Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

DP. He says he did not pull the trigger, but he said he pulled the hammer back and when he released it, the gun fired. His words, not an assumption. Pulling the trigger on that type of gun makes the hammer go back, and release, to fire the gun. He did not pull the trigger, he bypassed it. He did the job of the trigger with his hand. The gun did not fire for no reason, he made it fire.

So you're saying that once a gun is cocked, once the hammer has been pulled back, then a shot is inevitable, there's no other possible outcome? Only gunfire, nothing else could possibly happen? Gee, someone should have told him that, right? Besides not putting any live bullets in the gun, of course, that pesky detail also had a little bit to do with what happened. A little bit = around 100%.

Not when cocked, when released, either by pulling the trigger, or letting it go by hand, as he did. Do you think he is not responsible at all? Not a little?

This gun did not magically fire. Alec Baldwin pointed it at someone and caused it to fire. Others are not blameless, but neither is he.

+ The posters denying this fact must have a lot in common with his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

DP. He says he did not pull the trigger, but he said he pulled the hammer back and when he released it, the gun fired. His words, not an assumption. Pulling the trigger on that type of gun makes the hammer go back, and release, to fire the gun. He did not pull the trigger, he bypassed it. He did the job of the trigger with his hand. The gun did not fire for no reason, he made it fire.

So you're saying that once a gun is cocked, once the hammer has been pulled back, then a shot is inevitable, there's no other possible outcome? Only gunfire, nothing else could possibly happen? Gee, someone should have told him that, right? Besides not putting any live bullets in the gun, of course, that pesky detail also had a little bit to do with what happened. A little bit = around 100%.

Not when cocked, when released, either by pulling the trigger, or letting it go by hand, as he did. Do you think he is not responsible at all? Not a little?

This gun did not magically fire. Alec Baldwin pointed it at someone and caused it to fire. Others are not blameless, but neither is he.

I thought hammers could be uncocked. TIL I learn that isn't so. Once the hammer has been pulled back, there's only one option after that, gunfire. Thank you for the lesson.

[Anonymous]

They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

No. PP has reliably informed me that after pulling the hammer back, that after that it cannot be released, only fired.

[Anonymous]

He was playing around with a gun, pointing it as someone. Very guilty of something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was playing around with a gun, pointing it as someone. Very guilty of something.

He was doing his job, exactly what the director and cinematographer wanted him to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was playing around with a gun, pointing it as someone. Very guilty of something.

He was doing his job, exactly what the director and cinematographer wanted him to do.

Exactly?!😳

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was playing around with a gun, pointing it as someone. Very guilty of something.

He was doing his job, exactly what the director and cinematographer wanted him to do.

Exactly?!😳

Yes, exactly. Someone else didn't do their job, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

No. PP has reliably informed me that after pulling the hammer back, that after that it cannot be released, only fired.

Same Poster, not different poster. What I said was when you cock it back and release it, it fires, because you seem to be stuck on he didn’t pull the trigger. I guess what I should have said was, when you bypass the trigger, and don’t release it carefully, it fires and can kill someone. AB himself says he cocked it, released it, and it fired. That’s how guns work, so it’s why you don’t point them at people and do it.

I’ll ask again, do you believe he isn’t at least partly responsible ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

No. PP has reliably informed me that after pulling the hammer back, that after that it cannot be released, only fired.

Same Poster, not different poster. What I said was when you cock it back and release it, it fires, because you seem to be stuck on he didn’t pull the trigger. I guess what I should have said was, when you bypass the trigger, and don’t release it carefully, it fires and can kill someone. AB himself says he cocked it, released it, and it fired. That’s how guns work, so it’s why you don’t point them at people and do it.

I’ll ask again, do you believe he isn’t at least partly responsible ?

I think it's pretty clear that he isn't, given that moment and everything else that was going on there that day and earlier days. But I'm a black-and-white thinker about right and wrong. You may think differently.

I also posted several pages ago that I know someone who struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the highway at night. That person, though not at fault, was shook. By all accounts, however ill-advised the interview may have been, and however crazy his wife is, Baldwin is shook. And the family of cinematographer has lost a wife and mother. No matter how much we bicker anonymously about Baldwin, she'll still be gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was playing around with a gun, pointing it as someone. Very guilty of something.

He was doing his job, exactly what the director and cinematographer wanted him to do.

I'm sure that will go over well to a jury. "She wanted me to do it. She was asking for it!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

No. PP has reliably informed me that after pulling the hammer back, that after that it cannot be released, only fired.

Same Poster, not different poster. What I said was when you cock it back and release it, it fires, because you seem to be stuck on he didn’t pull the trigger. I guess what I should have said was, when you bypass the trigger, and don’t release it carefully, it fires and can kill someone. AB himself says he cocked it, released it, and it fired. That’s how guns work, so it’s why you don’t point them at people and do it.

I’ll ask again, do you believe he isn’t at least partly responsible ?

I think it's pretty clear that he isn't, given that moment and everything else that was going on there that day and earlier days. But I'm a black-and-white thinker about right and wrong. You may think differently.

I also posted several pages ago that I know someone who struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the highway at night. That person, though not at fault, was shook. By all accounts, however ill-advised the interview may have been, and however crazy his wife is, Baldwin is shook. And the family of cinematographer has lost a wife and mother. No matter how much we bicker anonymously about Baldwin, she'll still be gone.

DP. I think it's black and white that he's partly responsible since he is indeed the person who shot her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can be un cocked be releasing the hammer slowly. That’s not what Alec Baldwin did according to, well, him.

No. PP has reliably informed me that after pulling the hammer back, that after that it cannot be released, only fired.

Same Poster, not different poster. What I said was when you cock it back and release it, it fires, because you seem to be stuck on he didn’t pull the trigger. I guess what I should have said was, when you bypass the trigger, and don’t release it carefully, it fires and can kill someone. AB himself says he cocked it, released it, and it fired. That’s how guns work, so it’s why you don’t point them at people and do it.

I’ll ask again, do you believe he isn’t at least partly responsible ?

I think it's pretty clear that he isn't, given that moment and everything else that was going on there that day and earlier days. But I'm a black-and-white thinker about right and wrong. You may think differently.

I also posted several pages ago that I know someone who struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the highway at night. That person, though not at fault, was shook. By all accounts, however ill-advised the interview may have been, and however crazy his wife is, Baldwin is shook. And the family of cinematographer has lost a wife and mother. No matter how much we bicker anonymously about Baldwin, she'll still be gone.

DP. I think it's black and white that he's partly responsible since he is indeed the person who shot her.

Tough to say there’s no responsibility when but for you, she’d be alive

[Anonymous]

Pro tip: when you're trying to show everyone how rational and not-murder-y you are, don't violently lunge at reporters who ask you about when you shot someone.

Just on case someone is looking for PR advice.

[Anonymous]

If he took a gun safety course he would have known not to put his hand on the trigger and point down and not assume period. For some making money off hating guns and using them, important to take a course. Also then not show off your vacations like nothing happened.