Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: face23785

I'm certainly not familiar with the --- going ons' --- of a Hollywood film set --- But I would speculate that everybody is under contract to perform such dangerous work. And I assume that Baldwin will not be charged for any illegal activity in this tragic incident.

I think such contracts generally protect against pure accidents associated with the normal risks of the business, not necessarily negligence.

For example, I like to go to races. When you buy a ticket, you are indemnifying the facility from lawsuit if you sustain injury or death from incidents inherent to the risks associated with motor racing, like if there's a crash and debris flies over the fence and gives you a cut or a concussion. But it's not a blanket get-out-of-lawsuits-free card for the facility to neglect safety standards. They can still be sued or criminally charged under certain circumstances.

Also, such contracts usually only protect the entities from lawsuits anyway, it doesn't make them exempt from the law. Criminal negligence is still on the table here, imo, depending on Arizona's laws.

As to whether Baldwin will actually face charges, yeah I doubt that too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Someone firing a gun that they thought was unloaded is not a misfire.

Yeah...LOL

It appears to be a semantics puzzle designed by legal eagles. You can bet it will be called a "misfire" in court.

It's not semantics at all. The confusion is caused by ignorant people who refuse to learn about the subject matter constantly trying to opine on and debate the subject. Millions of members of the public become misinformed in this manner, and then when they talk about it they use incorrect terms. It's not hard to understand. No "design" is needed.

I don't believe this statement was made out of ignorance.

on the set of Rust a few times before the fatal incident where Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that misfired and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

www.pedestrian.tv...

I think it was a legally calculated statement, meant to set a certain tone that emphasizes the assumed innocence of Alec Baldwin.

It could be either one.

This does make you realize how unreliable and untrustworthy the media is though right?

a reply to: face23785

Judging by the propensity for unfounded civil law suits in the US I'd say civil suits are inevitable. Second thoughts, I'd best not even go there......

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: face23785

Judging by the propensity for unfounded civil law suits in the US I'd say civil suits are inevitable. Second thoughts, I'd best not even go there......

Lots of merit in this upcoming suit though.

originally posted by: vonclod
Lots of merit in this upcoming suit though.

Being that part of the crew walked off the set earlier that day over safety issues and the filming continued with only a partial crew I'd say he and the other producers are going to be looking at a settlement at the very least.

a reply to: face23785

I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I have never taken any media story at face value. Personally, I always scrutinize vague and ambiguous language, and I consider political bias and propaganda skew. I don't take anything for granted, except the fact that something is being reported.

I know that posters like to come here and look for libtards to mug, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in your projection. This isn't about me.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: JIMC5499

Blanks are potentially deadly at close range. That fact one person was killed and another was injured raises suspicion. I'm not saying Alec knowing killed someone, but whomever loaded what they are calling a "prop" knew something.

Ask Jon-Erik Hexum, oh wait you can't.

I'd ask, but I'd never take a live firearm and point at someone. Let alone pulling the trigger.

But the fact I can't ask kinda goes in line with what I'm saying. And I advocate for guns. But also (especially) gun training and safety.

I have filmed high explosive weapons warheads going off, and we always used mirrors and filmed around a corner in a safe area.i see absolutely no reason for this movie accident to have ever happened.
there is NO reason to aim a gun at a camera and the people behind it when a mirror could have been used.
plus, the newer 5 in 1 blanks now used for filming movies are plastic cased with no wad and the only part that is metal is the primer.
You can not mistake a brass shell with bullet for a plastic 5 in 1 blank that has been movie state-of-the-art blanks that have been used for years now

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I have never taken any media story at face value.

I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I know your posting history here. If it's a "Here's how Republicans are evil today" story, you'll swallow whatever the media is feeding you.

I thought maybe this incident would make you question that practice, but the first step in getting better is realizing you've got a problem, and it sounds like you're not there yet.

a reply to: panoz77

But at any distance greater than a couple feet, a tiny piece of irregular shaped brass is going to loose velocity fast and simply does not have enough energy to kill, there is simply not enough mass to penetrate deep enough.

I have loaded .44/.357 Bain-Davis rounds with .38 shot capsules filled with rock salt. That will embed those crystals into a dog's skin pretty deeply at much longer ranges than 2 feet. I'm not going to do any damage at 200 yards with a load like that, but at close to 100 feet it works pretty well.

Those salt crystals are smaller than a piece of brass shrapnel. Not to mention, brass fragments are sharper and will dig in deeper, tumbling due to their irregular shape and slicing meat as they go. If the brass fractures, it's a much smaller version of a hand grenade... are you going to tell me those won't hurt you if you're standing a little ways away?

All it takes is one bad bend during crimping that overstresses the material to create microfractures in the brass... unnotceable to the naked eye, but they will damn sure splinter under pressure. Professionals should be the only ones ever to load blanks, and even then they should not be fired directly at a person.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Erno86

So what if said film actor had a Tommy gun with a 50 or 100 round drum magazine. Do you think said actor should be held liable for a negligent discharge, if he did not check to see if the magazine drum was loaded with live ammunition or not

Yes.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

But at any distance greater than a couple feet, a tiny piece of irregular shaped brass is going to loose velocity fast and simply does not have enough energy to kill, there is simply not enough mass to penetrate deep enough.

I have loaded .44/.357 Bain-Davis rounds with .38 shot capsules filled with rock salt. That will embed those crystals into a dog's skin pretty deeply at much longer ranges than 2 feet. I'm not going to do any damage at 200 yards with a load like that, but at close to 100 feet it works pretty well.

Those salt crystals are smaller than a piece of brass shrapnel. Not to mention, brass fragments are sharper and will dig in deeper, tumbling due to their irregular shape and slicing meat as they go. If the brass fractures, it's a much smaller version of a hand grenade... are you going to tell me those won't hurt you if you're standing a little ways away?

All it takes is one bad bend during crimping that overstresses the material to create microfractures in the brass... unnotceable to the naked eye, but they will damn sure splinter under pressure. Professionals should be the only ones ever to load blanks, and even then they should not be fired directly at a person.

TheRedneck

Sorry, but your story of salt doing any damage at 100 feet prove to me that your grasping at straws. Bird shot from a 12 G at 100 feet would barely phase a dog or any other animal, let alone rock salt from a .38.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: face23785

Judging by the propensity for unfounded civil law suits in the US I'd say civil suits are inevitable. Second thoughts, I'd best not even go there......

Lots of merit in this upcoming suit though.

Yes, but against who?

a reply to: panoz77

Strange... I posted the Wikipedia definition of a prop gun earlier, and now, surprise, surprise, it has been edited to something different.

Gonna do a little looking... but until this all happened, a prop gun could not physically fire. It was a piece of plastic that looked like a gun. Luckily, posts on ATS are not as easily edited as Wikipedia.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

but I know your posting history here. If it's a "Here's how Republicans are evil today" story, you'll swallow whatever the media is feeding you.

Prove it. I don't think you know my posting history at all. I've never called Republicans evil, or bought into to any such BS.

I'm the one who scrutinized the claims of "misfires", when the official definitions defines a misfire as a failure to ignite. I'm the one who pointed out that the phrasing and use of the word "misfire" when describing Alec Baldwin's shooting of the cinemaphotographer was a legally calculated phrasing to emphasize Baldwin/s presumed innocence, no doubt inserted by a lawyer.

I will scrutinize any claims from Conservative Treehouse, Gateway Pundit, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, CNN, ABC, etc., as I see fit.

a reply to: panoz77

The whole point of the round is not to injure the dog, but to make it go away. And that works quite well, considering the animal either rolls up into a ball on the ground or heads directly away at high speed, screaming in either case. Why do you think I used rock salt? It freakin' hurts!

My point is that something as small as rock salt crystals can embed themselves in skin at that distance. Brass fragments are sharper and more massive.

Up until now, your posts had mostly good information, but some of these comments are indicating to me that your knowledge and thus your safety are not very deep. I hope you learn the easy way.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I've never called Republicans evil, or bought into to any such BS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!










HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Best laugh I have had in weeks!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: face23785

Judging by the propensity for unfounded civil law suits in the US I'd say civil suits are inevitable. Second thoughts, I'd best not even go there......

Lots of merit in this upcoming suit though.

Yes, but against who?

I would guess the production company..?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

The whole point of the round is not to injure the dog, but to make it go away. And that works quite well, considering the animal either rolls up into a ball on the ground or heads directly away at high speed, screaming in either case. Why do you think I used rock salt? It freakin' hurts!

My point is that something as small as rock salt crystals can embed themselves in skin at that distance. Brass fragments are sharper and more massive.

Up until now, your posts had mostly good information, but some of these comments are indicating to me that your knowledge and thus your safety are not very deep. I hope you learn the easy way.

TheRedneck

Embed in the skin is not deadly, and that's exactly what a tiny brass fragment might do at anything further than virtually direct contact with the end of the barrel. Again, your grasping at straws now, be careful not to put an eye out. Always wear your safety glasses.

a reply to: TheRedneck

More projection from you. Again, prove it! You'll be hard pressed to find any post of mine generically labeling Republicans "evil", or anything close.

Have I posted disagreements with extreme right policies and methods?, Sure.

But, it'd be a whole lot easier to find posts of right wing posters here on ATS calling all leftists and Democrats evil, and much worse.

It's too bad you, a MOD, and Face want to turn this thread into a "libtard mugging mud pit" just to discredit me my fairly noncontroversial posts.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

but I know your posting history here. If it's a "Here's how Republicans are evil today" story, you'll swallow whatever the media is feeding you.

Prove it. I don't think you know my posting history at all. I've never called Republicans evil, or bought into to any such BS.

I'm the one who scrutinized the claims of "misfires", when the official definitions defines a misfire as a failure to ignite. I'm the one who pointed out that the phrasing and use of the word "misfire" when describing Alec Baldwin's shooting of the cinemaphotographer was a legally calculated phrasing to emphasize Baldwin/s presumed innocence, no doubt inserted by a lawyer.

I will scrutinize any claims from Conservative Treehouse, Gateway Pundit, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, CNN, ABC, etc., as I see fit.

I'm a pretty minor member and I take long absences, so you obviously don't remember me. It's a lot easier to remember the few liberal members that haven't taken their ball and gone home though, so don't be too flattered that I remember you. There's not a lot of you around here anymore to keep track of.

We've had many back and forths on a variety of political issues. Your stance is usually firmly on Mainstream Media Lane.

Also, I never claimed you called Republicans evil. Neither did Redneck. Nice mainstream media tactic though. Demand we prove something we never even said.

As far as proving you buy a lot of media BS, I could point you to pretty much any thread having anything to do with Trump.