Alec Baldwin May Have INTENTIONALLY Killed That Woman

a reply to: McGinty

And when those shots are made, there is no one behind the camera. It is operated remotely.

They usually have a protective screen set up as well to protect the camera. it only takes a tiny hole to allow the lens to function, and the chances of hitting that are minute.

NEVER POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING YOU DO NOT WANT TO KILL!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: visitedbythem
1873 F.lli Pietta long Colt 45 revolver. Same as Baldwins. I presume its a six shooter

Best picture I could get at this angle

Here is my 357. See the rounds? They are smaller then the 45 long Colt. Six shooter

Thats where I look if someone draws on me


Heres my 50 mag. See the rounds? One solid, and one hollow point. 5 shooter. They are a little bigger then the 45 long Colt

And this is the 50 mag part of the gun you never aim at anyone unless you are aiming to kill.

So out of 6 rounds in Alec's, 5 blanks, and one was lead, and just so happened to be in the chamber next to fire when the trigger is pulled?
Something seems fishy to me...


a reply to: machineintelligence

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

a reply to: madmac5150

LMAO at the dark humor here.

"And this is the 50 mag part of the gun you never aim at anyone unless you are aiming to kill."

*Proceeds to look directly down the barrel of a loaded gun.* 🤔

Cheers 🍻.

😜

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for the education, i've never been on a feature set where guns were used. Still, though i'd say that if these precautions were not being taken on the Rust set, then it's a responsibility of the studio and producers, or whomever made that financial decision to scrimp on the health & safety.

However, being a producer on Rust means Baldwin may shoulder some of that responsibility. That said there's actor producers who simply buy that title in order to have more control of their role and don't really play a part in logistics and finances. A court needs to decide which kind of producer he was.

But that's a seperate issue to his responsibility as the person being handed that gun to use. I take your point about a driver being responsible for the vehicle. I've been that driver in a car with faulty brakes getting into a serious collision when delivering pizzas over 30 years ago. My license lost points (how it works in the uk) as well as the car's owner's licence. I accept that's the law, no arguments. But how many pizza deliverers give their car a full once over before driving - how many would know how - i didn't. If we want to mandate such laws of responsibility more rigorously, then we'll all have to start collecting our pizzas from the shop, because anyone qualified to thoroughly check every aspect of the car probably won't be delivering pizzas.

Despite the law, society allows loopholes in order to function. When something goes wrong we need to reassess how that was aloud to happen, rather than stringing up what amounts to a scapegoat. Sorry if my metaphor has wondered into the long grass a little. My point is that it's a morally grey area to accuse someone of negligence in an area they weren't hired to be knowledgeable in.

Yes but the guy he "accidentally" shot in the face lived. So not a very good point darth Cheney shot his hunting buddy in the face we bird shot not a bullet
Alex pointed a weapon and pulled the trigger. Rule # 1 of gun safety is to treat the weapon as tho it is loaded.
Following Rule #1 pulling the trigger when pointing a weapon at someone is at best attempted murder (if no one is shot) at worst premeditated murder.
Alec is guilty of the latter since he pointed his gun and shot 2 people one died.
If he had followed rule #1, 2 people wouldn't have been shot.
Even in their "story" he is guilty as sin. Perhaps he did follow rule #1 and killed one an injured another is intentionally.
All we have is their story at this time.
Anyone know of anyone who was able to become h wood star after going against a "legendary" actor.
What will be most interesting is if a different story is told by another or in a different way (video footage)

Warning do not hang around anyone who dismisses this as: a. An accident b. not his fault, and guns since they do not know proper gun safety.
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
D advocate or not Rule #1 must always be followed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'd like a bit more information on what happened. Was she in a designated area for firing live rounds? It would appear that she was or else they would have complained about her shooting where she shouldn't have been. If she was then it was Cage's and everybody else's responsibility to know what was going on and wear hearing protection. When I walk into a machine shop, it is MY responsibility to have safety glasses on and hearing protection if needed, not the machine operator's. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. Actually I think you may have a point about her being the fall guy for this. If that is the intent then Cage's statement could be a part of that.

You hit on the most important part. What was LIVE ammunition doing on the set? That's the big question. Find the answer for that and everything else falls into place.

I still question why she wasn't allowed on the set. As I've said the weapon should have been loaded by her, with Baldwin and one other person. That would meet the "requirement" of Baldwin verifying that he had a cold weapon even if he didn't know how to verify it for himself.

I don't think that it was a matter of Baldwin's time, I thing it was their trying to cut costs. As a Producer Baldwin is responsible if that lead to the cause of this. Something has always struck me as funny. If children are working on a movie, there is someone who is required to be there for their protection. The same thing if animals are used. Why isn't there required to be a "safety observer" present when LIVE weapons are being used on a set?

a reply to: McGinty

If you are a bus driver and you are trained to stop at railroad tracks and you decide since the light isnt on and the rail didnt come down that no train is approaching and you don't stop that's your fault. Is it his job to be a mechanic and look and see why those things went wrong? Nope. It's his job to always be safe, just like it's Baldwin's job to NEVER EVER point the gun at a person EVER under any circumstance and to ALWAYS treat it as if it's loaded. That's his training, he chose to ignore it, someone died.

If you read the side stories about Baldwin actually being arrested for CP etc could it be possible that this was a negotiated way for him to cooperate and at the same time destroying his career and reputation without the CP factor coming into play? With the tweet from the camera operator about Hillary Clinton just days before the incident and her husband's legal association is it possible this was a way for them to be "protected" by being eliminated in a controlled way?

I think it is very possible that this was a planned killing but not in the way some people think. I think most people after looking at the set and how it operated and who is involved there is a lot to be suspicious about.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: McGinty

...it's Baldwin's job to NEVER EVER point the gun at a person EVER under any circumstance and to ALWAYS treat it as if it's loaded.

Honest question, when and where did he get that training?

originally posted by: Charliebrowndog
If you read the side stories about Baldwin actually being arrested for CP etc could it be possible that this was a negotiated way for him to cooperate and at the same time destroying his career and reputation without the CP factor coming into play? With the tweet from the camera operator about Hillary Clinton just days before the incident and her husband's legal association is it possible this was a way for them to be "protected" by being eliminated in a controlled way?

I think it is very possible that this was a planned killing but not in the way some people think. I think most people after looking at the set and how it operated and who is involved there is a lot to be suspicious about.

Is there a way to summon these side stories without tripping sensors?
Yes, I mean sensors.

I had thought about this as well, and not just AB.
I mean politicians, judges, bureaucrats.
Lots and lots of them.

To search might be to trigger retaliation, in kind.
Where have you heard these side stories?

I noted, from a tip on AGC, that People magazine has run a huge 'family man w kids'
spread, centered on the suspect, which caused the computer to need a reboot,
and featuring what possibly foreshadows, or portends
to this, being as Enty referred to the snaps as highly inappropriate
or was it 'insensitive' photos. Hmm. You decide. Yeah...a spokesperson
for sweeping lead reform. Leading by example, or else.

He'll be good with that!

I won't link People magazine since it caused lock ups.

# 1482

unravel by lawyers

Checking Alec Baldwin's gun was not the assistant director's responsibility, attorney says

what

New details about the incident have now emerged from the on-set doctor Cherlyn Schaefer’s report. She had mentioned “something was fired with a support pistol” in the report while she described the cause of the incident

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Some of the stories have been linked on social media sites such as Telegram etc. I don't like to link to some of these stories but they are out there. Whether they are true or not who knows but I can tell you that I am 100% sure that the stories we are getting regarding this story from all the MSM sources are not correct either so who do you believe? I think it is pretty common knowledge that in most cases the MSM will protect their own and AB has been someone they have protected and shielded before from his past run ins with the law.

I'm still trying to figure out how two people got shot.

a reply to: StoutBroux

If you stand in a line only need 1 bullet.



Now see how many scenes he points the gun at someone its a movie people. Not a safety course on a gun range.

a reply to: McGinty

Thanks for the education, i've never been on a feature set where guns were used.

You're very welcome. I've never been on a movie set either, but I do know something about firearm safety and I have been diligently learning everything I can about this problem. What i have discovered is that those movie sets where safety is taken seriously generally do a pretty good job with handling firearms safely; those sets where the producers do not take safety seriously tend to have a lot of needless issues. I am also seeing that the latter group more often than not are actors who are crossing into production roles... not all are lax on safety, but it does appear many are.

In short, it appears to me that this hasn't happened before only by the grace of God.

That said there's actor producers who simply buy that title in order to have more control of their role and don't really play a part in logistics and finances.

Again I will revert to other industries, where taking a job means one accepts the responsibilities that go along with that job. The reason one takes the job is irrelevant. In the same vein, if Baldwin took the producer's job just to have more freedom over his acting, that does not mean he does not bear the same responsibility as a producer who took their job to produce movies.

If anything, I would consider that as indicative of Baldwin being more responsible for his production set. If he took the job with ulterior motives, how does that lessen his responsibilities?

But how many pizza deliverers give their car a full once over before driving - how many would know how - i didn't.

As a pizza delivery driver, you were not placing extra danger on those around you. A typical pizza delivery vehicle (here, anyway) is actually smaller and less able to cause extreme damage than a typical commuter vehicle. A semi, on the other hand, is much larger and heavier and more powerful than anything else on the road, and therefore capable of causing extreme damage above and beyond that of a typical personal vehicle; therefore drivers are required to know how to inspect their trucks and find safety issues. That was actually the first thing I learned when I went to school for my CDL.

Likewise, on a movie set, the actors are handling weapons in what would appear to be a very unsafe manner. Movies show people getting shot. Therefore, such a movie set has the ability to create catastrophes at a much greater rate than the average hunter or target shooter, and everyone involved with firearm use should be capable of operating that firearm safely and that includes the ability to check it for problems.

Driving a semi, I was not capable of overhauling an engine or replacing a leaky air compressor. However, I was able to recognize that the engine didn't sound right and able to check to see if the air compressor was working. If I found a problem I called a mechanic. Likewise, an actor handling a gun does not need to know how to field strip it or be intimately familiar with the ballistics of the rounds they are using... but they should know how to identify when there might be a problem. Everyone else who handles a firearm (legally anyway) knows how to do so. In Alabama, one cannot get a license to hunt a rabbit with a .22 unless one has passed a firearms safety course. How much more so should an actor whose job entails pointing a .45 Colt at others know how to handle a firearm safely?

TheRedneck

a reply to: CrazyFox

Following Rule #1 pulling the trigger when pointing a weapon at someone is at best attempted murder (if no one is shot) at worst premeditated murder.
Alec is guilty of the latter since he pointed his gun and shot 2 people one died.

While you may be correct morally, legally is a different story. Premeditated murder requires two things to be proven in a court of law, above and beyond that the accused killed another person:

• The accused must have intended for the gun to fire and kill the victim, and
• the accused must have planned and executed a series of actions over time designed to kill the victim.

That would be a very steep hill to climb in this case, and if charged thusly, Baldwin would likely walk out of the courtroom a free man.

Equal application of the law means that Alec Baldwin must be charged with the same crime as anyone else under the circumstances. But it also means Alec Baldwin cannot be charged with more serious crimes than anyone else. Anything less is revenge, not justice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JIMC5499

If you walk into a machine shop, it certainly is the responsibility of the machine shop to alert you! That's why there are signs up everywhere to wear eye and hearing protection. The machine shop is consistently creating high noise levels and sparks.

If one is welding in an area accessible to others, that area is typically roped off with tape warning onlookers of the danger of retinal burns. No one just fires up a welder in the middle of a bunch of people without any advance warning. Doing so would subject them to liability and even potential criminal charges.

Unlike a machine shop or a welding area, guns are not being fired the entire time. Hearing protection cannot be worn continuously, since people on the set must speak to each other. Hearing protection is needed only when weapons are being fired, and is undesirable at other times. Therefore, the person who is about to fire a gun should announce their intention and allow others time to get their safety gear on.

Come on... that's just common sense! I know people are looking for any reason imaginable to exonerate anyone on this set from responsibility, but it just doesn't fly.

You hit on the most important part. What was LIVE ammunition doing on the set? That's the big question. Find the answer for that and everything else falls into place.

We already know why: some of the personnel was using the firearms on the set after hours to target practice with live rounds. It appears to me that the gun was used for that target practice during lunch (it was apparently left out in the open) and when it was returned, the user loaded five instead of six dummy rounds. On this kind of revolver (fixed cylinder), rounds are loaded one at a time through a loading port instead of the cylinder swinging open. Someone just wasn't counting rounds.

Everyone involved in this off-set target shooting should be charged as well, although I am not sure what that charge might be... negligent homicide? Of course, it is likely that we will never find out who all was involved in the target shooting. There's likely a code of silence surrounding the participants.

That also implicates the armorer for allowing this, and for allowing the gun to be left in the open during lunch.

However, that does not absolve the AD or Baldwin for failing to check the weapon when they received it.

I still question why she wasn't allowed on the set. As I've said the weapon should have been loaded by her, with Baldwin and one other person. That would meet the "requirement" of Baldwin verifying that he had a cold weapon even if he didn't know how to verify it for himself.

She has stated she wasn't allowed on the open set over concerns about the Chinese virus. If true, that makes Halyna Hutchins one of the victims of the pandemic who never caught the disease.

However, no, watching the gun being loaded does not negate the need for every single person to check it every single time it changes hands. I'm honestly amazed at how many people seem to think that one basic requirement can be bypassed. If one does not want to take the time to check the weapon when they receive it, they should not receive it period. It takes less than a minute!

I don't think that it was a matter of Baldwin's time, I thing it was their trying to cut costs.

What costs did not checking the gun cut? It's literally: open the loading port (flick of the thumb), rotate the cylinder around one complete turn, close the loading port with another flick of the thumb. It doesn't take up any materials. So how could anyone cut costs by not checking the weapon? The only thing one can possibly save is a minute of time.

If children are working on a movie, there is someone who is required to be there for their protection. The same thing if animals are used. Why isn't there required to be a "safety observer" present when LIVE weapons are being used on a set?

They are. They are called the "armorer."

That was part of the problem: the armorer did not do her job. The armorer apparently did not know how to do her job.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: McGinty

...it's Baldwin's job to NEVER EVER point the gun at a person EVER under any circumstance and to ALWAYS treat it as if it's loaded.

Honest question, when and where did he get that training?

While declining to speculate about what happened on the set, Hollywood veterans say even the most rudimentary of weapons protocols that are rigorously followed on most sets would have averted this rare catastrophe.

www.usatoday.com...

The statement also noted that "she did firearms training for the actors as well as Mr. Baldwin, she fought for more training days and she regularly emphasized to never point a firearm at a person."

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That was part of the problem: the armorer did not do her job. The armorer apparently did not know how to do her job.

TheRedneck

That was what the Baldwin team said initially. Then it later came out she was not allowed on set because no gun was supposed to be used that day, and Baldwin got training which he ignored. The scene only called for removing a weapon from holster, no firing.

Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski earlier told The Los Angeles Times that he declined an offer to work on “Rust” because producers insisted that one person could serve as both assistant prop master and armorer. Zoromski said those are “two really big jobs” that couldn’t be combined. He called the production “an accident waiting to happen.”

apnews.com...