Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.
You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.
the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.
If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.
Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.
I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules
Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.
I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.
Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.
You mean the "prop" that Alec was holding? The one that he shot two people with, that prop? What's the difference between the weapons cops and soldiers handle and what Alec was holding?
There is no difference. Alec demanded "authentic" period weapons rather than the fake guns most sets use. You don't get to say something isn't a weapon after you shoot two people and kill one.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.
You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.
the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.
If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.
Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.
I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules
Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.
I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.
Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ
How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?
Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.
I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.
That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.
He got on TV and literally blamed the victim. He said he only aimed at Hutchins because she told him to. Watch his interview with George Stephanopoulos. He said he has no regrets about it. He sounds callous and incapable of introspection.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.
You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.
the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.
If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.
Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.
I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules
Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.
I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.
Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is his case similar to if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car? Is that involuntary manslaughter and if so what if anything is the punishment?
I think it's either similar to
Your car's brake light comes on, and you take it to a reputable licensed mechanic, and they assure you it's fixed, but in reality they just turned off the light, so your brakes fail and you kill someone -- you're not guilty.
OR
Your car's brake light comes on, so you let your neighbor's 4 year old fix it with his plastic Little Tykes tools. Your brakes fail and you kill someone. -- You're guilty.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ
How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?
Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.
I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.
That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.
You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.
the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.
If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.
Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.
I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules
Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.
I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ
How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?
Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.
I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.
That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.
Anonymous wrote:Is his case similar to if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car? Is that involuntary manslaughter and if so what if anything is the punishment?
Anonymous wrote:I think the armorer should be punished. The actor expects to be given a clean weapon. It's why every set pays good money for the armorer, whose job it is to manage weapons on set and make sure they're safe.
I don't think a random actor who pulls a trigger should be held responsible, but Alec Baldwin could be, as producer of Rust and because he fostered an atmosphere of unprofessionalism on set. I'm not sure about that last part, though.
Is there someone else responsible for weapons and props who could also be responsible?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ
How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?
Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.
I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.
That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.
Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ