Imported hand grenadier has a special nutty hate for Baldwin cuz he played Trump on SNL 😉
You understate your position. You don't merely 'accept' that, you like that the world is that way and want to keep it that way. Hence your support for Trump and the right.
All that tells us is Baldwin has experience with movie props. Movie props and firearms are not necessarily the same thing.I'm quite sure it will be brought up how many movies AB has been in previously, and how many times he used guns in those movies, and how those situations were handled in regards to his actual experience and training with prop guns. For example he used a pistol in The Hunt For Red October. So if it can be proved or disproved that he has some knowledge of handling firearms that may come back to bite him in the arse, or help him if it has been consistent throughout his career.
All that tells us is Baldwin has experience with movie props. Movie props and firearms are not necessarily the same thing.
I am glad you don't like statements of fact. Really continues to assure me of how bad this board is. Alec was criminally negligent here along with others in this case. At this point there is no public known evidence that it was intentional to have someone killed, so criminal negligence charges are basically what anyone is likely to get. Of course the whole wrongful death civil charges are going to sting a lot of people from that production. It's a sad tragedy and some people are going to pay. Some other people will feel like not enough justice has been done and others will feel like too much was done. That is typically how these types of cases shake out.
Want to bet on how the court rules on your theory? By ultimate do you mean primarily? I still say the hired expert bears primary responsibility since actors are never assumed to be qualified to handle a gun. Baldwin does bear some responsibility since he pulled the trigger but it will not be criminal.
yep, i saw a thing that The Rock will no longer use real guns on his movies.I'm going to go a step further and predict that not only will no criminal charges occur, but that no individual person will be found civilly liable. Some production companies and their insurers are gonna get it in the shorts though ("settled for undisclosed amounts"), and some careers might be cut short. Also, the studios are going to completely stop using real guns on their sets, if they haven't already due to this.
Hence your support for Hunters father and Hillary Clinton.You understate your position. You don't merely 'accept' that, you like that the world is that way and want to keep it that way. Hence your support for Trump and the right.
Not even worth what i didn't pay for it. Elite member of an elite guild says unless you are an elite your opinion and the facts don't really matter.Unless anyone here is a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) AND has worked/acted in a film that included scenes with gun fire, gun fights, principle, supporting and background actors using the firearms in the scenes, and has gone through the training the actors receive prior to filming, we are just speculating on what we THINK Alec Baldwin knew/knows/was trained to do.
It may very well be that the actors receive some formal weapons training that is then supplemented by training advising them that ALL checks are completed before a firewarm is placed in their possession and their responsibility is to maintain possession at ALL times until told to return to the armory. They may have been told/instructed the firearm is checked and verified multiple times before being handed over to you so that you can stay focused on the scene.
We all just don't know and while logically, in public, gun safety dictates ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded, ALWAYS check to verify, NEVER point a gun at what you do not intend to shoot, a film set is NOT public and so logically, it is fair to take the Point of View that on a movie set, the firearm is NOT a real dangerous firearm and so the actor CAN rely on the industry standard safety procedures.
My $0.02
Hence your support for Hunters father and Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it is indeed a sad tragedy that many people on the internet like to pretend they're experts and make "statements of fact" regarding subjects that they clearly know nothing about.
This was a professional movie set, not a gun range. The actor was given a prop gun, which he was told was "cold," and directed to act with it, which is an actor's job. So all your gun range safety pontificating means literally nothing in this context.
It is also a sad tragedy that some people like to use real tragedies, even ones where people died, in order to troll politics, or grind political axes. Shit like that really continues to demonstrate how fucking sick and twisted those people are.
First off, prop guns are real guns. Prop doesn't mean FAKE, it means property. It is a piece of property to enhance the movie scene. They use an armorer on all these sets because the guns are REAL because fake guns look bad in movies. Except when using a space gun or something else silly. Then fake guns are fine. Because they use real guns, all actors are required to take a gun safety course even if the ammo used is not normal live ammo.
Speaking of ammo, it comes in a variety of types for movie guns. Blanks, dummies, and modified rounds. Blanks are basically pop caps. These are used in non automatic o simulate a fired shot. They are a shell casing with a little bit of gunpowder in the casing and a thin film to keep the powder in. Just like a toy pop cap gun, there is no projectile because it is not needed for the gun to operate.
Dummies are basically completely rubber ammo. There is no powder. There is no bullet. These rounds are mainly used for rehearsals. They are used because dry firing a live gun on an empty breach can break the firing pin in some guns. This is a readily available product like Snapcaps which are great for dry fire training.
Lastly there are modified rounds. Due to common usage, these are also called blanks, but I am specifically calling them modified rounds here to avoid confusion. Modified rounds are for any form of automatic firearm requires a projectile to operate. This is because the firearm uses the force from the gas that is pushed back from the projectile to move the reciprocating part of the gun that resets the firing function. In most handguns this is the slide. It could be a bolt in a rifle for example. If a blank round is used in gun that requires a projectile to reset, the gun will not cycle correctly. Since movies don't want lethal rounds, the modified rounds use a WAD instead of a bullet as a projectile. The wad is something that is made of paper, cotton, wax, or whatever soft material that typically disintegrates shorting after being fired from the gun. Because the modified ammo is shooting a wad, it also has to have far less powder to shoot that wad. However, the issue is that with far less powder, there is not enough force from the gas to cycle a normal gun designed around normal live ammo. So any form of automatic gun used in a movie has to be modified by using far lighter springs and reciprocating action. Which also means that if a live round was put inside an automatic action gun, the gun probably would be damaged severely if fired. The other thing to note is while modified rounds are certainly less lethal, they can still be lethal if the barrel is put up against a person before firing. This is because a projectile, the wad, does shoot out and can penetrate a body with enough force to kill a person for a short distance after fired.. There has been incident where this has happened before.
The movie Rust was a western and they were using revolvers. Specifically a Colt revolver. Since revolvers aren't automatic action guns, they can use blanks instead of modified rounds. As such, revolvers are not modified typically in anyway for movies. Especially actual antiques actually used in the movies for period pieces. This is also why it is required for anyone who will be handling the guns to have gone through a gun safety course. Specifically Alec Baldwin has done several throughout his career as it has been mentioned in the media already. So Alec should know the basics of gun safety which is to ALWAYS CHECK A GUN FIRST even if handed to you by a person saying it is unloaded.
Lastly, revolvers can fire modified rounds or true blanks. The problem is that modified rounds for revolvers have to be a specific length or the projectile that comes out can damage the gun.
As far as my gun safety pontificating... that is the law and ignorance of it doesn't usually protect one from it. Money and politics might though. Just for reference similar incidents like this have occurred outside movie sets. Been times when some person slipped a live round into a gun at a gun store. Employee grabs gun to hand to the next customer to check out. They don't look that the gun is actually empty but assume it is because it was handed to them from a store case. They fire and bam! Criminal negligence charges happen after at the very least. This is even for people with no training at all.
Why would similar occurrences outside of movie sets be relevant when the reason there won't be any criminal charges against Baldwin is precisely because this did happen on a professional movie set? And as such the actor had every reason to believe that the prop was exactly what the other professionals on the set told him it was?
If you want to politics, why don't we talk about why in another thread you're defending shooting someone in the back as self-defense, while in this thread you're demanding criminal charges over an obvious accidental shooting? Because that's politics.
Because the LAW doesn't care about where a situation occurs like this. There is no law different for movie sets versus other places. It is based upon fact patterns. If someone hands you a gun and says it is empty and you don't check it for your, THEN YOU ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE IF SOMETHING OCCURS. The difference though is that if you shoot thinking it was an empty gun there is no "intention" to cause actual harm, but that is why there is unintentional criminal statutes.
Who am I defending shooting someone in the back as self defense? If you are talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, you are a fucking loon for making that statement.
You can scream THE LAW in all caps all you want, but when no criminal charges are filed against Baldwin, it will be because of the law, not in spite of it.
And as precedent even, I will point out that Michael Massee faced no criminal charges for shooting Brandon Lee, despite the fact that he did not check that gun before he fired it, and despite being a relatively unknown actor with no money or political connections. Nor did anyone else on that set face any criminal liability, and those circumstances were arguably even more negligent than what we're finding out occurred on Rust.
The reason is because these were workplace accidents, and not regular gun accidents. Which is why your logic of "if you don't doublecheck it, you're liable" doesn't apply here. Because, believe it or not, workplaces involve the use of materials and equipment even far more hazardous than handguns, and if every worker in every potentially hazardous workplace had to doublecheck everyone else's work, it would not only be cost ineffective, it would create confusion and distrust and disrupt the very procedures intended to ensure workplace safety.
In an ideal and safe workplace, everyone does their job and adheres to established safety protocols and procedures, and doublechecking only takes place when there is reason to believe a lapse or violation has occurred (in which cases, hands should be raised). So unless Baldwin had reason to believe the gun wasn't cold after having been told that it was, he had no legal obligation to doubt the industry established safety procedures and doublecheck the gun for himself.
This is the actual law BTW. I get it that you like to pretend to be a legal expert on the internet, but if can't tell the difference between a workplace accident and one outside the workplace, then you clearly aren't. And if you're arguing that workplace safety procedures need to be doublechecked at every single employee handoff, then you clearly don't know anything about business management either.
That said, none of the above should be construed into an assumption that Baldwin's production company isn't about to be sued into bankruptcy, because it most likely will.
Michael Massee was not given gun training at the time. That death prompted the whole gun training regulations that came after. Even if he was negligent (wasn't and I'll explain why below), prosecutors have discretion at charging or not. Their job is justice. Or at least that is what it is suppose to be. Another thing is different states have different laws when it comes to accidental deaths and criminal negligence charges. Some times which change. Here is the article from 1993 talking about it though.
Brandon Lee's Mother Claims Negligence Caused His Death : Movies: Linda Lee Cadwell sues 14 entities regarding the actor's 'agonizing pain, suffering and untimely death' last March on the North Carolina set of 'The Crow.'
The mother of actor Brandon Lee has filed suit against the Edward R.www.latimes.com
It was brought up, but didn't go forward. There is also a key difference between the two. In Massee case, there was not a loaded live round in the gun, but a piece of shrapnel left from when it was previously used for live fire tests. Checking if the gun was loaded with blanks properly was done and was shown to be loaded with blanks. The barrel was not checked, because the chances of something being stuck left over in a gun barrel are so remote as to be rarer than winning a 1 billion dollar power ball lottery. So there was a huge reason why no one was charged with criminal negligence as that was such a fluke occurrence that negligence could not be found.
Wrong.Michael Massee was not given gun training at the time. That death prompted the whole gun training regulations that came after. Even if he was negligent (wasn't and I'll explain why below), prosecutors have discretion at charging or not. Their job is justice. Or at least that is what it is suppose to be. Another thing is different states have different laws when it comes to accidental deaths and criminal negligence charges. Some times which change. Here is the article from 1993 talking about it though.
Brandon Lee's Mother Claims Negligence Caused His Death : Movies: Linda Lee Cadwell sues 14 entities regarding the actor's 'agonizing pain, suffering and untimely death' last March on the North Carolina set of 'The Crow.'
The mother of actor Brandon Lee has filed suit against the Edward R.www.latimes.com
It was brought up, but didn't go forward. There is also a key difference between the two. In Massee case, there was not a loaded live round in the gun, but a piece of shrapnel left from when it was previously used for live fire tests. Checking if the gun was loaded with blanks properly was done and was shown to be loaded with blanks. The barrel was not checked, because the chances of something being stuck left over in a gun barrel are so remote as to be rarer than winning a 1 billion dollar power ball lottery. So there was a huge reason why no one was charged with criminal negligence as that was such a fluke occurrence that negligence could not be found.
You can scream THE LAW in all caps all you want, but when no criminal charges are filed against Baldwin, it will be because of the law, not in spite of it.
And as precedent even, I will point out that Michael Massee faced no criminal charges for shooting Brandon Lee, despite the fact that he did not check that gun before he fired it, and despite being a relatively unknown actor with no money or political connections. Nor did anyone else on that set face any criminal liability, and those circumstances were arguably even more negligent than what we're finding out occurred on Rust.
The reason is because these were workplace accidents, and not regular gun accidents. Which is why your logic of "if you don't doublecheck it, you're liable" doesn't apply here. Because, believe it or not, workplaces involve the use of materials and equipment even far more hazardous than handguns, and if every worker in every potentially hazardous workplace had to doublecheck everyone else's work, it would not only be cost ineffective, it would create confusion and distrust and disrupt the very procedures intended to ensure workplace safety.
In an ideal and safe workplace, everyone does their job and adheres to established safety protocols and procedures, and doublechecking only takes place when there is reason to believe a lapse or violation has occurred (in which cases, hands should be raised). So unless Baldwin had reason to believe the gun wasn't cold after having been told that it was, he had no legal obligation to doubt the industry established safety procedures and doublecheck the gun for himself.
This is the actual law BTW. I get it that you like to pretend to be a legal expert on the internet, but if can't tell the difference between a workplace accident and one outside the workplace, then you clearly aren't. And if you're arguing that workplace safety procedures need to be doublechecked at every single employee handoff, then you clearly don't know anything about business management either.
That said, none of the above should be construed into an assumption that Baldwin's production company isn't about to be sued into bankruptcy, because it most likely will.
An obvious negligent shooting? The DA and prosecutor have not made a call yet whether charges will be filed, do you have some inside scoop or are you just making it up?Why would similar occurrences outside of movie sets be relevant when the reason there won't be any criminal charges against Baldwin is precisely because this did happen on a professional movie set? And as such the actor had every reason to believe that the prop was exactly what the other professionals on the set told him it was?
If you want to politics, why don't we talk about why in another thread you're defending shooting someone in the back as self-defense, while in this thread you're demanding criminal charges over an obvious accidental shooting? Because that's politics.
Most pilots have a checklist. Most drivers i know check tires and brakes before they are needed, but i'm an old fart, i still check my oil.Does the same principle apply to other potentially-dangerous actions?
Is a bus driver required to personally check the brakes and tires of their bus before setting off from the bus depot each day? Or is it acceptable for them to assume the bus company's maintenance guys are already taking care of that stuff?
(this is not an entirely rhetorical question)
If you take your car in for routine maintenance and the garage says your brakes are fine. A few days later your brakes fail and you hit another car.Most pilots have a checklist. Most drivers i know check tires and brakes before they are needed, but i'm an old fart, i still check my oil.