term carries a lot of applicable leeway.
By definition...the 'spark' of truthfulness
or of accurate witness, may simply get snuffed out
in the budding stage, with the design to pre-empt
qualifying as a case before anything else, more significant,
in time unfurls....

This is ridiculous therefore anything
that is brought forth
toward this
is also ridiculous.

The whole thing lacks 'The Scintilla of Truth'.

Sorry about drift....


# 1453

a reply to: face23785

Sorry for the double response, but thinking about the father's attitude I just cannot help becoming somewhat analytical:

People have a built-in desire to survive. Most of what we do in life ultimately is for the purpose of either survival or reproduction. It has been said that everyone is executing a logical, planned methodology for survival in the type of world they think they live in.

"Normal" people, like you and I, have a more intense need to protect their family. I know I would consider it an honor to die protecting my children, if I can die knowing they would be safe. However, it seems some people do not have that protective instinct towards others. It especially seems to be lacking in the entertainment industry.

A child who grows up in a family with the protective instincts intact would likely grow up with a feeling of protection themselves, capable of placing the welfare of others, especially others who are close to them, ahead of their own interests. This is how society formed in the first place: people banding together in family units at first, with the goal of bettering the lives of all at the sacrifice of the individual, and later expanding to more complex and distant relationships. But the child which grows up in a setting where that protection instinct is not prevalent is pretty much unassured of their own safety should a situation ever arise where they were in danger. Thus, they will become more dependent on society in general, and less assured that society will protect them if needed.

Such a person would obviously become interested in ensuring that society operates according to their needs, without concerning themselves with the needs of others. After all, if they are not going to receive protection from a society which has not protected them in the past, why would they expect a free society to protect them in the future? Control of societal functions becomes a methodology to maintain protection.

Those of us who did grow up protected have a different outlook on society. We tend to believe that society will protect us if need be, and therefore we tend to concentrate on protecting others. The end result is that we tend to not be as concerned about the actions of others, as long as those actions remain legal and reasonable.

Hence, the divide we are seeing. On one side are those who believe in individual freedom, equal legal standing for all, and personal responsibility. On the other side, however, every issue is a potential crack in the protections provided by society and thus must be rigidly controlled for their own protection. This divide expresses itself most obviously in the difference between urban and rural locations. Cities are the crux of society, designed originally for the protection of the citizenry, and therefore attract those who seek individual protection. These are the same people who then feel the need to control every aspect of that society to maintain that protection for themselves. Rural areas, on the other hand, are attractive to those who have no real concern over societal protections, but rather are more self-sufficient. These people do not want their lives interfered with, because they have no intention of interfering with the lives of others. They simply want equality and justice, because those ideals override any minor desire for safety and protection.

That is why we have some people who will cry "No one is above the law!" and then change their perspective when that conflicts with what they consider a greater danger is threatened by the equal application of the law. We consider that to be dangerous in itself; to us, the benefits of a just legal system far outweigh any difficulties from that just legal system. To them, the possibility that gun control might not be implemented is a greater danger than any benefits from a just and equal legal system.

To me, that is insanity. But then again, I do not fear the freedom of others.

TheRedneck

a reply to: peaceinoutz

The round was presumably a .45 Colt. That particular round is powerful enough to penetrate the body of one person, exit the other side, and injure a second person.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for that. I know little about guns.

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Yes.

The way I had it explained once, by a sitting judge in a courtroom, was this: the accused enters the courtroom with a cloak of innocence surrounding him. It is the duty of the accuser, the prosecutor, to present enough evidence that, on the surface, indicates potential guilt. That evidence must be enough to remove the cloak of innocence to allow the prosecutor to present additional evidence to prove the accused's guilt. If the prosecutor cannot do so, the cloak of innocence is restored.

In order to first remove that cloak of innocence and allow a trial, there must be a "Scintilla of Truth" evidence that can be presented to a court succinctly and convincingly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: peaceinoutz

No problem. I have no problems with answering legitimate questions. Everyone should know something about guns and how to safely handle them.

You may even stump me; I don't know everything. But if you do, I'm sure someone else can answer you. We have some informed people here.

TheRedneck

I would think the police would be vigilante here since they say there was a lot of controversy about this movie set being unsafe and some disgruntled folks protesting over it. Maybe, there is a possibility of some kind of sabotage. Unlikely, but possible.


Really a sad case though--the talented young lady had a kid and was on her way up in the movie industry.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I am in a bit of shock that a father would see something like this happen and not have some animosity toward the man who negligently pulled a gun, pointed it in the direction of his daughter, and pulled the trigger without knowing the gun was empty.

I think it's part of that culture that we've been battling here in this thread. Some people just don't know enough about guns to even realize Baldwin did anything wrong. They think he's totally innocent regardless of the circumstances because he didn't mean to shoot her. The father might fall into that category. Or that may have been really early on before he even knew what happened. Or Baldwin lied to him. I've seen reports that Baldwin has been in contact with the family. No doubt he's in damage control mode.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for that. I know little about guns.

Bravo for asking a serious question and accepting the answer.

So many times on these topics, we get people who don't know anything about guns and don't want to learn. Or they ask something but won't accept the answer because it doesn't line up with what they expected (which was usually fed by movies or gun control propaganda.) The worst are those who don't know anything yet ridiculously try to argue with those who do.

It's nice to see someone engage who is legitimately just curious and doesn't have an agenda. We're happy to talk to people like you. Teaching more people about guns is actually a first step towards any meaningful steps that might cut down on gun violence. The people who refuse to learn about the issue and keep the public distracted debating absurd gun control proposals that won't do anything are actually holding back progress.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
I would think the police would be vigilante here since they say there was a lot of controversy about this movie set being unsafe and some disgruntled folks protesting over it. Maybe, there is a possibility of some kind of sabotage. Unlikely, but possible.


Really a sad case though--the talented young lady had a kid and was on her way up in the movie industry.

Unfortunately, no matter how vigilant the police are in investigating, they have no authority to file charges. Sometimes prosecutors make political decisions about whether to charge rather than just weighing the evidence. Hopefully that doesn't happen here. I think there's at least enough evidence to send it to trial. Let a jury decide.

a reply to: face23785

No doubt he's in damage control mode.

Oh, Alec Baldwin was likely in damage control mode before the sound of the shot died off. There's a pic going around purportedly showing him on the phone just after the shooting. Now, presumably he is calling 911, but... I can't help but wonder if that is really true? Likely he was calling for help, but was it help for her, or help for himself?

Nah, I can't let thoughts like that cloud my judgement. Just because I don't like him, that has no bearing on what happened.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Unfortunately, something else that's happening is that most of the criticism and calls for charges are coming from conservatives, because we generally are more of the gun-savvy people who know that this was more than just a freak accident. There are liberal folks who know guns as well, of course, but they'll just stay out of it or falsely defend him, just like some military and security experts who knew better pretended there was nothing wrong with Clinton's email scheme. Party before country.

The consequence of that is I think we're giving the media an easy out to protect him. They're just gonna say the right is out to get Baldwin for any numbers of reasons, opposition to Trump, gun control advocacy, etc, and that we're attacking him for political purposes. Like most issues, they'll use that to avoid actually discussing the facts.

a reply to: face23785

From the articles I have seen, that's already happening. I saw one (can't remember the link) where someone who had ostensibly worked with Baldwin talked about how careful he was with firearms prior to this.

Now, can you imagine an average person being tried on similar charges and the defense trying to excuse it because it hadn't happened before? They'd be laughed out of court, and likely lose their license to practice law!

Ironically, it is that very attitude that makes me despise people like Baldwin in the first place. "Rules for thee, none for me." I've know truck drivers who wound up in prison because their truck hit a car, some of whom had long records of safety. The fact that they had driven safe for 2,000,000, 3,000,000, 5,000,000 miles safely had no bearing... but it apparently has bearing here.

And the result will be that more movie sets will follow this example to save a few precious dollars at the expense of safety. They'll be OK, this was just a fluke, no one will actually get hurt here, and even if they do, no one will be charged. It will be written off as just an accident.

In short, these people who are defending Baldwin saying it was "just an accident" are condemning who knows how many others to death in similar circumstances. All for politics. That's about as disgusting as it comes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, those aren't real tragedies that occurred though.

SNL has been taking jabs at presidents since long before trump. What's the tragedy that occurred?

A real death is a tragedy especially in the way it happened.

Some perceived ego bruising (unless youre one of the snowflakes that the right has been famous for decrying) doesn't exactly fit the bill.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I'm just saying turn about is fair play. You can disagree with that all you want. Won't change my mind.

If not for Baldwin's continual badgering of Trump for four years, I would be hitting back at Don Jr. for posting that. But I am reading your feelings on this as more "rules for thee, none for me." I will never accept that.

Fair is fair, politics be damned.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do we have evidence there even was a bullet yet?

I still believe it may have been shrapnel.

TheRedneck

Blank rounds don't have shrapnel. The very most that could have come out of a black round are hot gas, a tiny amount of unburnt powder and you would have to be at extremely close range for that to do any damage to anyone, like under 2 feet. The western guns being used on the set were not "prop guns", they were real guns. Prop guns cannot fire a live round with a projectile, these western revolvers can fire live rounds and there was most certainly at least one live round in this gun.

Incorrect. Prop guns cannot fire, and blanks and even caps can expel shrapnel

": a projectile that consists of a case provided with a powder charge and a large number of usually lead balls and that is exploded in flight"
www.merriam-webster.com...

Plastic bits and not exploded powder are covered in the definition of powder.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

Blank rounds don't have shrapnel.

Look... someone just died from improper handling of a firearm. It was 100% avoidable, but tomfollery and a lack of information overcame all that.

Please, just this once, can we stop spreading misinformation? Blanks may not be supposed to emit shrapnel, but they certainly can, and they certainly have. Those brass casings are not indestructable.

Please?

TheRedneck

You seem to have that CNN misinformation thing down. Blank rounds don't shoot out shrapnel, casing failures happen rarely in semi-autos and even more rarely in revolvers due to the design of the cylinders which fully support the casing. Please stop spreading misinformation.

25 years with blanks (longer if you count in my time volunteering with shooting the blank gun for special Olympics race starts, then I'm close to 30 years). Blanks can and do expel shrapnel, although it is exceedingly rare in general, and lethally rare in specific. I've seen 2 burns in said 30 years, but those 2 burns are from shrapnel. Both were minor burns, and at a greater than 10 ft. length away from a blank gun.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I really need to do some research on blanks. I keep seeing references to plastic blanks, which raises some questions in my mind... like, what kind of plastic are they using? Many of the plastics would melt under those temperatures, and even if they didn't actually turn liquid, just the creep from overheating would cause them to present problems with sticking to the metal in the gun.

I dunno... there are a lot of different plastics; I just know the higher-temp plastics can be quite expensive. I guess I just need to get some technical info on these plastic blanks to understand how they work.

(BTW, you're wasting your time with that poster. Did you know revolvers don't have firing pins? Smith & Wesson lies... YouTube said so!)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

The misinformation is yours, sir. I only pray no one listens to it.

TheRedneck

Oh, like the misinformation you just posted about a "prop gun" not having a firing pin? Some prop guns have firing pins, which are needed to fire a BLANK. The reason they cannot fire a round with a projectile is that usually the barrel is modified so that an actual round with a bullet cannot fit into the barrel and the action closed to fire the round.

No. Prop guns do not fire. That is why they are props. Did you read the thread? I broke it down long before this.
Blank guns (or cap guns) might have a modified barrel, but that modified barrel, is of the same size, just with an obstruction welded in, so we can clean it with the same gun cleaning kits we can use with with a standard firearm.

I appreciate your defense of the situation, except that it is wrong.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But I am reading your feelings on this as more "rules for thee, none for me."

Not as an orange and apples comparison?

Am i wrong in assuming that you're trying to get me to acquiesce that Trump's bruised ego over the last 5 years is roughly equivalent to a death on a movie set?

I have no feelings other than the law being the law.

I have said MANY times over the years my affinity for firearms and i thoroughly disagree with overreaching gun restrictions, which is clearly in stark contrast to what Baldwin believes. But ya know what brother? I didn't fight overseas for only the people i agree with or for "one side". With that, comes a basic understanding that people can actually attempt to do the right thing without the need to attach an affiliation to that desire.

At any rate, take care my friend and keep your powder dry!