Alec Baldwin facing prison and shouldnt be.

[Flintknapper]

Wow, that's amazing to see! Those gas prices are so low!

Yep....2.5 yrs ago in my area, a bag of ice cost more than a gallon of gas.

 

[mcmxi]

re: If I remember correctly, a bullet was lodged in the barrel and a blank fired which forced the bullet out of the barrel and into Brandon Lee. Was the actor in that scenario responsible for the death of Brandon

yes. EVERYONE who comes into posession of a firearm is RESPONSIBLE as to it being 'safe'. EVERY firearm is to be treated as 'LOADED and LETHAL' until the current person confirms that it isn't.

I have to wonder HOW a bullet got lodged in that weapon, if ONLY blanks were in it ? Something smells real 'fishy'......

In any event AB WAS the person in charge of the weapon, guilty.

The actor Micheal Massee who pulled the trigger and accidentally killed Brandon Lee was never charged criminally or even in a civil case as far as I can tell.

'The Crow' Curse: How Michael Massee Unfairly Bore the Blame for Brandon Lee's Death

Michael Massee died Wednesday at the age of 61

www.thewrap.com

We rely upon experts every day to keep us safe, and it's completely unrealistic to expect an actor to check the safety of any firearm that he or she is handed on a movie set. This is what armorers are paid for. Should an actor be expected to check the safety of a vehicle they drive on set, or a horse they ride, or a rope/wire that's used to suspend them for a particular shot. Actors have enough to worry about as it is in these multi-million dollar productions. The experts are there for a reason and it's their job to prevent accidents, not the actors'.

 

[johnjk]

Maybe Hollywood should stop making any type of show or movie with any sort of weapons since they are not experts and not liable for their actions. Two people here that are liable imho, are the armorer and the actor. Both had a duty to validate that weapon before handing it off and taking possession and neither did. Their ignorance cost a person their life. Also IMHO both will get a slap on the wrist and continue in their chosen careers as if nothing happened.

 

[The Evil Twin]

Really..??

View attachment 95046 View attachment 95047

At those prices, he had to fill up!

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Wow, that's amazing to see! Those gas prices are so low!

But are they "Sofa King low"?

 

[motionclone]

The anti-gun nut culture contributed to this death in a way. Because Baldwin was trained and practiced on hating guns he never learned to respect them.
If someone threw me into an acting part that involved a gun I would be all over pointing in a safe direction, never having finger on trigger and checking the chamber etc. All because i was brought up to respect the gun.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: We rely upon experts every day to keep us safe, and it's completely unrealistic to expect an actor to check the safety of any firearm that he or she is handed on a movie set. This is what armorers are paid for

yeah 'experts' , like those that design battery powered computers that take down airplane, battery powered cars that 'magically' catch on fire, ebikes that destroy apartment buildings, pickups that selfignite due to an 'expert' designing the brake system......

The actor's JOB when handed any firearm is to inspect and ensure it IS safe, he's NO different than any other person being hand a firearm. The armourer's job is to safely store and maintain the firearms in good working order,give and take the weapons when the scene is done,'chain of custody' stuff too.. There's probably a HUGE book full of 'proceedures,rules and regulations' that everyone is supposed to read and sign off on.

I also don't care who you are or your occupation, if you do NOT properly 'check' the firearm when it's handed to you, then you have NO right to have it in your hands.

 

[GeoHorn]

I also don't care who you are or your occupation, if you do NOT properly 'check' the firearm when it's handed to you, then you have NO right to have it in your hands.

The 2nd Amendment (which I’m sure you and I both favor) does not require anyone to be knowledgable about gun handling.

There are uncountable instances of civil laws which have been enacted to make up for the deficiencies of the Constitution. Training, certification, registration/licensing, and mandatory insurance with regard to firearms has certain attraction.

I know what the 2nd Amndmt says… yet the Fed. Govt/BATF has already abridged that when they required me to pay a tax and pass a background check/fingerprinting and interview with a BATF assignee before I could own a Class-3 weapon. (full-auto for those that don’t know that classification)

I know friends and other persons who either do …or favor… secretly owning such weapons because they believe their 2nd Amndt rights are violated by that Act. They also fear “the gov’t” may some day show up at their door to confiscate them.

To no avail I try to tell them, that in almost 40 years I have never even been ASKED about them by the gov’t or any other entity. (Yes, ”them”…plural.)
There have been no…zero… no massacres using Class-3 weapons …largely because there is a record of who owns what and where….and Class-3 owners don’t want any trouble over them. As long as unidentified persons can walk into a gun-show, pay cash, and walk out with a gun…as well as other loop-holes…. we’re going to have this problem.

As for the present-day hysteria over AR-15 types…it’s a simple matter: Move such weapons into the Class-3 category and give everyone one-year to register/license ..and INSURE IT for Liability…. or deliver it to someone who will.

As for the argument that “registration creates confiscation” …or that licensing violates the 2nd Amdmt… or that Gun Ownership should therefore remain Anonymous… that also has a simple solution:

Whenever you go renew your drivers license you will notice that there is often a uniformed officer sitting idle nearby ..playing on his computer or reading…daydreaming. He hates that duty. It’s boring. Why is he there instead of out on the streets?
He’s there (or in a back-room) because when you are dealing with the clerk….there is a BACKGROUND CHECK being run on you….. to see if any outstanding Warrants address you…. and he is there to ARREST you.

The POINT is: that since the background-check is already being run on you…there is NO ADDITIONAL COST to determine if you are a felon, mentally-defective, etc…. (those are already checked anyway)…. So now they could stamp your new drivers-license with a “G” …for Gun-Ownership/Purchase-Approval…. just like an “M” or whatever is for a Motorcycle, etc.

Now when you go to the gun-store or show… or even if a private transaction… all a seller has to do is see your I.D. (something which should already occur if to comply with the residency-requirement law)…and if that “G” is there complete the transaction…if if the “G” is NOT-present…to deny the sale.

If the cop stops you on the street because you resemble the bank robber he’s looking for….or for any other reason…..and you have a gun…and no “G” on your I.D…. then that alone is sufficient for an arrest.
However, if you have the “G” on your I.D. … and you are being arrested for suspected robbery…the cop/jailer uses an ordinary Teacher’s hole-punch to Remove the “G”…until it has been proven you are NOT the robber. You will have your replacement I.D. re-issued which will contain the appropriate “G”, if applicable.

{EDIT} BTW,…a ”G” on a persons I.D. does not identify a gun-owner.…so no one would lose anonymity… nor would the lack of a “G” identify a felon or other…. because one can request the ”G” to be excluded if that is so-desired by personal choice.}

As a gun-owner, enthusiast, and 2nd Amdmt supporter…I have no problem with such a system.
I also have no problem with mandatory firearms liability insurance …just like automobiles.
The need for insurance-coverage will cause owners to be cognizant of their obligations to keep them away from children, properly stored & locked-up, and guard against theft and unauthorized use by others.

OK. Now I’ve gone and done it. (stepping down off the soapbox)

 

[lynnmor]

re: We rely upon experts every day to keep us safe

That right there is hilarious, we had the highest paid government employee promote and fund a pandemic. Experts, my butt!

 

[Flintknapper]

The 2nd Amendment (which I’m sure you and I both favor) does not require anyone to be knowledgable about gun handling.

True.

Though poor gun handling practices can end as a self correcting problem (best case scenario).

 

[GreensvilleJay]

yes, BUT any business ,group, home owners, whomever can make their own policies, proceedures and rules regarding equipment and such. heck states and cities have 'restrictions' on firearms, even airlines

The 'right' I'm talking about is 'common sense permission' NOT the 2nd A

say you're in YOUR lane on a highway and an out of control fully loaded semi crosses over and comes towards you, in your lane.......

legally, you would be 'right' to stay in your lane...DEAD right
common sense says, move over PDQ !

 

[hagrid]

say you're in YOUR lane on a highway and an out of control fully loaded semi crosses over and comes towards you, in your lane.......

From what ive learned here the grandparents of the person that most recently changed the oil and filter on the truck in question are responsible.

 

[GeoHorn]

That right there is hilarious, we had the highest paid government employee promote and fund a pandemic. Experts, my butt!

Are you speaking of the Previous Occupant..? …the one who chose to ignore the pandemic-action-plan already in-place by HIS predecessor..? … by ignoring and pooh-pooh-ing ..thereby promoting it by helping it to expand and BECOME a pandemic..?
The same guy who secretly went and got vaxxed but encouraged others to avoid vax…. and then when he left office …Bragged that the vaccine was created during HIS administration…??

Or are you speaking of the Current-Occupant..?.. who did not “promote” a pandemic…but fought it by trying to educate the public….and saw to it that the expenditures already made were actually Paid For?

(now…where’s my nomex-suit..? )

 

[ruger1980]

The 2nd Amendment (which I’m sure you and I both favor) does not require anyone to be knowledgable about gun handling.

There are uncountable instances of civil laws which have been enacted to make up for the deficiencies of the Constitution. Training, certification, registration/licensing, and mandatory insurance with regard to firearms has certain attraction.

I know what the 2nd Amndmt says… yet the Fed. Govt/BATF has already abridged that when they required me to pay a tax and pass a background check/fingerprinting and interview with a BATF assignee before I could own a Class-3 weapon. (full-auto for those that don’t know that classification)

I know friends and other persons who either do …or favor… secretly owning such weapons because they believe their 2nd Amndt rights are violated by that Act. They also fear “the gov’t” may some day show up at their door to confiscate them.

To no avail I try to tell them, that in almost 40 years I have never even been ASKED about them by the gov’t or any other entity. (Yes, ”them”…plural.)
There have been no…zero… no massacres using Class-3 weapons …largely because there is a record of who owns what and where….and Class-3 owners don’t want any trouble over them. As long as unidentified persons can walk into a gun-show, pay cash, and walk out with a gun…as well as other loop-holes…. we’re going to have this problem.

As for the present-day hysteria over AR-15 types…it’s a simple matter: Move such weapons into the Class-3 category and give everyone one-year to register/license ..and INSURE IT for Liability…. or deliver it to someone who will.

As for the argument that “registration creates confiscation” …or that licensing violates the 2nd Amdmt… or that Gun Ownership should therefore remain Anonymous… that also has a simple solution:

Whenever you go renew your drivers license you will notice that there is often a uniformed officer sitting idle nearby ..playing on his computer or reading…daydreaming. He hates that duty. It’s boring. Why is he there instead of out on the streets?
He’s there (or in a back-room) because when you are dealing with the clerk….there is a BACKGROUND CHECK being run on you….. to see if any outstanding Warrants address you…. and he is there to ARREST you.

The POINT is: that since the background-check is already being run on you…there is NO ADDITIONAL COST to determine if you are a felon, mentally-defective, etc…. (those are already checked anyway)…. So now they could stamp your new drivers-license with a “G” …for Gun-Ownership/Purchase-Approval…. just like an “M” or whatever is for a Motorcycle, etc.

Now when you go to the gun-store or show… or even if a private transaction… all a seller has to do is see your I.D. (something which should already occur if to comply with the residency-requirement law)…and if that “G” is there complete the transaction…if if the “G” is NOT-present…to deny the sale.

If the cop stops you on the street because you resemble the bank robber he’s looking for….or for any other reason…..and you have a gun…and no “G” on your I.D…. then that alone is sufficient for an arrest.
However, if you have the “G” on your I.D. … and you are being arrested for suspected robbery…the cop/jailer uses an ordinary Teacher’s hole-punch to Remove the “G”…until it has been proven you are NOT the robber. You will have your replacement I.D. re-issued which will contain the appropriate “G”, if applicable.

As a gun-owner, enthusiast, and 2nd Amdmt supporter…I have no problem with such a system.
I also have no problem with mandatory firearms liability insurance …just like automobiles.
The need for insurance-coverage will cause owners to be cognizant of their obligations to keep them away from children, properly stored & locked-up, and guard against theft and unauthorized use by others.

OK. Now I’ve gone and done it. (stepping down off the soapbox)

You are what we call a FUDD or a sell out.

 

[SRRGC1]

I dont like his politics or stance on gun rights but i dont think he should have to do any jail time for what happened. It seems the person that loaded up the gun with actual bullets or the person that was supposed to check the gun for having the correct ammunition is fully to blame.(The Armorer)

Yeah he was dumb for pointing a gun and having his hand on the trigger but hes an actor using the gun on an acting job so its a prop to him not a deadly weapon. Should have never been allowed to be a deadly weapon on the movie set. It was the armorers job to make sure it was a prop not a gun.


View attachment 94994

Questions? Why was there even a live round on the set? Did he know that? Did he know there was a live round in the gun, and this is why he was adamant he didn't "PULL" the trigger? All questions to be answered. Enough reasonability to go around. This is not a gun issue, it is a responability issue in my view. I always thought "PROP" gun had the barrel sealed. Clint Eastwood shot up alot of people but didn't kill anyone. By the way, this is a "TRACTOR" forum. My two cents.

 

[dirtydeed]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I feel the need to call Baldwin out on this as well as many others in Hollywierd. Most of those acting types are quite vocal when it comes to what the media calls "gun violence". Yet, those same Hollywierds enjoy quite the living portraying characters using those same (hated) tools in their movies/programs. to that I say PFFT.

I won't bore you with my opinion on what should happen to Baldwin. I'm just waiting for someone to do a SNL skit of him since he's done so many about others.

 

[Mark_BX25D]

I dont like his politics or stance on gun rights but i dont think he should have to do any jail time for what happened. It seems the person that loaded up the gun with actual bullets or the person that was supposed to check the gun for having the correct ammunition is fully to blame.(The Armorer)

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HANDLES A FIREARM IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SHOOTING A PERSON WITH THAT FIREARM.

• Every person is responsible to ensure that the weapon is handled in a safe manner. There is NO room for, "Duh, Fred said it wasn't loaded."
• Every person is responsible to keep his finger off the trigger until he is ready to fire the weapon.
• Every person is responsible to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times.
• The Producer (Baldwin) is responsible for everything that happens on that set.
• The Producer (Baldwin) is responsible for ensuring that the set is operated in a safe manner.
• The Producer (Baldwin) is responsible for hiring a competent Armorer.
• The Producer (Baldwin) is responsible for ensuring that everyone is properly trained on the handling of firearms.

1. Baldwin was completely irresponsible in every possible way.
2. He hired someone with almost NO knowledge of guns and made her the Armorer, because real armorers cost real money.
3. He allowed all manner of grossly unsafe fooling around with loaded guns on set, so much that several people quit because they knew someone was likely to get hurt.
4. There should not have been a live round anywhere on that set, but "prop" guns were being used with live ammo.

Had any ordinary person (meaning, not a celebrity) been this grossly negligent and killed someone, he'd have been convicted and sentenced by the time Baldwin was charged.

He is guilty of being a childish, irresponsible idiot, he killed someone, and he belongs in prison for a long time.

This was not an "accident", and this was not the Armorer's fault.

This was manslaughter, by Baldwin and nobody else.

 

[dirtydeed]

The civil suit has already been settled for an undisclosed amount and terms.
They have already settled the money end of this, now it's just all about judicial blame and punishment.

As Agent Sadusky said in National treasure, "Someone's got to go to prison"

Bingo. If I'm not mistaken, the decedents husband has now been made to be the producer of "Rust" and intends on finishing the filming as a result of the deal made in the civil suit.

Just how does that happen? Is he being looked at as well? Did he like his wife?

 

[GeoHorn]

You are what we call a FUDD or a sell out.

And you would be what is called a paranoid schizophrenic. If you aren’t doing anything wrong…then what are you afraid of..?

(and you apparently don’t know the full meaning of the term “fudd”.)

And you don’t know me. You just think you do.

 

[motionclone]

Questions? Why was there even a live round on the set? Did he know that? Did he know there was a live round in the gun, and this is why he was adamant he didn't "PULL" the trigger? All questions to be answered. Enough reasonability to go around. This is not a gun issue, it is a responability issue in my view. I always thought "PROP" gun had the barrel sealed. Clint Eastwood shot up alot of people but didn't kill anyone. By the way, this is a "TRACTOR" forum. My two cents.

Did Clint Eastwood check his pistols every time he filmed? Ill bet not.
Also this is an OFF TOPIC FORUM not related to tractors.
Carry on.