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

fada tyme wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/26/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-tuesday/index.html

Crew members on the set of "Rust" used guns with live ammunition and engaged in a pastime called "plinking" hours before Halyna Hutchins was killed, founder and CEO of The Wrap, Sharon Waxman, told CNN's Don Lemon Monday night, citing information from an individual with knowledge of the set.

One of the guns used was later handed to actor Alec Baldwin, who fired the shot that killed Hutchins, 42, and injured director Joel Souza, The Wrap reported.

"There's this pastime that crew members sometimes do, it's called 'plinking,' and they go out into the rural areas and they shoot at beer cans. This is with live ammunition. We learned that this happened the morning of the day that Halyna Hutchins was killed," Waxman said.

I'm not sure this would work in Baldwin's favor if addressed by investigators.

It would depend on whether he was aware crew members were doing this and whether he is responsible for their conduct. However it more directly reflects in those whose responsibility was to ensure the guns were safe. Like the armourer and the assistant director who declared Baldwin's gun safe. Baldwin took it they had done their job. The question is whether he should have implicitly trusted them or also checked the gun himself. That he could have been wiser after the event does not of itself suggest he had been reckless.

A few posters on this thread have brought up machine guns in films. None of the self-titled lawyers on this thread want to touch war films and artillery, grenades, machine guns and mortars. In some war films, actors are asked to fire hundreds of blanks from machine guns. It is easy to remove a blank and place a live round on a machine gun belt. Of course we do not expect actors who fire machine guns to inspect ever blank on belt to ensure no live rounds have been place on belt. What about faux rounds fired from tanks? We do not expect actors to have any knowledge of faux rounds fired from tanks in war movies. All those faux rounds fired by Brad Pitt and tank crew in 2014 film, Fury. Did we expect tank crew to have any knowledge of artillery in that film? Matthew Modine fired a few dozen machine gun blanks in 1987 film, Full Metal Jacket. Adam Baldwin, no relation fired hundreds of blanks from machine gun in film, Full Metal Jacket. What if some clown on set of Full Metal Jacket removed a few blanks and placed live rounds on ammo belt, would Modine or Adam Baldwin have been responsible? Of course not. If D.A. attempts to try Alec Baldwin, Baldwin's attorneys will bring up war movies.

Uprising wrote:

Baldwin is exactly the kind of violent, bullying, arrogant, sloppy A-hole the left always accused Trump of being. Trump is a paragon of compassion and empathy by comparison.

Karma just had a batch of puppies.

I guess Karma needed to sacrifice Halyna Hutchins to get its batch of puppies.

Some Republicans seemed to be rejoicing over the shooting. Candace Owen's called it poetic justice and Don Jr. is selling T-shirts mocking Baldwin. Junior didn't disclose what will be done with the profits from sales of the $27.95 shirts.

Always Be Careful!

A-Always B-Be- C -Careful!

Always Be Careful!

Fck' this toad!

The "I'm rubber you're glue" defense which always holds up to scrutiny...if we were 8 years old. Alas, we are not.

Armstronglivs seems incapable of admitting his simple yet very telling error. For those who may forget, our self-proclaimed lawyer stated categorically that involuntary manslaughter must involve an unlawful act. After being pointed, several times, to the relevant statute which showed him to be clearly wrong, our valiant hero doubled down on his bluster and refused to admit his mistake.

About on par with Bad Wiggins, at this point. Not great company to keep.

What a nice guy:

https://www.jpost.com/international/donald-trump-jr-sells-t-shirts-mocking-alec-baldwin-shooting-683194

DA plans to file charges.

A Hollywood armorer interviewed said that there are two types of rounds used in movies: blanks and dummy rounds. Dummy rounds have a BB inside and no gunpowder. They look real, but you can tell they are dummy rounds by shaking them.

To me, this is an incredibly dumb approach to safety. Relying on an auditory response is problematic. The BB could get stuck or ambient noise could prevent hearing it.

In gun safety protocols, nowhere else does one rely solely on an auditory sign to tell if a gun is loaded or if ammo is real.

I would suggest a visual and a tactile indicator. Most semiauto handguns have a visual and a tactile indicator to tell if a round is in the chamber, for example.

For ammo, here's what could be easily and inexpensively done. 1) Paint the shell casing burgundy, the standard color for dummy rounds called snap caps. The bullet, which is the only part that can be seen in a revolver, could still be standard gold. Or... 2) Drill a hole completely through the casing. The hole would be both visible and could be felt in low-light situations. It would also prevent dummy rounds from accidentally or purposely being filled with gunpowder.

Maybe I should patent the idea...

Baldwin merely had to look at it to see a real bullet. Imagine if he had picked up a real knife and stabbed someone claiming that he didn't bother looking at it.

DA's statement coming live this afternoon.

fisky wrote:To me, this is an incredibly dumb approach to safety. Relying on an auditory response is problematic. The BB could get stuck or ambient noise could prevent hearing it.

In both of these cases, you'd be treating the dummy round as if it was real, which is acceptable for these purposes.

For ammo, here's what could be easily and inexpensively done. 1) Paint the shell casing burgundy, the standard color for dummy rounds called snap caps. The bullet, which is the only part that can be seen in a revolver, could still be standard gold. Or... 2) Drill a hole completely through the casing. The hole would be both visible and could be felt in low-light situations. It would also prevent dummy rounds from accidentally or purposely being filled with gunpowder.

I'm assuming that films use dummy rounds when the rounds themselves are in the shot. So, these would not be big sellers in Hollywood.

After criticizing others for what you alleged was a lack of legal knowledge, and pretending you had an abundance of it yourself, you posted this (page 29 of this thread at 11:51 EDT (10/25/21)): "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred."

You were WRONG. You posted a demonstrably erroneous statement of law. Your inability to grasp that basic standard for involuntary manslaughter infects every opinion you've expressed in this thread. All are deficient and invalid.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

"What's the difference between shooting someone and "literally" doing so?"

Aztec didn't understand why it was important to point out that someone literally shot a person when thousands of people get shot in movies every year. Who shot JR? That was a headline that millions read and understood to be other than a literal shooting. So if the media merely stated that Baldwin shot somebody in the making of Rust, most people would not bother reading the story.

The victim died, so I don't believe it needs to be emphasized that Baldwin didn't figuratively shoot her.

When was the last time you saw an article about a shooting that was part of a movie plot? There was "Who shot J.R." but that's about it. Can you find a single news article that added "Literal" to describe the Baldwin shooting? It's rare for a reporter to use that word in any context.

My post was to make a point that people have used the same arguments over and over again which has resulted in the thread becoming redundant.

Yes, Baldwin should have checked the gun but will putting his trust in a person responsible for safety on the set result in him not being charged? I don't see it as a political issue.

phony al wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It was a bit windy but you just described yourself there. Phony Al. I agree. You are humiliating yourself without realizing it.

After criticizing others for what you alleged was a lack of legal knowledge, and pretending you had an abundance of it yourself, you posted this (page 29 of this thread at 11:51 EDT (10/25/21)): "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred."

You were WRONG. You posted a demonstrably erroneous statement of law. Your inability to grasp that basic standard for involuntary manslaughter infects every opinion you've expressed in this thread. All are deficient and invalid.

Armstronglivs is again wrong. Involuntary manslaughter does not require that one was breaking the law when the death occurred. If the operator of a dangerous carnival ride fails to ensure that all passengers are strapped in and people die as a result, the operator could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

Armonstronglivs needs to acknowledge his mistake and maybe quit posting for a bit and read up on the law.

I' think I've listed that 2 or 3 times now.

When taking all that into account, multiple people ignoring about 6 or 7 different safety procedures when literally just following 1 of those things would have prevented Halyna's death. You can't call something like this an accident after understanding safety procedures and taking the lack of them being followed into account., it is criminal negligence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Latest reports have indicated some of the crew were using the guns for recreational "target practice", and this had occurred the morning the film editor was killed. This itself raises questions about gun safety protocols by the company. But it also leads to the inference that one of the guns so used remained loaded and this was failed to be picked up by those whose responsibility it was to check them.

Baldwin was one of the people responsible for checking the firearm, he was handling it. It doesn't matter that it wasn't "his job". Anyone who knows anything about handling firearms safely knows you are morally and legally responsible for checking the firearm, what comes out of it, and who it harms. Baldwin knew this but was negligent, he's had decades of firearms training. He could be considered an "expert" on handling a firearm safely.

I do not care about Paul Callan's opinion. His opinion is not law, keep that in mind when you present his opinion as fact.

"This thread is the same thing over and over again. It's gun etiquette vs relying on a 3rd party that's supposed to he an expert in ensuring safety on a set."

I agree with you there, I am bored of this conversation. Also, how about we have both? Gun etiquette followed by everyone and multiple experts on set. I personally would double check the work of an expert, even then I would not point a gun at anyone without insurances(protective barrier) nothing could go wrong resulting in death. Don't ever point a gun in anyone's direction, PERIOD.