Alec Baldwin May Have INTENTIONALLY Killed That Woman

You can see the both ends of a bullet in a revolver without removing it from the cylinder.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

lol yeah that's true .

But to see the front of the bullet you need to point the revolver at your own face to do so , Do you advise this ?

Look I get you guys don't like Alec Baldwin and neither do I , But you guys keep saying it's common since to check a weapon before firing it and you are also assuming that these pansy marshmallow actors who have been babied there whole lives should be these experts .

The truth of this really is simple .

The majority of ATS hate Alec Baldwin he is a Liberal puppet who made a mockery of Donald Trump so you guys want to see him burn for this , also it means you guys are incapable of looking at this objectively .

Someone brought live rounds on that movie set , Someone put live rounds in that revolver and that someone is a Murderer.

Also likely that someone will get away with murder because so many people are focused on Alec Baldwin when they should be focused on who ever brought live rounds on the set.

The armorer has broke her silence saying they had used that gun for live round target practice several times

So uh Alec knew the gun was real, he knew they had used it for target practice several times .


And yet he still pointed it at her and fired without checking

Please let him go to prison . please please please

thetruereporter.com...

a reply to: sciencelol

And yet he still pointed it at her and fired without checking

did you also read this part of the report. ?

The cinematographer was killed a few hours later. First assistant director David Halls told him it was a “cold gun,” and Baldwin discharged it. Well, it had live ammunition in it. The Armorer who was in charge of the weapons decided to speak up. Her comments gave us chills! Hannah Gutierrez Reed says she checked the gun before Baldwin got it. She claims it had no “live bullet” in it. How did that bullet end up in the gun?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

If you read my post you would know that I do not recommend pointing a gun at yourself, or anyone else. However, as I also said, if you are looking at the bullets in order to see all of them the cylinder must be rotated out of the frame and the gun is unable to fire, accidentally or otherwise.

"Someone" brought live rounds to the set. "Someone" put live rounds in the revolver. "Someone" pulled the trigger.

Bringing live rounds to a movie set does not make you a murderer, it makes you stupid. Putting live rounds in a gun on a movie set does not make you a murderer, it makes you more stupid than the other guy. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger makes you a murderer, even if you didn't want to kill that person. To say otherwise is a hard argument to make after you point a gun at them and pull the trigger...

The armorer on set was a fool and has had problems before. Hell, she even shot herself on set once. The bigger fool is the person who hired her.

However, as I also said, if you are looking at the bullets in order to see all of them the cylinder must be rotated out of the frame and the gun is unable to fire, accidentally or otherwise.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That depends on the make of the Revolver and you know as much .

Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger makes you a murderer, even if you didn't want to kill that person. To say otherwise is a hard argument to make after you point a gun at them and pull the trigger...

So then Dick Cheney is a murderer yes ? He shot a man in the face , or should I not bring that up ?

a reply to: machineintelligenceblank ammo and live ammo look very differently any smart person especially after what happoned to brandon lee would have checked to see type of ammo that was in the cylinder.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Every time I hear about this story I think of Dicl talking to W. and saying I bet you 43 that I can shoot that guy with a butt full of birdshot and the press will let me get away with it. W says no way Dic you got a bet. Then Bill shoots the guy and W takes out a dollar pops it a couple of times and then hands it to Bill.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Yes, dick Cheney is a murderer

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot, didn't die so no he is not a murderer.

There is a difference between pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger and accidentally shooting someone who steps in front of you when you are hunting. Cheney did not want to shoot anyone. Both Cheney and Whittington said afterward that it was an accident.

If someone hands you a gun and tells you it is not loaded it is your responsibility to check for yourself and make sure the person who handed you that gun wasn't mistaken or just plain lying. Its not their fault if you don't check for yourself. You are the one holding lethal force at that moment. It is no ones fault but yours once you accept control of that firearm.

If baldwin wanted to shoot that woman this was the right armorer to hire. She has had multiple incidents in the past. She is the perfect scapegoat in the mind of someone like baldwin.

Remember remember the 5th of November.

This is a pretty good conspiracy with all this new information coming out. You would think rehearsing a scene where the actor is going to point the gun directly at the cameraman they would really make sure the gun wasn't loaded.

The person who loaded the bullet must have know the scene.

Zoolander.

Like John Wilkes Booth, Baldwin is an Actor/Model assassin. Classic Clinton.

Someone should check to see where Alec was when Epstein didn't kill himself

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for your very informative posts. I'm learning a lot. From what I read, I think the allegation does relate to someone seeking to cause chaos on that set, and not an attempt to harm anyone in particular. As the reportage included info of disgruntled workers on that set. Like any good defense lawyer that armorer's lawyer is already planting seeds of doubt in the jury's mind in lieu of a possible charge. He did his job, I guess.

What you describe seems negligent just having guns lying around on a cart with anyone having access. If that's the case it sounds pretty bad.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I was referring to the Glock that Keanu Reeves used in John Wick.

That's fine, but we're not discussing a Glock. This was a single-action, fixed-cylinder revolver. The process for checking the ammunition is quite different. On this gun, one need only open the loading post and slowly spin the cylinder around one turn; every single primer location is clearly visible.

Attempting to equate the two as to checking status is simply not appropriate. Maybe had Baldwin been handed a Glock, you might have a point, but Baldwin was handed a revolver.

Maybe if the bullet had ricocheted off the side of the camera Hutchins wouldn't be dead. Maybe if a rainstorm had formed overhead, this wouldn't have happened. Maybe if someone had spotted a UFO and everyone had stopped and looked up this wouldn't have happened. We could go on all year with "what ifs" and not a single word of it would be applicable.

Alec Baldwin held the gun. Alec Baldwin failed to check the gun himself. Alec Baldwin pointed the gun at Hutchins. Alex Baldwin pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at Hutchins. Those are facts, not "what ifs." And those facts are sufficient to meet the legal definition of involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico.

At this time, I consider it a horrible accident, one that could have been and should have been easily avoided, yes, but still an accident. But every time I hear someone trying to defend the person responsible over celebrity, I have less and less sympathy for the fact it was likely an accident and more and more believe Baldwin should receive the maximum penalty allowed by law. Someone has to set an example, or Hutchins will only be the first of many.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

I guess I am lucky that no one wanted me dead... yes.

Why do you think that is a requirement for a gun to go off?

And i guess playing russian roulette is part and parcel of being on film sets with guns around.

I absolutely refuse to accept that in any way, shape, form, or fashion!

Your reference to Russian Roulette is quite appropriate, but this is something far more dangerous than just not tying off a safety belt. I have worked heavy construction, and yes, there is a certain acceptance that the job is dangerous. However, there is also an expectation that any dangers will be minimized. It is far from unheard of for someone to be prosecuted for creating unsafe conditions on any job that result in loss of life. Try untying your buddy's safety belt sometime when he isn't looking... if he falls, you go to jail. Do not pass go; do not collect $200. I have seen people fired on the spot for that kind of thing, and the first thing out of the supervisor's mouth is "You could have killed him!"

The following actually happened. I was there.

When the nuclear plant I worked construction on was approaching start-up, the Power Production division was testing each system as it was completed. This time they were testing the main steam lines, 60" pipes that carried high-pressure steam from the reactor building to the turbines. These pipes were the strongest, thickest-wall pipes they could get; if memory serves, they were schedule 160.

At the same time, someone decided a valve needed to be worked on. The entire system was marked as being ready to test and no one was supposed to tamper with it. But they removed the valve anyway, replacing it with a spool piece of schedule 10 pipe while it was being worked on.

So the test comes up. Power Production energizes the pumps and brings the pressure to 120%. They never made it. There were two workers in that room with the spool piece. One of them reported he heard a noise and looked around. The spool piece was literally blowing up like a big steel balloon. Then it exploded, filling that room with shrapnel. The person who saw it was on the other side of the room and dove behind some equipment; he had to take off a few days until his hearing returned. The other guy wasn't so lucky. He lived, but he had severe, permanent hearing damage and was pretty sliced up from the shrapnel. He never returned to work.

Of course, the area was roped off and the NRC was called in. So was the ABI (Alabama Bureau of Investigations). The only reason someone didn't go down for ignoring that tag-out was that they couldn't find out who removed the valve. The ABI performed a full criminal investigation, and they did not care if it was an accident. TVA fired (and blackballed) quite a few management personnel for not keeping up with the records and verifying the tag-out, but without knowing who was responsible they couldn't lock anyone up. Someone dodged a major bullet. I heard rumors that they would have faced 20 years (for "doing their job").

Just doing one's job, a job being dangerous, etc., is not a legal defense for negligence.

I am shocked at how many people seem to think dying on the job is so acceptable. Thank God I am retired.

TheRedneck

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

That depends on the make of the Revolver and you know as much .

The end of the bullets can be seen without pointing it at one's face. I posted photos in another thread showing a loaded revolver; it was not pointed at the camera, and every bullet was visible. That applies to any revolver.

Not to mention, this gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds. When retrieved, it had five dummy rounds and one spent live round in it. A dummy round has a bullet! What it doesn't have is a primer and powder, and one need not look at the front of the bullet to ascertain that.

You keep making glaring errors in your statements. That is why some are questioning your military record. I will not go that far, but I will say this; if you were armed around me, making those kinds of statements, you would no longer be armed around me. You are dangerous with a gun. Military or no.

So then Dick Cheney is a murderer yes ? He shot a man in the face , or should I not bring that up ?

Of course you can bring it up. It's relevant. I wouldn't go hunting with Dick Cheney if my life depended on it. He discharged a gun in an unsafe condition. He was lucky his friend didn't press charges; he had every right to do so.

Cheney was not charged with murder because NO ONE DIED. Duh. Figger it out. If he had killed his friend, I would have said he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter as well.

This is not political! This is about who is and is not above the law!

TheRedneck

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Thanks for your very informative posts. I'm learning a lot.

Thank you! That just made my day.

This issue hits on two different hot-button issues for me personally: firearm safety and legal equality. I tend to have a natural affinity for big-bore revolvers; just a personal choice. But that personal choice means that an accident around me tends to leave very big holes in things. I like revolvers because one, they are simple to repair/operate, and two, they do have this intimidation factor about them (which has already saved one life around me). People generally are not quick to argue with a revolver, especially one with a big hole in the end of the barrel. Thus far I have not had to kill anyone and I pray that continues throughout the rest of my life; at the same time I can say I have come close enough to know I could do it, and that makes that prayer even more fervent.

I think the legal equality thing speaks for itself.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were to be discovered that New Mexico is actually considering the possibility of intent. That's generally a consideration in any shooting. Many times it can be discounted, such as in the case of the infamous Cheney hunting accident; both the shooter and the victim claimed it was completely accidental. Still, I would be surprised if the investigating officers didn't entertain the notion of malicious intent for a few seconds before dismissing it.

What you describe seems negligent just having guns lying around on a cart with anyone having access. If that's the case it sounds pretty bad.

I remember back when the Fukushima nuclear plant melted down. I was active discussing that incident as well, mainly because I had a lot of knowledge about nuclear power generation (from working in that field for several years), I was shocked at the potential for ecological disaster, and the deeper I dug the worse it got. Same thing here; I know a good bit about revolvers and loads (I have reloaded my own rounds for a few decades now), the potential I am seeing for future safety problems on movie sets is jaw-dropping, and the deeper I dig the more shocked I am. This is a comedy of errors, just like Fukushima was.

With Fukushima, though, there was general agreement that this is very bad and someone needs to answer for it so it doesn't happen again; this time, to my amazement, there are a lot of people literally arguing for someone to be exonerated for killing someone just because of celebrity. What fresh sorcery is this?

Anyway, that last part was just a little residual steam coming off from previous replies. Feel free to ask me anything. I like teaching others.


TheRedneck

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

Look I get you guys don't like Alec Baldwin and neither do I , But you guys keep saying it's common since to check a weapon before firing it and you are also assuming that these pansy marshmallow actors who have been babied there whole lives should be these experts .

The truth of this really is simple .

The majority of ATS hate Alec Baldwin he is a Liberal puppet who made a mockery of Donald Trump so you guys want to see him burn for this , also it means you guys are incapable of looking at this objectively .

Lose the TDS. I've hated Baldwin long before Trump was in the political picture. 2006 or 2007 one of the radio talk shows released a recording of him speaking to his daughter. If would have heard that recording you would understand. The crap he did about Trump is nothing. It just showed that the entertainment industry are a bunch of Liberal Socialist hacks. Joe McCarthy has to be laughing his ass off right now.

As far as the shooting goes. If live rounds were intentionally placed in the ammo box, the person who did it is liable criminally. Otherwise this is just an "industrial accident".

I don't know what the industry standards are for using weapons on a movie set. I don't know if there ARE any standards.
What bothers me is that the Armorer wasn't allowed on the set due to COVID restrictions. That's a red flag right there.
Actors are actors and with a few exceptions (Angelina Jolie and Keanu Reeves come to mind) are NOT weapons experts. Would Baldwin even know how to tell a dummy round from a live one? I doubt it. We don't know the composition of the scene that they were rehearsing. Maybe it called for the gun to be pointed at the camera. (not smart, but, it's Hollywood)

To me the breakdown happened when the Armorer was not allowed on the set. I don't know if the target shooting with live ammo happened or not, it really doesn't matter. Leaving the guns on a table and allowing the Assistant Director to take the gun to Baldwin is wrong. As I said previously I watched Armorers on a movie set work. To me the Armorer should have been on the set, should have loaded the pistol with dummy rounds in front of Baldwin and at least one other and then handed the pistol to Baldwin for the scene ONLY not to practice with. He should have been practicing with an EMPTY weapon.

Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot, didn't die so no he is not a murderer.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is not what you said though mate , you said " Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger makes you a murderer" you did not imply they need to actually die.

There is a difference between pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger and accidentally shooting someone who steps in front of you when you are hunting. Cheney did not want to shoot anyone. Both Cheney and Whittington said afterward that it was an accident.

And Alec Baldwin by his own admission did not want to shoot anyone , He pointed the Gun and pulled the trigger there was a live round when there was not supposed to be .

Whittington said it was an accident because of who Dick Cheney was , that is how powerful and scary Dick Cheney is he can shoot someone in the face and they apologize to him for it .

The only reason Whittington is alive is because it was bird-shot , change it out with buck shot and his head would have been removed . All in All I'm just making an example and I'm playing devils advocate here.

The Truth is # Alec Baldwin , but I do believe what happen was an honest to God accident.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Mate I agree with everything you've said it is measured and full of wisdom and experience.

My main goal is to play Devils advocate and look at this objectively , The revolver Alec Baldwin used is like you said a single action fixed cylinder design. Which means yes you can see the rounds from the rear but only if you flip the lever out and rotate the cylinder to inspect each round individually and yes I suppose you can inspect the front of the rounds but you have to point the weapon almost at your face and at the very least point it at an unsafe angle to do so .

Again I'm saying all of this assuming Alec Baldwin even knows the difference between live and blank rounds " which I do not think he does" , By there own admission the people who handed him the gun said the weapon was safe .

Now who ever thought it was a good idea to even bring live rounds on that set is the stupidest mofo in the movie industry , Bringing Live rounds on that set increases the chances of them getting mixed in with blank rounds 100% immediately so the people running that clown show should all go to jail and yes that includes Alec Baldwin .

But again I do not think he shot her on purpose.