Anonymous wrote:How is Alec Baldwin not able to sue for emotional distress?

¡Pobrecito Baldwinito! Que peña, this familia needs to be left in piss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on clips of the armorer, she seems very inexperienced and immature. It appears to me that they were cutting corners in every way - from a cheesy set design, wardrobe and hiring of this green armorer.

Hall has every reason to lie about telling Baldwin the gun was cold. I'd be very skeptical of his testimony given his plea deal. He and the armorer should be charged, if anyone.

He was already charged and convicted. Keep up.

Probable Cause Statement filed
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/arts/alec-baldwin-manslaughter-rust-shooting.html

Anonymous wrote:Based on clips of the armorer, she seems very inexperienced and immature. It appears to me that they were cutting corners in every way - from a cheesy set design, wardrobe and hiring of this green armorer.

Got the job because she's a nepo baby. Plain and simple.

Should Halls even have been handling the gun in the first place. When the accident happened I remember a bunch of Armours appearing on the news channels saying that it was against industry protocol for the assistant director to have done what Halls did, hand Baldwin the gun and declare it cold, only the Armour should do it.

Baldwins negligence could be argued to have been not insisting on Hannah doing the final gun safety check as the producer and an A list star with the clout to demand that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is Alec Baldwin not able to sue for emotional distress?

Sue who? The DA who is charging him?

Sue the armorer. For messing up her job and getting someone killed.

Anonymous wrote:Based on clips of the armorer, she seems very inexperienced and immature. It appears to me that they were cutting corners in every way - from a cheesy set design, wardrobe and hiring of this green armorer.

Hall has every reason to lie about telling Baldwin the gun was cold. I'd be very skeptical of his testimony given his plea deal. He and the armorer should be charged, if anyone.

Anonymous wrote:How is Alec Baldwin not able to sue for emotional distress?

Sue who? The DA who is charging him?

Based on clips of the armorer, she seems very inexperienced and immature. It appears to me that they were cutting corners in every way - from a cheesy set design, wardrobe and hiring of this green armorer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose fingerprints are on the bullets? If not Alec, he shouldn't have been charged.

Unless someone can pull up an email saying Alec, rogue people are playing with guns, no charges from being the producer either.

And analogy poster, your analogies are all wrong.

This would be more like: Owner of restaurant has poison food. Someone dies from eating it. The server is charged.

So the person who loads the gun is guilty if someone else uses that gun to kill someone?

Yes if someone put bullets in on a set that is not supposed to have bullets.

How is Alec Baldwin not able to sue for emotional distress?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

The gun had already gone off spontaneously a couple days earlier. It's possible that it did go off on its own - even though that's supposed to be impossible.

Guns do not “go off spontaneously”. You can load a gun, chamber a round of ammunition, place it on the ground, and as long as nothing touches it, it will remain there, unfired, until the Sun consumes the Earth 5 billion years from now.

This one did earlier. Did Baldwin intentionally or unintentionally pull the trigger? That's the most likely explanation. Did the gun go off on its own? This gun, maybe.

No it did not, no gun can, or bullets in the box would be a danger. On this type of gun the hammer must be pulled back and released to have the bullet fire. That can be done by pulling the trigger, or the hammer by hand. There is no other way to have it fire.

It doesn't matter; the gun was supposed to be empty of ammunition.

Anonymous wrote: I’m shocked he’s being charged.

It's ridiculous. They will never be able to convince a jury that he should have known that a "cold" gun someone else gave him was loaded with real ammunition when the director told him to point it in her direction.

I’m shocked he’s being charged.

I stand behind Alec Baldwin. For safety reasons.