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

jamb innn wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

What is the point of giving these guys so many rational arguments for 27 pages?

They just double down on their dumbness because it conflicts with their political view. You are reduced to finding simpler and simpler examples so that a toddler can even understand, or even a chimpanzee, but still it bounces off their skulls.

Every single thread the same

If I handed you a gun, told you it was unloaded, would you check it before you put it to your own head and pulled the trigger?

I know what the smartest posters in this thread would say.

No, I'd point it at your head and then ask you if you're sure it was unloaded. Then I'd ask you if you would want to take a second look before I pulled the trigger.

Again, guns aren't toys. Handle them as if they are all lethal weapons.

jamb innn wrote:

If I handed you a gun, told you it was unloaded, would you check it before you put it to your own head and pulled the trigger?

I know what the smartest posters in this thread would say.

I don't think this is as powerful an argument as you think.

1) Do you think if someone shot themselves, nobody should face charges? We just call it an accidental death and move on?

3) That scene would never happen - any filming of an act like that would involve an entirely fake gun.

I am Sam wrote:

What is the point of giving these guys so many rational arguments for 27 pages?

They just double down on their dumbness because it conflicts with their political view. You are reduced to finding simpler and simpler examples so that a toddler can even understand, or even a chimpanzee, but still it bounces off their skulls.

Every single thread the same

Examples are not as persuasive as you believe. And some of the ones provided here, for example by the fake lawyer and Flagpole, were so weak and deficient that they could be used to show the opposite of what was intended.

Just try rational arguments with the actual known facts. Is it reasonable for a person to aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger, without checking if the gun was loaded, even if one of their employees told them the gun was safe? Would you, I Am Sam, point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without hesitation just because someone you trusted told you the gun was not loaded? If the answer is Yes I Would Do That, then you are less risk adverse than a lot of people. And even if the answer is Yes I Would Do That, can you truly not understand why some people think that is a reckless thing to do?

Many people believe it is simply reckless to point a gun at someone no matter what assurances you have received about the gun, and no matter what your intentions. Are those people wrong? Are those people idiots?

Armstronglivs wrote:

"He pointed a loaded gun at two people and fired." (quote)

That is misleading. He pointed a gun that he was told was not loaded, as part of a role he was performing. He didn't point it at two people - the same projectile that killed one person wounded another. None of it was intentional or predictable, as the gun was declared unloaded and safe. The same would have happened if by mistake a loaded weapon was put in the hands of any other actor as part of their role. It could have been the Lone Ranger, Dirty Harry, Bruce Willis et al. It happened to be Alec Baldwin. It does not make him cuplable. The screw-up was in the failure by those supplying the prop to check it.

It's not misleading, it's factually accurate and to the point.

Do you and Flagpole not understand that ANY individual that handles a firearm checks to ensure it is not loaded. Even then, treat it like it is. It seems not one but multiple people who handled this firearm failed to do so resulting in a pointless and tragic death.

He did point it at two people, it is exactly how two people were shot when he pulled the trigger.

He didn't check the firearm

He pointed it in the direction of two people and fired

Those are two things you should never do.

If you shoot someone in self defense, and it kills an innocent bystander behind your attacker, after going through your attacker, you are culpable. You are responsible for what comes out of the barrel of a weapon you are handling and who is in it's path, at all times...period, end of story. Responsible gun owners do not make this mistake, if anti-gun activists respected firearms and handled them properly things like this wouldn't happen.

To be clear, every MORON who handled that firearm and was therefore responsible for it, is at fault here. Baldwin pulled the trigger though, and was likely one of the people "in charge" on set at that time. Therefore, he receives the most blame.

Nobody should have been behind the camera, or there should have been a protective barrier.

This is simple stuff, how is this controversial. Is it a lack of common sense or education?

The issue is not if Baldwin was stupid, irresponsible or reckless. The issue is was a crime committed? Being stupid or careless is not a crime.

There are actually several different issues:

Did Alec Balwin commiit any crimes?

Were there others on the set that committed crimes via negligence or intent? For example, did the assistant director set Baldwin up knowing the gun wasn't cold?

It is not hindsight if you follow basic safety procedure when handling any firearm, EVERY time.

Google "4 Rules of gun safety"

I guarantee you everyone on set knew this, especially Baldwin. He has handled firearms on sets for decades. I'm sure he's been through many gun safety courses, meeting, etc. over the years. You don't just not follow safety procedure when you're on set, in fact it's heavily stressed at all times on every production involving firearms. They were all negligent.

There's plenty of rumors of other lead actors checking every single firearm, even the ones they aren't using but people used by others, before it is "used" on set.

Baldwin may have some criminal liability in his function as a producer but he won’t in his function as the actor firing the gun. People arguing otherwise look quite silly.

Would be curious where Hollywood stacks up in terms of workplace safety statistically. My guess is that it is far from the most dangerous nor the most safe.

Bro, educate yourself on firearm safety otherwise discussing this with you is pointless. Firearms are not toys and should be handled with care.

In reference to a earlier comment by you, I agree it wasn't his JOB to check it. But it was his DUTY to do so and he didn't, he must on the consequence. He knew better and was negligent. This doesn't just suddenly change because you are on set. Keanu Reeves apparently personally checks every firearm that is used on set, from what I've heard. Maybe it's not true idk.

Being reckless IS a crime.

There are so many things wrong with what you just said...I'm not even going to bother listing them...Jesus...

Screw it, I will list some

They could still make the film

they could use cgi instead of blanks

almost never is someone shot on screen with a weapon directly pointed at them, it's not needed

no firearms expert was on set at the time

nobody checked the firearm

don't ever have live rounds on set

head armorer should have all firearms locked up and have the only key

don't use a prop gun for target practice

don't aim a firearm at someone ever

don't be behind the camera when someone is firing at it or have a barrier placed

phony al wrote:Would you, I Am Sam, point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without hesitation just because someone you trusted told you the gun was not loaded? If the answer is Yes I Would Do That, then you are less risk adverse than a lot of people. And even if the answer is Yes I Would Do That, can you truly not understand why some people think that is a reckless thing to do?

Many people believe it is simply reckless to point a gun at someone no matter what assurances you have received about the gun, and no matter what your intentions. Are those people wrong? Are those people idiots?

Baldwin may not have intended to pull the trigger.

Did you go to the same fake law school as the fake lawyer did? You're just wrong. You won't find the word "stupid" in the standard for involuntary manslaughter (and I never used the term either - you did), but whatever the standard is in New Mexico, it will be some formulation of a type of decision making that is considered to rise to the level of criminal. The terms "reckless" and "negligent" are often used, and making a reckless decision that directly results in a death is criminal pretty much everywhere in the US. So, you are WRONG and the very issue that the county prosecutor is looking at right now is indeed whether "Baldwin was stupid, irresponsible or reckless" in aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

This had to be explained to the fake lawyer earlier, so it sucks having to explain it again. The fact that others on the set may face criminal liability, does not absolve or provide immunity to Baldwin. One criminal cannot point to another criminal and say "he is more guilty than me, so the charges must be dropped." That is not how criminal law works. At least in the US it doesn't work that way. Multiple people can be convicted of the same crime, and can even be convicted under different theories of how the crime was committed.

But it isn't Baldwin's fault and that is all that matters to some dark side worshippers. A woman is dead and all they want to do is insult us for pointing out how easy it would have been to save a life.

Court tv did a segment on this. They said that it was a several layer failure including the shooter. Liveammo was not allowed on the set. They probably broke state laws by having a loaded handgun. They said that a gun should never pointed at a person. A life is more important than a movie shot. Baldwin is going to jail.

hire the guy wrote:Baldwin is going to jail.

I doubt it.

Yessiree Bob wrote:

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

If I pay you to check if my gun is loaded and then I turn it on someone and fire and kill them, you think that you are the only one in trouble? You are crazy. The law doesn't exempt actors or movie companies from killing people.

I get that this is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but on a film set, where job roles and responsibilities are narrowly and strictly defined, the actor has no responsibility to insure the safety of hand props. It’s beyond ridiculous to expect the actor to be a weapons expert. In this particular instance, Baldwin is also a victim.

He doesn't need to be a weapons expert to check a firearm for live rounds. He's had firearms training probably dozens of times on sets. Some may say that makes him somewhat of an expert in handling firearms. He was negligent. This sounds a bit like involuntary manslaughter. He is not a victim, what in the h3ll is wrong with you.

Of course, I feel sympathy for him and all involved. He is one of them people most at fault for this though.

A non negligible amount of responsible gun owners point their gun at their own head after checking to make sure that it's loaded each year.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Pot meet kettle, you are ignorant of the law bud. I am too, but not as bad as you lol.

Shooting someone dead with a gun is almost always prosecuted as a crime barring special situations. Even in self defense people are usually prosecuted and need to prove self defense.

Someone will 99.99999% be prosecuted for negligent homicide. If you're a famous actor you are the 0.00001% and now worries it's cool homie, you got fan bois.

local lib wrote:

Baldwin may have some criminal liability in his function as a producer but he won’t in his function as the actor firing the gun. People arguing otherwise look quite silly.

Would be curious where Hollywood stacks up in terms of workplace safety statistically. My guess is that it is far from the most dangerous nor the most safe.

But this didn't happen in Hollywood. It took place in New Mexico. The New Mexicans might have different laws than the Hollywood, Californians do. It's too soon to start talking about who's "quite silly." Let the New Mexican state and/or county police sort this out themselves. It might have gotten national exposure but it's really only a local matter.