Rust set footage further indication Alec Baldwin is lying about shooting

a reply to: Annee

The question was silly because anyone with any passing knowledge of a gun knows that it is capable of killing someone, and killing someone is against the law.

Your question actually insinuates a belief that guns cannot kill! I don't mind answering questions, but this one was beyond ludicrous. GUNS CAN KILL PEOPLE.

Anyway, you now have what you asked for.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: [post=26471384]Themaskedbeast

Once you have a firearm in your hand anything that happens is directly your fault as you are the one in possession. End of story the law is the law now we get to see if it gets applied equally.

As a Brit where guns aren’t common I find this an interesting debate,

Is it actually a law to check if a gun is loaded or is it good practice?

Does the fact that this happened on a film set not change things ? What if the scene involved him striking someone with the bottle , what if the bottle had been replaced with a real bottle ? How could he check if it was safe before he struck someone ? Does the responsibility not lay with the prop manager ?

Did the chap that shot Brandon Lee get charged with manslaughter?

a reply to: face23785

That would be icing on the top. He is guilty of involuntary manslaughter even if he was stone cold sober.

He cannot be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, or first-degree murder. He did not possess intent to kill (at least nothing that could be proven in court), nor was he in the act of committing a lesser felony. Therefore, the charge is obvious and the guilt is already proven and admitted to. That's what I mean when I said it was the most open-and-shut case in history... so why is Alec Baldwin walking free?

There are only two answers: either the DA is planning on potentially charging others with crimes, or the DA has no intention of upholding the law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Nealjt

Is it actually a law to check if a gun is loaded or is it good practice?

Both... it is good practice because if one does not follow that good practice one can wind up committing a very serious crime. As happened here.

TheRedneck

I am an actual pleb! Having now read page 3 I realise brits need to just stay away from the arguments of Americans 🤩👍❤️🤩👍🤩❤️

originally posted by: Nealjt

originally posted by: [post=26471384]Themaskedbeast

Once you have a firearm in your hand anything that happens is directly your fault as you are the one in possession. End of story the law is the law now we get to see if it gets applied equally.

As a Brit where guns aren’t common I find this an interesting debate,

Is it actually a law to check if a gun is loaded or is it good practice?

Does the fact that this happened on a film set not change things ? What if the scene involved him striking someone with the bottle , what if the bottle had been replaced with a real bottle ? How could he check if it was safe before he struck someone ? Does the responsibility not lay with the prop manager ?

Did the chap that shot Brandon Lee get charged with manslaughter?

No charges were filed as it was a real accident with no real ammunition.

Not even gonna break down the bottle vs the gun there is no comparison.

a reply to: Themaskedbeast

Refresh my memory... wasn't Brandon Lee killed by shell fragments?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Nealjt

LOL!

If one is a gun owner in the USA, or if one wishes to ever have the ability to own a gun in the USA, it's almost a prerequisite to be a quasi-lawyer. Despite a direct Constitutional directive otherwise, so many of our "leaders" have tried every trick in the book to restrict legal firearms, that's the only way to have a chance of success.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yea the tip broke off of one of the blanks and remained in the barrel until the next blank fired and it dislodged striking Brandon and lodged in his spine.
He died hours later at the hospital from numerous things ultimately blood loss.

a reply to: Themaskedbeast

That's what I was thinking... totally different situation. I'm sure the guy who fired the gun could have done something to prevent it, but the kind of inspection necessary would be ludicrous. Something like disassemble and clean the weapon before every trigger pull!

Compare that to spinning a cylinder and checking that there are no bullets. Big, big difference.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What I don't understand in the absolute slightest was why was there real ammo on set at all?!?!

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: TheRedneck

What I don't understand in the absolute slightest was why was there real ammo on set at all?!?!

This is why I'm saying no matter what Baldwin is criminally culpable. He was the producer, and he was there on set, observing all these unsafe practices. They were using set guns for target shooting, mixing ammo. They were drinking. They weren't following basic firearms safety, and Baldwin can't use "I didn't know gun safety" as an excuse. They hired a questionable armorer with a history of safety incidents. They had prior gun incidents on set filming this movie and didn't halt production to get a more qualified armorer or take any action to beef up safety.

And all of this happened with his knowledge and apparent approval. It's not like he was back in his office in Hollywood with just his name on the production and had no idea what they were doing.

No matter how you spin it, he was negligent and someone died because of it. That's a crime. The producers and the director should all be charged. I don't know and couldn't care less what their political beliefs are or their stance on gun control. They should be charged with a crime because a crime was committed. It was not a freak, innocent accident.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: TheRedneck

What I don't understand in the absolute slightest was why was there real ammo on set at all?!?!

They were using set guns for target shooting, mixing ammo. They were drinking. They weren't following basic firearms safety, and Baldwin can't use "I didn't know gun safety" as an excuse.

Oh #. This right here...

Is there such a charge as negligent homicide?

Brandon Lee died in the same manner...an improperly loaded weapon.

Let's face it, guns are dangerous.

Santa Fe District Attorney Mary D.A. Carmack-Altwies told Vanity Fair in a new interview published Friday that she requested the unofficial test inside her office after Baldwin claimed in a TV interview with George Stephanopoulos that his finger wasn’t even on the trigger of his antique Colt 45 revolver when it fired the shot that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

An antique revolver was found and used in the D.A.'s office and it fired,
" They visually showed me,” Carmack-Altwies said. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”

www.rollingstone.com...

Alec Baldwin looks like he does brush the hammer in those close-up shots, and may indeed not have a locked trigger for all we know.

At least let's wait until the FBI finish their investigation, and until it is finished, (not least that there was a live round present) there will be no charges any which way...patience is in order.

a reply to: smurfy

It was not a live round that killed Brandon Lee look it up.

It was a live round that killed this woman and wounded a director there is a difference.

originally posted by: smurfy

An antique revolver was found and used in the D.A.'s office and it fired,
" They visually showed me,” Carmack-Altwies said. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”

The person who wrote that seriously thought that was news? Or that it somehow absolves Baldwin?

Typical uninformed "journalist."

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: smurfy

An antique revolver was found and used in the D.A.'s office and it fired,
" They visually showed me,” Carmack-Altwies said. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”

The person who wrote that seriously thought that was news? Or that it somehow absolves Baldwin?

Typical uninformed "journalist."

The real question is it uninformed journalist or lefty trying to justify a death.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: smurfy

An antique revolver was found and used in the D.A.'s office and it fired,
" They visually showed me,” Carmack-Altwies said. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”

The person who wrote that seriously thought that was news? Or that it somehow absolves Baldwin?

Typical uninformed "journalist."

The real question is it uninformed journalist or lefty trying to justify a death.

Honestly either option is equally likely. Could even be both. Anti-gun extremists actually value their ignorance of the subject matter. They're strangely proud of not knowing the first thing about a subject that they advocate on.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: smurfy

An antique revolver was found and used in the D.A.'s office and it fired,
" They visually showed me,” Carmack-Altwies said. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”

The person who wrote that seriously thought that was news? Or that it somehow absolves Baldwin?

Typical uninformed "journalist."

The real question is it uninformed journalist or lefty trying to justify a death.

Honestly either option is equally likely. Could even be both. Anti-gun extremists actually value their ignorance of the subject matter. They're strangely proud of not knowing the first thing about a subject that they advocate on.

I work strange hours mostly 7 days a week 230 am to whenever I get done I don't usually get to participate this much in any thread.

I don't believe or think Alec Baldwin meant or tried to hurt or kill anyone but it happened.

People run stop signs on accident and serve jail time for hitting and or killing people.

This should be no different than that.

I don't have a dog in the fight either way but if you or me made the same mistake we would not be free right now.

By that I mean on the street or your back yard.

You would be in a cell right now for homicide possibly murder depending on the investigation.

Why is this treated any different? Is it because of the movie set or is it because celebrity privilege 🤔

a reply to: Themaskedbeast

Well I completely agree. I said earlier that it's not murder. I don't think there was any intent.

But all that means is its not murder. It is still criminal. Redneck explained it well earlier. It's not even that complicated of a case. He absolutely should've been arrested and charged by now. Anyone else would've been.

By the time it went to trial he'd probably just get time served, community service, and probation. But it's the principle of the thing. He shouldn't be exempt from the law because of who he is.