Anti-gun activist and blowhard Alec Baldwin shoots and kills film director
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
This says it was the head of photography not the director. The gun is just a tool. He could have still killed him with a knife. We’ll never know.
While I don't like Baldwin, my biggest question is how in the hell did a live round end up in the prop gun. I feel bad for everyone involved including Alec Baldwin.
Isnt this how Brandon Lee was killed? Crazy to think this can happen, someone obviously made a huge mistake.
If we took guns out of movies you would be the first one hear crying about wokeness or something.
Someone’s head will roll for this but it won’t be Baldwins. The responsibility of ensuring the safety of a prop falls outside of the actor or actress using the prop. Usually there is a specialist specifically trained and tasked with that. Random Joe actor isn’t going to be firearms trained for handling of a prop that is meant to be fake or at least disarmed.
Anti-gunners are irreponsible with guns, whether alleged props or any time they pick up any firearm. We'll probably never get the full details, but as I posted elsewhere ...
The kids and their parents can 'opt out' of 'handling' any firearms, but they must have knowledge and training of actual firearm safety and law. That's why I laugh when people are 'for' alleged 'gun safety' laws, when they have 0 actual 'gun safety' knowledge.
- always inspect the type of ammunition in the magazine
- if at all possible, never hurts to do a 'test fire' into a 'water drum'
- this truly ensures the ammunition being used
- it also confirms that batch of blanks are causing some objects to be propelled
- many types of blanks can still kill
- there are cases of 'bad batches' too
The kids and their parents can 'opt out' of 'handling' any firearms, but they must have knowledge and training of actual firearm safety and law. That's why I laugh when people are 'for' alleged 'gun safety' laws, when they have 0 actual 'gun safety' knowledge.
A knife doesn't discharge anything.
The fact that Alec Baldwin -- unless he was directed to do so -- irresponsibly pointed a weapon in the wrong direction. He's an anti-gun nut, and if he wasn't directed to do this, just proved how little 'firearm awareness' let alone 'firearm safety' he has.
And he wants to write 'gun safety' laws?! That's what kills me.
You don't pull unless you intend to point.
You don't point unless you intend to shoot.
You don't shoot unless you intend to incapacitate.
Seriously, NO ONE who ever deals with firearms jokes this way, and it's a 100% Hollywood'ism that real people do. Even police to NOT handle like in TV/movies!
Rethinking Firearms Safety | Pacifiers & Peacemakers - USCCA
For all the shooters, new and old, hopefully this is a powerful reminder of how awesome the responsibility is for us to own, carry and train with firearms.
www.usconcealedcarry.com
Legal Analysis from an Actual Expert: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...fter-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/
I love articles like this, breaking down all the scenarios and even options for prosecutors in the case of criminal scenarios, in full detail.
At least there were eyewitnesses, so we'll have answers soon enough.
More evidence, more analysis.
legalinsurrection.com
Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter
The more we learn about the facts of this case, within the context of New Mexico criminal law, the more this shooting looks increasingly like a crime—specifically, felony involuntary manslaughter.
legalinsurrection.com
You can clearly tell this was written by someone with at least basic firearm safety knowledge too, in addition to legal.More evidence, more analysis.
Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter
The more we learn about the facts of this case, within the context of New Mexico criminal law, the more this shooting looks increasingly like a crime—specifically, felony involuntary manslaughter.
I've literally spent too much time educating my left wing associates on how this could happen, from a basic firearm safety standpoint.
Way too many of them stupidly thing Hollywood has some sort of special gun industry, and one even stupidly demanded that the gun industry develop Hollywood safe guns.
I literally couldn't get then to understand prop guns are often real firearms for, gasp, realism, and some were just set on defending an anti-gunner at all costs of logic.
Too many of them are in DC too.
From what I'd heard, I was expecting to agree with the title of the Legalinsurrection article -- until I saw that it was opining that Baldwin be charged with manslaughter which is laughable. He's the film's talent who was assured he was given a safe prop gun.
If anyone is charged -- and given what we've heard, I believe somebody SHOULD be charged -- it's the behind-the-scenes idiot who was responsible for insuring the safety of the film's weapons.
If someone hands you a gun, what’s the first thing that you should do? Rack the slide (a couple of times) or check the cylinder (and barrel) to see if it’s loaded. Even if you’ve just seen someone do the same thing. Then, you don’t point the gun at anyone when you pull the trigger.
Movies are different, right? No. They’re governed by the same laws as everyone else. There should’ve been checks and balances. Fake rounds should be visually discernible from real rounds. Etc.
Police train with sim rounds that they load themselves into visually distinctive magazines and have rules like empty duty belts during training because they are playing with firearms and lives are at risk. Movie sets should have similar rules.
We don’t have all the information so none of us can say for sure if there is criminal liability. But Alec Baldwin was the producer that hired the staff and gave orders and he was the actor that pulled the trigger. It wouldn’t surprise me if some prosecutor found enough in there to charge him. It wouldn’t surprise me if he wasn’t charged. I don’t care if he goes to jail or not. I just hope this forces better security measures for all future movie activities.
And what about someone on a firing range? Surely you'd hold everyone responsible.
Or like with a car.
Or any number of other things.
This is what I don't get. The elites have one set of rules, but the everyday peons don't.
So you're saying it's not the responsibility of hands the gun was in?
At what point do you recognize why 2nd Amendment advocates are basically spot-on with where the problem is?
It's elites who feel they have their own set of rules, especially anti-gunners like Baldwin.
^^^ This.
Heck, the firearms weren't even secured on-set.
Still, Baldwin has a responsibility the second he picks up a firearm, especially once he points it.
I think there is no greater epiphany for the country than...
Anti-gunners who say when an anti-gun person picks up a gun...
They aren't responsible for the harm or death that results from...
Them pointing and pulling the trigger...
Especially with the excuse or even blame of someone else who allegedly loaded it...
Because it's firearm knowledge 101 and check step #0
(insert their standard) "Oh, oh... but did it have a trigger lock? Because if those were mandatory, that might have prevented the murder!"
Anti-gunners who say when an anti-gun person picks up a gun...
They aren't responsible for the harm or death that results from...
Them pointing and pulling the trigger...
Especially with the excuse or even blame of someone else who allegedly loaded it...
Because it's firearm knowledge 101 and check step #0
(insert their standard) "Oh, oh... but did it have a trigger lock? Because if those were mandatory, that might have prevented the murder!"
Last edited:
It was a prop gun.
On films, it's not the talent's job to check a prop weapon.
As I said before, it's highly likely there will be criminal liability surrounding this incident, including from producer Baldwin. But there is No Way that actor Baldwin will be charged. None. Zippo. Nadda.
I would tend to disagree with your last statement because there’s always liability on the person who pulls the trigger. But the vagrant that killed Kate Steinle skated of all charges (eventually) so it’s not a cut-and-dried thing.
Regardless, actor, normie, LEO, it doesn’t matter. Any firearm that can fire a deadly projectile should be treated as such until you absolutely know that it is not loaded with a deadly projectile. It would’ve taken all of 10 seconds to check to see that the gun was safe before the trigger pull killed a person. “I’m an actor” should not be an acceptable defense, especially when the protocols were lax and they used the same weapon for plinking earlier that day.
Give me a break. Talent is in the film to act, not play gun safety expert. There are paid professionals on every film production who are responsible for making absolutely sure a prop weapon is safe.
I watched an interview with one of these so-called 'armorers' and he said that it's standard procedure to check the gun's chambers by rolling it through SIX times before declaring it 'clean.' (The guy being interviewed said he often does it a seventh time.)
The guy who declared the prop gun 'clean' to Baldwin is the one at fault here. It's been reported that he was fired off another film set for a discharge that resulted in an injury to an actor.
Talent, film, play. All abstractions to try to absolve someone that you like from his actions. It’s a real firearm in the real world and where a real human being pulled the trigger on a real gun with a real bullet in it and really killed someone. It doesn’t matter who did what before they handed it to him, once he had it he assumed responsibility for it. Especially since it appears that he set up and allowed reckless environment where the chances of injury were highly elevated. Since he undoubtably knew that, he cannot just play the innocent neophyte relying on “experts” to absolve him of his responsibility.
The protocol should’ve been for the armorer to verify with the actor that the gun is cold. That didn’t happen. Along with a number of other things. Alec Baldwin isn’t on his first film with weapons; his background and vast experience in films should’ve rung all sort of alarm bells that the procedure was wrong. He doesn’t need to be a gun safety expert. The procedure is simple, common sense, and one that any human being can execute very quickly. They used to teach it in high school and children around the world understand to check a gun to see if it is loaded. Stop acting like it’s some specialized skill set that only a few people have.
You’d be singing a different tune if that was your daughter or your wife.
I mean it does kind of matter. I think some fault lies with Baldwin sure, but in reality actors are not the gun experts on a movie set. There are experts hired to ensure the safety of the props on the set. If he was acting a scene disarming a bomb and it turns out it had been swapped for a functioning bomb and the bomb exploded killing someone is he also at fault? Because he set it off? Probably not. Owning and operating a gun for personal use there is and should be an expectation of training and familiarity with guns. But these are Hollywood actors paid to play a role in a film. I don’t think you can have the same expectation of gun familiarity and training. Which is why you pay experts to ensure they are safe. In this particular case Baldwin has more responsibility as producer since he in part is responsible for hiring the experts that failed in this scenario.
Oh, now there's some reality, with the little known 90th Amendment, the right to C4 and detonators.
Geez they aren't even in the same ballpark. Firearms are simple and basic knowledge. They are even more simple than driving a car.
So Baldwin is not a citizen? This is Basic Knowledge check.
What if he had to drive a car? Does he have any responsibility to make sure he doesn't point it at and then run over someone?
And driving a car is far more complex, with more deadly force too.
If he couldn't be responsible with a firearm, he should punt the scene to a stunt double just like they do driving cars, if he couldn't be responsible with the lives behind the camera.
I'm really shocked at this logic. Because you're absolving him of very, very basic knowledge.
I'd say it's a custodial thing, which is the problem on a Hollywood set in general.
But Baldwin still failed his responsibilities the second he picked up the firearm.
Accidental Firearm Discharge Law
An accidental discharge of a firearm occurs when a firearm fires at a time that is not intended by the user of the gun. This can happen for various reasons, including mechanical malfunctions or failures.
I’m not sure any of you arguing that Baldwin’s supposed ignorance of any semblance of requisite due caution regarding the gun actually read the legal analysis I posted about it looking like manslaughter. Please read that because it explains it all quite clearly for you.
Lol. No, but similar to one of them.Ex-girlfriend of yours?
So it's kind of odd that her original statement was that it was a discharged casing that hit the director of photography, but later it was revealed that the gun is a revolver. That's a huge red flag IMO.
Holy Assumptions, Batman. Where did I write that I liked the guy?
I'm simply stating the fact that Baldwin the actor will not be charged with anything. It was a horrible accident that will likely result in some kind of criminal negligence charge (that could include Baldwin as a producer) but that's it.
According to news reports, that's exactly what did happen. We'll see what's said at tomorrow's presser.
Yeah, let's ratchet up the rhetoric by going there.
Indeed, especially because it is far easier to inspect all cartridges in a revolver than just 2 cartridges in an automatic, in 1/3rd the time. And to inspect all the cartriges in the magazine, it's exponentiall faster.
More effective, aware and exposed anti-gunners even use this valid argument against automatic, magazine fed pistols, that they cannot be inspected as easy as a revolver for safety. But Baldwin isn't an effective, aware or exposed.
It's kind of hilarious that the guy that played "animal mother" is talking about gun safety. Then again, the world is a weird place.
This very statement tells me you don't know the first thing about firearms, neither automatic nor let alone even a more simple revolver. There's a reason handheld, repeating revolvers are almost 200 years old (over 250 years if you include carted weapons, and not hand held ones).
This is NOT 'gun expert' knowledge. This is not even just basic firearm familiar, but step #0 in basic firearm awareness. If a 3rd grader -- yes, an 8 year-old -- can learn it, Baldwin can!
Baldwin in a citizen of the United States. What do you guys not understand about the intent of the 2nd Amendment? It's about militias and training the citizendry to not be stupid with firearms!
Like Baldwin. "Oh, I don't understand basic firearms awareness ... so I'll shoot without inspecting any way." And thus ... we have the ultimate example of why anti-gunners are the posterkids of why they shouldn't EVER be allowed to even touch firearms!
The 2nd Amendment about the masses of the population identifying the ignorant and saying, "Hey, you're too irresponsible to have access to a weapon." For all you 'gun safety' people that want to 'control' firearm usage ... this is your moment ... on one of your fellow anti-gunners!
I mean, if anti-gunners would make this type of gun control argument, I've meet them half-way.
How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago
The case for well-regulated militias
theweek.com
But nope ... Punt!
Geez, this is like cars on a private road, where you do NOT need to be licensed either!
You don't get to claim 'I'm not an expert' for running over someone. You get manslaughter and have to prove in a court of law you weren't guilty. Many states have gun laws that are the same, guilty until proven innocent.
If that wasn't the case, USCCA Liability Insurance wouldn't have ever been profitable (to the point even the NRA followed suit)!
Which doesn't cover Baldwin if he was driving a car either. Sorry, but no.
If Baldwin was unable to be responsible with a firearm, he should have done head shots and used a stunt double to do the gun scenes ... just like a car on a private road too.
This is why anti-gunners really just look like massive hypocrites. "We're too ignorant of guns, so you shouldn't have them." No, YOU should not have even access to them!
Bingo!
The anti-gunners here won't be looking up any case law. They literally don't understand why Baldwin is liable, either civilly or criminally, and they literally don't want to visit many state and local laws that put the burden of proof on Baldwin, not the state.
The police didn't charge anyone, because that's not their job. They only charge when there is a danger and/or the law is very specific, like in domestic violence cases. Many wrongful death cases result in no charges until days later.
It's amazing how we're getitng all the 'defense' of Baldwin, but had this happened on a gun range, let alone gun show, they'd be all over everyone! "They were there, and they are all responsible!"
But isn't it amazing how the defense is 180 when it's an anti-gunner?
So if I hire a car driving expert, and I kill or harm someone on a private road, where I need no license and I need no insurance, I'm 100% protected?! It's on them to keep me from being irresponsible with a firearm?!
Explain this to me like a 3rd grader.
I think you guys really are lacking in case law on this matter. It doesn't even take a lawyer, or even just someone who carries USCCA liability insurance and has been through so many small arms safety and other ordinance classes over decades -- but anyone who has been through a basic firearms course to know step #0.
Why are you guys saying Baldwin is free of step #0?
Why are you guys attributing this to 'firearm expert' level knowledge?
Oh, that's right ... he's a prominent anti-gunner.
So yet another 'elite' who 'gets a pass' the rest of us have to deal with.
OMG, I LOL'd ... and that's so wrong, but ... so on-point too.
It's the #1 thing we Libertarians cannot stand about Progressives, that we rarely get out of Conservatives. I mean, if a Conservative tries to 'pass the buck' -- and a few do -- even other Conservatives will jump on them ... bigly.
It can be hard to keep up with the Baldwin clan in nepotism-strewn Hollywood but Adam is not related to them.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
OT: Surgeon General warns cancer risk with alcohol consumption- Latest: PaxKnighticana
-