Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

Flagpole, know one is denying A. Baldwin pulled the trigger. He did. But your quote,

"Just the fact that he pulled the trigger on this prop gun that killed someone does NOT make him guilty of anything."

Does not fit the def. of guilt.

Definition of Guilt, the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

Definition of Homicide, Homicide is an act of a human killing another person. A homicide requires only a volitional act that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.

It's too bad what happened, but it happened. There has to be an accounting for this wrongful death by a human discharging a firearm at an other human.

hire the guy wrote:

The owner of the gun is not relevant. Calling it a prop gun merely means that it is theatrical property. It is a gun. Why use the word "prop" to confuse people into assuming it was manufactured by a stage hand like a set? It is a real gun that he carelessly killed someone with. He is going to jail. He is 100 times more guilty than the murderer of Floyd, and he was guilty.

Yeah a movie set is just like the parking lot of a 7-11. JFC you can’t be this stupid. Or can you?

Flagpole wrote:Organizations can not operate efficiently if responsibility isn't doled out. Prop Master was responsible. There is no equivalence there.

So let me get this straight. Someone hands you a gun to pretend shoot someone and tells you that it is unloaded and safe. Rather then take a moment to verify this, you decide that would be "inefficient" and just start fooling around with the gun and playing quick draw mcgraw? Real smart.

Strategerist wrote:

Flagpole wrote:Organizations can not operate efficiently if responsibility isn't doled out. Prop Master was responsible. There is no equivalence there.

So let me get this straight. Someone hands you a gun to pretend shoot someone and tells you that it is unloaded and safe. Rather then take a moment to verify this, you decide that would be "inefficient" and just start fooling around with the gun and playing quick draw mcgraw? Real smart.

So let me get this straight.

Someone hands you, a health care worker, a vial of Covid 19 vaccine and tells you it is safe.

Rather than take time to do lab tests to verify that it is not contaminated with any bad stuff, you just start injecting people?

This is, in fact, real smart.

hypoplectic wrote:

Strategerist wrote:

So let me get this straight. Someone hands you a gun to pretend shoot someone and tells you that it is unloaded and safe. Rather then take a moment to verify this, you decide that would be "inefficient" and just start fooling around with the gun and playing quick draw mcgraw? Real smart.

So let me get this straight.

Someone hands you, a health care worker, a vial of Covid 19 vaccine and tells you it is safe.

Rather than take time to do lab tests to verify that it is not contaminated with any bad stuff, you just start injecting people?

This is, in fact, real smart.

So obviously you have never handled a firearm. I said "take a moment to verify". There is no need to send a gun out for lab testing to verify that it is not loaded. Jeez.

hypoplectic wrote:

Strategerist wrote:

So let me get this straight. Someone hands you a gun to pretend shoot someone and tells you that it is unloaded and safe. Rather then take a moment to verify this, you decide that would be "inefficient" and just start fooling around with the gun and playing quick draw mcgraw? Real smart.

So let me get this straight.

Someone hands you, a health care worker, a vial of Covid 19 vaccine and tells you it is safe.

Rather than take time to do lab tests to verify that it is not contaminated with any bad stuff, you just start injecting people?

This is, in fact, real smart.

So, let me get this even straighter.

Someone tells you an election was stolen and offers you no evidence.

Rather than take time to very the claim you swallow the load whole and join in with rioters trying to overthrow the government.

That is IQ 45 level smartness.

It is obvious because I said that earlier in this thread. I asked several pages ago about what an actor would need to do in order to verify, but I didn't get an answer.

Maybe you could help me out?

I don't know movie armorer protocol, but here's what I've read.

When a revolver can be seen from the front by the camera, the bullet part of the round can be seen. So the round will look realistic, movies use a dummy round (my word, not Hollywood's) that has a bullet, but there is no powder or cap in the round.

Now, in handgun training, these dummy rounds are solid burgundy, both the shell and the bullet. They're called snap caps. I have several.

In a revolver on a movie set, a burgundy round would obviously be fake so they use something that looks realistic. (I don't know what Hollywood calls these rounds.)

I don't know what the casing looks like in these dummy rounds that Hollywood uses. I do know that a round without a cap and powder would look identical and feel identical to a live round. The difference in weight would be only a quarter of an ounce. Surely, movie sets use some sort of marking to clearly identify these dummy rounds, but I don't know for sure.

Hope that helps.

As far as Baldwin's actions are concerned, everything is conjecture so far. I'll wait to form an opinion.

hypoplectic wrote:

Strategerist wrote:

So obviously you have never handled a firearm. I said "take a moment to verify". There is no need to send a gun out for lab testing to verify that it is not loaded. Jeez.

It is obvious because I said that earlier in this thread. I asked several pages ago about what an actor would need to do in order to verify, but I didn't get an answer. Maybe you could help me out?

Sure. Basically you open the gun and perform a visual inspection. This takes only seconds to do and is always the very first thing you do when someone hands you a gun (or you pick up your own gun, etc.).

That's a great description. I appreciate you taking the time.

Got it.

Same thing if this was one of those action movies with machine guns da-da-da-da-da-da all over the place? Is that done with blanks? Or is that stuff added later? Because that would seem more time-consuming for each actor to examine each round.

Anyway, given the number of gunshots/takes/actors, it seems like the system Hollywood uses basically works.

Silly statement. The system is that people don't normally bring real bullets.

hypoplectic wrote:

Got it.

Same thing if this was one of those action movies with machine guns da-da-da-da-da-da all over the place? Is that done with blanks? Or is that stuff added later? Because that would seem more time-consuming for each actor to examine each round.

Anyway, given the number of gunshots/takes/actors, it seems like the system Hollywood uses basically works.

Was Alec Baldwin filming a scene at the time or was Alec Baldwin goofing off? If Baldwin was actually filming a scene at that moment, your point has a bit of merit. If Baldwin thought he was being clever and decided to point a pistol at individuals, pulled trigger then you point has no merit. It matters none what Baldwin's p.r. team are spinning to media. We will find out, days or weeks or months.

Bald Always Win wrote:

Yes they do. And when somebody dies as a result, somebody goes to jail. Shooting somebody by accident is like driving while reading a newspaper in your lap and not seeing the person in the crosswalk.

No, they don't go to jail for mistakes. People go to jail for crimes. The basic ignorance of the law on these threads is beyond belief.

Nope. You are trying to split hairs, but you're not even doing that successfully. Accidents happen, and guilt in an accident is not necessarily assigned. Even using the definition, he's not guilty, because he did not commit an "offense" or a "crime".

I will assume you know what a crime is, but let's see the definition of "offense" as it is being used here to define "Guilt".

Offense

"a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act."

Sorry, brother, he did not do that. He has no guilt here at all. He has no legal guilt. He has no moral guilt, and it is beyond unkind to make him feel any guilt in a non-legal way too.

Because I have learned I need to say any exception pretty much every time or I will be called out later, the exception here is IF he was somehow responsible for the props OR he was negligent in any way as a manager of the operation, THEN some guilt can be assigned to him. So far, that has not been shown to be the case.

He is NOT responsible for checking that prop gun. He is NOT responsible for even knowing HOW to check that prop gun. It is beyond ridiculous to blame him for this terrible accident. And besides that, it is unkind to the nth degree.

My objection here is that so many lefties and righties here are embarrassing themselves by speculating without requisite foundation. Whatever happened here is not entirely clear and so there are many posters who are disparaging Alec Baldwin and many others defending him but we simply do not know enough to credibly support either stance.

Bald Always Win wrote:

You are correct. He shot two people with a bullet and killed one. Being on a movie set does not change the law.

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

Strategerist wrote:

Flagpole wrote:Organizations can not operate efficiently if responsibility isn't doled out. Prop Master was responsible. There is no equivalence there.

So let me get this straight. Someone hands you a gun to pretend shoot someone and tells you that it is unloaded and safe. Rather then take a moment to verify this, you decide that would be "inefficient" and just start fooling around with the gun and playing quick draw mcgraw? Real smart.

If I am an actor on a set with union workers who are supposed to be trained to do that and who have told me the gun is "cold", and also with the assumption that as an actor I might not necessarily even have the knowledge to check the prop gun, then it is fair to assume this has been done and the gun is safe. Now, what would I personally do? I have never been in that situation, so I suppose it would depend on my level of trust with the props crew, but knowing myself, I probably would have made sure to have HUGE training on the prop gun before we even got close to shooting, and I would probably have made the proper person show me before handing me the gun that there was nothing in it that could produce a projectile that could kill someone. BUT, I am super safe at all times to the point of being overboard. We're talking here about whether Baldwin has culpability. He does not.

He's an actor. They have people who are supposed to make sure the props are safe. The ball was dropped before the gun was handed to Baldwin. He is not at fault here.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bald Always Win wrote:

You are correct. He shot two people with a bullet and killed one. Being on a movie set does not change the law.

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

Yep. There is no intent here. No crime. The dummies are certainly flooding this thread for sure.

You make a good point that this might be the dumbest site on the internet. THAT is something that might actually make me leave forever. Hmm...something to seriously consider. I had considered it during the Trump Presidency, but I did want to see the election through. Then, after Biden won, the idiots stayed away for a short period of time as they licked their wounds. They have obviously returned. It does go against what at least SEEMS to be the way things are...people who care about their fitness, who (most of them) went to college, who have dedication when it comes to something (running in this case) it would SEEM would be smarter on average, but man, there are just too many here who show otherwise.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. When I have to defend a prick like Alec Baldwin, maybe it's time to leave.