Alec Baldwin is innocent

[Crazyhole]

He didnt point the gun at anyone and he didn't pull the trigger

Alec Baldwin exclusive: 'The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger'

George Stephanopoulos' exclusive interview airs Thursday on ABC, streams on Hulu

abcnews.go.com

 

[sk8knight]

This actually follow with the early reports of the weapon accidentally discharging multiple times in the days before. However, it only reinforces the necessity that every person that handles that weapon needs to verify the state the weapon is in before they handle it and point it at people. Not knowing is negligence and knowing the weapon was malfunctioning and not removing the weapon or at least not verifying the thing was empty is reckless.

 

[DaShuckster]

The gun fired automatically. Damn they do kill

You people are SO predictable in your responses. The McMichaels: You gotta give them boys the benefit of a doubt!
Baldwin: Har har har! What a liar!!!

So you gun experts are going to tell me that the misfiring of an antique revolver isn't possible? It was reported that the same gun had already accidently discharged earlier in the shoot.

Unless there are eyewitnesses who claim otherwise, Baldwin the Actor is not going to be charged.

 

[Crazyhole]

You people are SO predictable in your responses. The McMichaels: You gotta give them boys the benefit of a doubt!
Baldwin: Har har har! What a liar!!!

So you gun experts are going to tell me that the misfiring of an antique revolver isn't possible? It was reported that the same gun had already accidently discharged earlier in the shoot.

Unless there are eyewitnesses who claim otherwise, Baldwin the Actor is not going to be charged.

Explain the mechanics of how a revolver fires on its own.

 

[DaShuckster]

Explain the mechanics of how a revolver fires on its own.

Guns never misfire? Even antique ones? um, good to know.

 

[Crazyhole]

Guns never misfire? Even antique ones? um, good to know.

It's almost to the level of impossible that a revolver can fire on its own. I say almost with the caveat that it would still require the user the pull back the hammer. Ever heard of a revolver sitting on a table just spontaneously going off?

 

[sk8knight]

Guns never misfire? Even antique ones? um, good to know.

Tell us that you don't know anything about firearms without telling us that you don't know anything about firearms.

A misfire is an intentional firing act that results in a complete failure of the weapon to fire a round when the trigger is pulled. In a revolver, this means that you pulled the trigger and the hammer came down and nothing happened. Many times with a revolver this is an ammunition issue.

Revolvers in good working condition should never be able to fire without pulling the trigger. They are either single action or double action and, in either case, the hammer doesn't descend without the trigger pull. No hammer, no fire. They are very simple. For double action, the trigger pull is pretty heavy because you need to cock the hammer and then fire with the trigger pull. This heavy pull is also a safety feature. Older weapons would have exposed hammers and it is easy to see the hammer moving. Single actions need to be cocked first and are in a ready mode then (in sear), so that could pose a safety issue if the gun has been modified to a hair trigger that you could pull unintentionally or I guess the sear could fail causing the hammer to deploy.

 

[Crazyhole]

Tell us that you don't know anything about firearms without telling us that you don't know anything about firearms.

A misfire is an intentional firing act that results in a complete failure of the weapon to fire a round when the trigger is pulled. In a revolver, this means that you pulled the trigger and the hammer came down and nothing happened. Many times with a revolver this is an ammunition issue.

Revolvers in good working condition should never be able to fire without pulling the trigger. They are either single action or double action and, in either case, the hammer doesn't descend without the trigger pull. No hammer, no fire. They are very simple. For double action, the trigger pull is pretty heavy because you need to cock the hammer and then fire with the trigger pull. This heavy pull is also a safety feature. Older weapons would have exposed hammers and it is easy to see the hammer moving. Single actions need to be cocked first and are in a ready mode then (in sear), so that could pose a safety issue if the gun has been modified to a hair trigger that you could pull unintentionally or I guess the sear could fail causing the hammer to deploy.

Yeah, but did you consider the possibility that Alec Baldwin the producer pulled the hammer back, and then Alec Baldwin the actor pulled the trigger? Both are innocent.

 

[DaShuckster]

Trot out your gun safety opines all day long. But unless Baldwin's account of the incident that he shared with George is countered by other contradictory eyewitness accounts, Baldwin the Actor isn't going to be charged, no matter how much you guys want it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Trot out your gun safety opines all day long. But unless Baldwin's account of the incident that he shared with George is countered by other contradictory eyewitness accounts, Baldwin the Actor isn't going to be charged, no matter how much you guys want it.

Will Baldwin the actor be allowed to visit Baldwin the producer in prison?

 

[Nautiknight]

I don't care if Alec Baldwin the actor gets charged or Alec Baldwin the a hole step dad gets charged or Alec Baldwin the radio host gets charged. If there is evidence he is innocent then so be it ..if there is evidence he is guilty , so be it. follow the evidence and forensics here and do what the science is telling you based on the law . ignore everything else , that's how objective law enforcement works . That's how equality under the law works .

now as far as the gun goes and gun safety and all Alec Baldwin the idiot should have known ,if you don't know the weapon is loaded or you don't know if the ammo is live , a real round in the chamber ,then either assume it is and don't aim it at people or pull the trigger or don't lick it up at all.

hey Shuck your statement it already misfired on the set points to the ammo had a known issue ..So let's play detective here and this suggest Baldwin knowingly handled a fire arm with issues and he knowingly pointed it at somebody and knowingly pulled the trigger while at the sane time not knowing or understanding what was going on with the weapon . If I was on a jury I may not find the guilty of murder ,perhaps unintentional manslaughter because he was or is negligent here . He was responsible for picking up the gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger and if we go with he didn't know it was loaded defense then he is negligent for doing the above not knowing . There is no way around it

Is the dip shit who drove the SUV into a parade crowd responsible for operating the SUV in deadly way? Or, did the SUV randomly just off course like it did a few weeks before as it ran down the guys girlfriend? We can't blame guns and SUVs and ignore the idiots pulling the trigger or driving the SUV.

 

[UCFBS]

The gun fired automatically. Damn they do kill

No, it's worse than that!

'The gun pointed itself automatically ... then fired autonomously!'​

-- Physics, according to Baldwin​

How many times is Baldwin going to basically admit he doesn't understand firearm safety 101? Don't point it in a direction you don't want to incapacitate. Assume a bullet could travel down the barrel at all times!

 

[DaShuckster]

now as far as the gun goes and gun safety and all Alec Baldwin the idiot should have known ,if you don't know the weapon is loaded or you don't know if the ammo is live , a real round in the chamber ,then either assume it is and don't aim it at people or pull the trigger or don't lick it up at all.

Hellllllllooooo. Baldwin states he: a) didn't point the gun; and b) didn't pull the trigger. He says the revolver accidently went off while he was handling it.

For manslaughter charges to be filed, the DA would need to convince a jury that Baldwin is blatantly lying. Pretty steep hill to climb to convict an actor on a movie set unless others in the church dispute Baldwin's account.

 

[Nautiknight]

Hellllllllooooo. Baldwin states he: a) didn't point the gun; and b) didn't pull the trigger. He says the revolver accidently went off while he was handling it.

For manslaughter charges to be filed, the DA would need to convince a jury that Baldwin is blatantly lying. Pretty steep hill to climb to convict an actor on a movie set unless others in the church dispute Baldwin's account.

Helloooo...he was handling a gun..he picked it up and the open end of the gun was clearly pointing towards the lady and while he was handling it ,according to Baldwin, it accidentally went off. It's a revolver in which as other pointed out , don't just accidentally go off.
So either way he did pick it up and he did point the business end of the gun towards another human being . If you go down the path he didn't know ...then he shouldn't have picked it up .

I have fired friends pistols at the range before and I have a 380 pistol myself . I can tell you from experience the revolvers are a bit harder to pull the trigger than my clip fed 380. Guns rarely accidentally go off ,if ever .

I am though going back and saying if the forensics prove what Alec is saying is true and he is innocent I will roll with the science and evidence says and say let him free .

 

[Crazyhole]

Helloooo...he was handling a gun..he picked it up and the open end of the gun was clearly pointing towards the lady and while he was handling it ,according to Baldwin, it accidentally went off. It's a revolver in which as other pointed out , don't just accidentally go off.
So either way he did pick it up and he did point the business end of the gun towards another human being . If you go down the path he didn't know ...then he shouldn't have picked it up .

I have fired friends pistols at the range before and I have a 380 pistol myself . I can tell you from experience the revolvers are a bit harder to pull the trigger than my clip fed 380. Guns rarely accidentally go off ,if ever .

I am though going back and saying if the forensics prove what Alec is saying is true and he is innocent I will roll with the science and evidence says and say let him free .

Literally the only time a revolver of any kind goes off on accident is with the quick draw sharpshooters that shoot their own foot. That's only because they've filed down the trigger mechanism and their withdrawal from the holster is so fast that the entire motion includes pulling back the hammer in a split second. Alec Baldwin the Actor or producer is not a quick draw sharpshooter

 

[UCFBS]

Hellllllllooooo. Baldwin states he: a) didn't point the gun; and b) didn't pull the trigger. He says the revolver accidently went off while he was handling it.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt on 'b' ... he didn't pull the trigger.

He still is guilty of 'a'. Just because he didn't intend to point it at the woman he shot, doesn't mean he didn't point it. Baldwin very much did point it at the woman he shot! He just didn't 'intend' to. Why?

Because he's someone that should have never handled a gun in the first place!

This is why grossly irresponsible -- and responsibility-deflecting -- anti-gunners are enfuriating. They say legal, responsible gun owners aren't safe, and they say that because they are grossly ignorant.

Again ... we have all these 4 basic rules so as long as just 1 rule is followed, no one dies or gets hurt. Baldwin violated all 4!

BTW ...

Given the number of households with firearms in this country, even before the pandemic -- 60M out of 130M -- our gun accident rate is extremely low for that many households with guns. Sure, count it 'per-capita' and it goes up ... but that doesn't scale well when allegedly 'armed' countries like Switerland and Norway only have 5-15% of their households with guns, not nearly 50% (and it's over 50% now)!

Why? Americans are extremely responsible with gun ownership compared to most of the rest of the world. The problem is, as always, organized crime, especially kids caught up in it.

For manslaughter charges to be filed, the DA would need to convince a jury that Baldwin is blatantly lying. Pretty steep hill to climb to convict an actor on a movie set unless others in the church dispute Baldwin's account.

No, he is still guilty of 'a' and, possibly, negligent manslaughter.

Google it and you'll see such ...

"Unintentional shootings are considered illegal in most states and usually result in criminal charges that range from criminal negligence to manslaughter ... Whether the injury occurs from a practical prank, cleaning a firearm, dropping a firearm, or a firearm malfunction, criminal charges are likely to follow if someone gets hit with a bullet. If the injured person dies, more serious charges of manslaughter, a felony offense, are likely to to be brought against the shooter.'​

Honestly, stop being ****ing ignorant and posting easily disproven bullshit here. You're undermining yourself ... repeatedly. You keep defending Baldwin from the standpoint of total ignorance. Many of us are pointing this out not because we're GOP right-wingers (I'm certainly not), but even we Libertarians are tired of people not being responsible.

And no, I'm not a lawyer (although some corporate compliance experience under lawyers, yes), but I've had 20 years of repeat training ... without even owning a firearm. You're ignorant of the law, just like Baldwin. I'm not. You don't have to be an 'expert,' or a lawyer, to know the law ... just trained to know your responsibilities.

Yes, I took many courses and had many exams not because I owned a gun, but because I was around ordinance and firearms. You might try similar. I'm also USCCA insured, and you can be sure they expect you to know the f'ing law and take their training too! USCCA covers all sorts of 'accidental' (as well as intentional, in self-defense) harms too, not just from firearms.

 

[UCFBS]

Literally the only time a revolver of any kind goes off on accident is with the quick draw sharpshooters that shoot their own foot. That's only because they've filed down the trigger mechanism and their withdrawal from the holster is so fast that the entire motion includes pulling back the hammer in a split second. Alec Baldwin the Actor or producer is not a quick draw sharpshooter

Again, let's assume Baldwin didn't 'pull' the trigger (b).
And, let's assume Baldwin didn't 'intentionally' point the gun.

He's still guilty of 'a' in the end ... actually pointing the gun, even if 'unintentional'!
He can and will likely be charged with negligence and manslaughter.

Don't give those ignorant of the law any ability to defend their prized anti-gunner.
They are really exposing their ignorance right now.

"One law for thee, one law for me (and those who think like me, like Baldwin)."
No, there's just one law period ... the ones you anti-gunners love, maximum penalties.

 

[UCFBS]

... If you go down the path he didn't know ...then he shouldn't have picked it up ...

^^^ Preach it in the word of the Constitution and self-responsibility brother!

Seriously ... the anti-gunners defending Baldwin right now are just literally the biggest hypocrites in the world, and only explaining why they are so anti-gun. They are so ignorant of firearms, they are the problem, and Baldwin is the proof.

And yes, some pro-gun people are irresponsible too. And we equally chastize them as well! That's what the 18th century term 'well regulated' meant ... that militias should define, peer-enforced, who can as well as who should not have access to a firearm in a community! That's also the same application to the Press under the 1st Amendment.

Militias are not the National Guardsmen either! Never have been. Never will be. They are not federally trained. Never have been. Never will be. There is just a kinship that exists going back between militia and Guardsmen and women, as many militia have become military, and vice-versa. Including former British soldiers becoming some of the early American militia, but not joining the regulators or even state military units.

The Militia Act was even the first law designed to make this easier too, allowing for the Federal Executive to request use of or even enlistements from, the militia who are, ultimately, private, civilian citizens of a state. Before then, neither Congress nor the President could even legally ask a state for citizens to get involved with either domestic, much less foreign, conflicts.

I have fired friends pistols at the range before and I have a 380 pistol myself . I can tell you from experience the revolvers are a bit harder to pull the trigger than my clip fed 380. Guns rarely accidentally go off ,if ever .

I am though going back and saying if the forensics prove what Alec is saying is true and he is innocent I will roll with the science and evidence says and say let him free .

Don't confuse 'intention' with 'innocence.'
He may have had no 'intention,' but that's not 'innocence.'

Reminds me of the commonly shared video where a guy was dancing, a concealed gun came out of his back, he went to pick it up off the floor, stupidly put his index finger into the trigger, and fired it while picking it back up.

Luckily no one was hurt, but had they been, then felony criminal charges might have been filed, especially manslaughter had someone died.

 

[DaShuckster]

Helloooo...he was handling a gun..he picked it up and the open end of the gun was clearly pointing towards the lady and while he was handling it ,according to Baldwin, it accidentally went off.

You've got an actor on a movie set who picks up an antique revolver that was being used as a movie prop. The gun goes off in the actor's hands, killing the cinematographer. If there are manslaughter charges to be filed, the one to blame is the woman responsible for gun safety on set. The very idea that live ammo was on set in mind-boggling.

If you guys REALLY think Baldwin is charged -- let alone convicted -- of manslaughter, it's only in your dreams.

 

[Crazyhole]

You've got an actor on a movie set who picks up an antique revolver that was being used as a movie prop. The gun goes off in the actor's hands, killing the cinematographer. If there are manslaughter charges to be filed, the one to blame is the woman responsible for gun safety on set. The very idea that live ammo was on set in mind-boggling.

If you guys REALLY think Baldwin is charged -- let alone convicted -- of manslaughter, it's only in your dreams.

Not that it matters to you, but it wasn't an antique gun. They are still in production and his was clearly operable.

 

[UCFBS]

@DaShuckster - Seriously answer me this ...

• If a gun goes off in someone's hand ...
• After, say, 15 seconds of 'practicing' with it ...
• And even though someone dies as a result ...
• Do you honestly believe as long as that person didn't have 'intent' ...
• You think they should not be charged?

If so ...

Doesn't that logic go against all the laws anti-gunners like Baldwin and yourself want?!

Answer the question for once -- directly.
Not the actual laws of most states, we already proved you don't know that.
But what you want the laws to be.

What about cars, where people's negligence kills people, but not intentionally?

You've got an actor on a movie set who picks up an antique revolver that was being used as a movie prop. The gun goes off in the actor's hands, killing the cinematographer. If there are manslaughter charges to be filed, the one to blame is the woman responsible for gun safety on set. The very idea that live ammo was on set in mind-boggling.

^^^ This just showcases how you don't know anything about firearms and required, basic gun safety. I.e., Baldwin broke all the rules everyone must follow, including him.

Which brings me to ...

If you guys REALLY think Baldwin is charged -- let alone convicted -- of manslaughter, it's only in your dreams.

It really all depends how long he had the weapon and what he did with it.

If he literally was just picking it up off the cart, and that's when it fired, then your point has merit. That's the only case where it does though.

But from all the eyewitness information released so far, he was 'practicing' with it. How long is hard to know, but it wasn't literally 'just picked up.' So that's going to **** him if that's the case. Because ...

Even if it cannot be proven whether Baldwin pulled the trigger ...

Baldwin did very much point it ... unintentional or not. That's how firearm laws work, the same laws anti-gunners like Baldwin and yourself love! You pick it up. You take 'custody' of it ... you 'own' the responsibility for it. That's why we have the 4 basic rules.

Just following 1 of them protects people ... all 4 have to fail to not, and harm people.

 

[DaShuckster]

Honestly, stop being ****ing ignorant and posting easily disproven bullshit here. You're undermining yourself ... repeatedly. You keep defending Baldwin from the standpoint of total ignorance.

I'm not the poster claiming that AN ACTOR on a MOVIE SET is going to be charged with manslaughter for handling a prop gun that --- low and behold --- was loaded, unbeknownst to him, with real bullets.

Baldwin is on record as saying he didn't deliberately point the gun and didn't pull the trigger. So unless there are people on the set who are going to testify that Baldwin recklessly pointed and fired the prop gun at the cinematographer, You. Have. No. Case.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm not the poster claiming that AN ACTOR on a MOVIE SET is going to be charged with manslaughter for handling a prop gun that --- low and behold --- was loaded, unbeknownst to him, with real bullets.

Baldwin is on record as saying he didn't deliberately point the gun and didn't pull the trigger. So unless there are people on the set who are going to testify that Baldwin recklessly pointed and fired the prop gun at the cinematographer, You. Have. No. Case.

On the record? So he swore an oath and can be charged with perjury if he’s lying?

Or did this TV and movie actor who has made a living telling stories for decades go on TV and tell a story?

 

[UCFBS]

I'm not the poster claiming that AN ACTOR on a MOVIE SET is going to be charged with manslaughter for handling a prop gun that --- low and behold --- was loaded, unbeknownst to him, with real bullets.
Baldwin is on record as saying he didn't deliberately point the gun and didn't pull the trigger. So unless there are people on the set who are going to testify that Baldwin recklessly pointed and fired the prop gun at the cinematographer, You. Have. No. Case.

You really do not know gun laws at all ... do you?!

Have you remotely even read up on gun laws and how this works? Or manslaughter in general?! Manslaughter does not require 'recklessness,' and it definitely does not require 'intent.' If there was 'intent,' then that could be homicide.

No one here is asserting 'intent.' But you seem to think that's required. It's not, not at all, for manslaughter! Or that Baldwin unknowingly pointed the gun in the wrong direction and towards someone? You're just proving to everyone you're ignorant of basic firearm safety, just like Baldwin. Even George Clooney pointed this out.

Furthermore, if Baldwin was 'practicing' and 'rehersing' in the vicinity of others, not during a live shoot, on a stage ... he could be even more liable. Especially as producer and knowing the industry standards. While it's debatable if that adds yet more criminal liability, it totaly hits him hard in civil liability because there was no reason to endanger others.

Prop guns should never be used around others while practicing/rehersing. Anything one does with a real gun should never be done with a prop gun, period. But you don't know that because you're both ignorant of basic gun safety and actual gun laws.

An armor does not remove Baldwin's responsibility and criminal liability. The fact that you, like he, are 'doubling down,' while every lawyer in the country is basically screaming for your types to shut up, especially Baldwin for his own defense, is the proof. Only the ignorant -- both of firearms and gun laws -- are saying what you're saying!

Now add in your comments in Zimmerman (who might have been guilty of manslaughter, had the prosecution not screwed up, and witnesses proven as perjuring themselves on the stand) and Rittenhouse (who was never remotely guilty of anything other than stupidly not staying home as a 17yo, but that's not a crime), and the utter hypocrisy comes full circle.

You want one set of gun laws for anti-gunner celebs, and another set for private citizens.

 

[Crazyhole]

Not that it matters to you, but it wasn't an antique gun. They are still in production and his was clearly operable.

I looked it up and Baldwin had a Pietta replica. Every one of them ever produced has a transfer bar so he literally did have to pull the trigger or pull the hammer back. It couldn't have gone off on its own. Physically impossible.

 

[sk8knight]

I looked it up and Baldwin had a Pietta replica. Every one of them ever produced has a transfer bar so he literally did have to pull the trigger or pull the hammer back. It couldn't have gone off on its own. Physically impossible.

Not all Piettas have transfer bars, especially those built before 2015. If he had one where the firing pin directly contacted the primer, than I guess he could’ve pulled the hammer back a bit and then let it go, thus firing the round. He then wouldn’t be lying that he didn’t pull the trigger but he still would’ve performed a reckless act that any idiot would know not to do while pointing it at someone.

 

[DaShuckster]

On the record? So he swore an oath and can be charged with perjury if he’s lying?

LOL You think his account will change if he's asked to testify? The intent of his ABC News interview was to get his side of the story out now.

An armor does not remove Baldwin's responsibility and criminal liability.

Okie dokie. We'll all breathlessly await Baldwin's impending manslaughter charge and then you can tell me 'See? I told you so!' in bold type with a red font.

 

[DaShuckster]

I'm not sure legally what he gets but his wreckless use of a gun ending up killing a victim. Common gun rules and this never happens. He has anger issues which is common with lefties so who knows?

A prop gun on a movie set accidentally going off with a real round is really all about an actor with "anger issues"?

I swear you people are like a dog with a bone.

 

[Crazyhole]

A prop gun on a movie set accidentally going off with a real round is really all about an actor with "anger issues"?

I swear you people are like a dog with a bone.

What's a prop gun?

 

[Crazyhole]

Waiting for this reply of what is a prop gun because they is a term used as "fake" which it is not. And also the gun "accidentally" going off as it is pointed at a victim and no filming.

Kinda weird how hard he is trying to justify the death of an innocent woman, isn't it? The McCloskey lady had an actual prop gun and he wanted her arrested and charged. Strange disconnect.

 

[DaShuckster]

Kinda weird how hard he is trying to justify the death of an innocent woman, isn't it?

WTF? Who is "justifying" the death of an innocent woman pray tell? This production was a clusterf*ck from beginning to end and nobody that's I've seen is justifying any part of it.

I'm simply saying that an actor on a movie set is unlikely to be charged for manslaughter for handling a supposed prop gun -- loaded with live ammunition -- that accidently discharged. If you believe otherwise, cool. You're entitled to your opinion. We'll see whether law enforcement charges -- or doesn't charge -- Baldwin the Actor for manslaughter.

Prop gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crazyhole]

WTF? Who is "justifying" the death of an innocent woman pray tell? This production was a clusterf*ck from beginning to end and nobody that's I've seen is justifying any part of it.

I'm simply saying that an actor on a movie set is unlikely to be charged for manslaughter for handling a supposed prop gun -- loaded with live ammunition -- that accidently discharged. If you believe otherwise, cool. You're entitled to your opinion. We'll see whether law enforcement charges -- or doesn't charge -- Baldwin the Actor for manslaughter.

Prop gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The producer should go to prison. Can we agree on that?

 

[DaShuckster]

1) real gun. Always check and never aim directly at someone especially not filming. Really simple
2) he was the producer and actor
3) no idea if he is charged but his actions are beyond irresponsible that killed a young victim

Okay, you've made your point clear. We'll see what charges are eventually filed.

 

[UCFBS]

Not all Piettas have transfer bars, especially those built before 2015. If he had one where the firing pin directly contacted the primer, than I guess he could’ve pulled the hammer back a bit and then let it go, thus firing the round. He then wouldn’t be lying that he didn’t pull the trigger but he still would’ve performed a reckless act that any idiot would know not to do while pointing it at someone.

Good catch! But if you tell this to the firearm ignorant, they will say, "See, see, he didn't pull the trigger!" Ummm, yeah, about that ... it's like like saying someone who didn't use a mortar to launch, but purposely hit the impact sensitive primer on the round, isn't responsible for the death it caused.

 

[DaShuckster]

Manslaughter is going to be a long shot.

Wasn't that what I've been saying???

 

[UCFBS]

My guess he will pay in civil court. Manslaughter is going to be a long shot. 🔫

Wasn't that what I've been saying???

Sorry, in utter disagreement. This should be criminal, based on what has been going around. If the facts change from what I've heard, I reserve the right to change my viewpoint though.

But right now Baldwin is in real trouble from my standpoint. Others are too, don't get me wrong, but Baldwin didn't even bother to check -- and it's damn easy to check with a revolver -- that cartridges with real bullets were loaded.

Had it been a semi-automatic weapon with cartridges containing real bullets 3+ cartridges down in the magazine well, I would have sided far more with Baldwin. But here's the reality, it's very much reality that Baldwin ...

1) Cocking -- he was cocking and doing other things he shouldn't have been

and ...

2) Pointing -- he still pointed the gun, even if entirely unintentional

Those 2 things really make him criminal liable. Whether he's charged or not is up to how much the DA thinks he/she can prove such. But he is. Sorry, he is. Fact!

Unless it went off as he was picking up the gun, and someone else cocked it (although he should have seen that) ... then I'd side with him (at least partially), but that has not been the case from everything I read. He was rehersing, playing with the gun, from multiple testimonies. E.g.,

QUOTE: _'UPI cited Rust Director Joel Souza said Baldwin was “practicing cross-drawing – pulling the pistol out of a holster on the opposite side of his body – at the time of the [shot?].”'_​

plus ...

3) Industry Violations -- he was 'practicing/rehersing' on a stage with people around where he had no business doing such, which hurts his criminal chances, but more important, is going to bankrupt him, civil-wise.

Make no mistake, no matter what happens in any criminal trial of Baldwin, once it's over, Hollywood will sanction him personally, along with his production company and others, for being both liable and responsible for the deaths. He's likely to be bankrupted over it, and he will go down in history as not just the man behind the 3rd, completely avoidable, death in Hollywood ...

But the man who utterly ignored the industry requirements after first 2, blatantly so. Only George Clooney has had the guts to come out and say that. But yes, everyone knows what Baldwin did ... or rather, did not do.

Good Word News | an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.

Good Word News an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.

goodwordnews.com

Gun expert casts doubt on Alec Baldwin's claim he did NOT pull trigger

Bryan W. Carpenter, a weapons armorer who works for Dark Thirty Film Services, said the gun firing without Baldwin pulling the trigger is highly unlikely.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Analysis: Alec Baldwin’s Gun Could Have Fired Without Him Pulling the Trigger, But Did It?

In his first major interview since being involved in a fatal shooting on the set of his latest movie, Alec Baldwin made a surprising new claim about his actions that day.

thereload.com

 

[DaShuckster]

But here's the reality, it's very much reality that Baldwin ...
1) Cocking -- he was cocking and doing other things he shouldn't have been

According to Baldwin, on the direction of the film's director.

and ... 2) Pointing -- he still pointed the gun, even if entirely unintentional Those 2 things really make him criminal liable.

Again, according to Baldwin, at the request of the film's director and the cinematographer to capture a specific camera angle.

Good luck getting a prosecutor to file manslaughter charges against an actor doing what he was instructed to do on a movie set.

 

[Crazyhole]

Imagine being the guy that decides to produce a film based in Jim Crow era times that glorifies gun violence and you end up shooting a BLM supporter, and NOT being called a racist.

 

[DaShuckster]

Imagine being the guy that decides to produce a film based in Jim Crow era times that glorifies gun violence ...

What film or TV show DOESN'T glorify gun violence?

 

[UCFBS]

According to Baldwin, on the direction of the film's director.

Again, according to Baldwin, at the request of the film's director and the cinematographer to capture a specific camera angle.

Good luck getting a prosecutor to file manslaughter charges against an actor doing what he was instructed to do on a movie set.

You mean not check the gun? Sorry, but mandatory industry practices and manslaughter doesn't require intent either, just negligence. There is plenty of negligence on Baldwin here.