Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, if you're Alec Baldwin, you can do anything in MN.

Wrong state.

I think PP was using shorthand for all the states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person holding the gun when it goes off is ultimately responsible for what happens.

NO ONE should be let off the hook because they relied on someone else to check to see if the gun is safe. Had this been ANYONE in the "real" world that this happened to, the person holding the gun is responsible for that death and that injury. I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook.

It wasn’t the real world. It was a movie set.

Ok, so anything goes on a movie set then. No rules, no consequences. I was not aware of that fact.

You don’t have to wallow in ignorance. The protocols for firearms on movie sets are not hard to find.

Do they override the first rule of handling a gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person holding the gun when it goes off is ultimately responsible for what happens.

NO ONE should be let off the hook because they relied on someone else to check to see if the gun is safe. Had this been ANYONE in the "real" world that this happened to, the person holding the gun is responsible for that death and that injury. I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook.

It wasn’t the real world. It was a movie set.

Ok, so anything goes on a movie set then. No rules, no consequences. I was not aware of that fact.

You don’t have to wallow in ignorance. The protocols for firearms on movie sets are not hard to find.

Do they override the first rule of handling a gun?

No, which is why the armorer is potentially in big trouble. "Willful disregard".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, if you're Alec Baldwin, you can do anything in MN.

Wrong state.

Dyslexia. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person holding the gun when it goes off is ultimately responsible for what happens.

NO ONE should be let off the hook because they relied on someone else to check to see if the gun is safe. Had this been ANYONE in the "real" world that this happened to, the person holding the gun is responsible for that death and that injury. I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook.

It wasn’t the real world. It was a movie set.

Ok, so anything goes on a movie set then. No rules, no consequences. I was not aware of that fact.

You don’t have to wallow in ignorance. The protocols for firearms on movie sets are not hard to find.

Do they override the first rule of handling a gun?

No, which is why the armorer is potentially in big trouble. "Willful disregard".

Someone held it after and ignored the golden rule.

[Anonymous]

Alec Baldwin is a criminal, as things seem to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin is a criminal, as things seem to be.

You've mixed him up with his character. Learn to separate fiction from reality.

[Anonymous]

The armorer sounds like a loose cannon. Her friend was killed in a motorcycle accident and she was partially responsible, had to pay his family $50,000.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/10/27/rust-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-tied-to-friends-death/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin is a criminal, as things seem to be.

You've mixed him up with his character. Learn to separate fiction from reality.

The reality is Baldwin pulled the trigger of the pistol that killed an innocent woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin is a criminal, as things seem to be.

You've mixed him up with his character. Learn to separate fiction from reality.

The reality is Baldwin pulled the trigger of the pistol that killed an innocent woman.

Read the post above yours. Reality is larger than you seem to think.

[Anonymous]

She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

Who exactly hired her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

Let's face it, her life sounds like a bit of a train wreck.

And those photos. She is not even 25 years old.Something went seriously wrong for this young woman along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

She got the job only because of her father, not her skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person holding the gun when it goes off is ultimately responsible for what happens.

NO ONE should be let off the hook because they relied on someone else to check to see if the gun is safe. Had this been ANYONE in the "real" world that this happened to, the person holding the gun is responsible for that death and that injury. I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook.

It wasn’t the real world. It was a movie set.

Then why Harvey in jail? If he raped women not in real world, but in a movie set, he should not be even prosecuted.

You sound like an idiot. Off to bed now