alec baldwin's shooting

[Snake-Eyes]

That is accurate, if you want to play semantics.

He is an ACTOR playing a ROLE. He was handed a live firearm with live ammunition for a PRETEND scene in a MOVIE by someone whose sole responsibility it was to make sure something like that did not happen. As an ACTOR, was he to fire a test round somewhere to ensure it was blanks and not live ammunition? This was not a “misuse of a firearm,” he did exactly what was in the script.

This is the armorer’s responsibility. It should have been taken care of before the firearm even reached the set. Did he pull the trigger? Absolutely. But he did not prepare the prop firearm for the make believe scene. If you want to charge someone, charge the armorers. I’d even one-up it and hit them with negligent homicide as well as an involuntary manslaughter charge and then hit them with a pile of federal FFL charges.

Anyone else here worked on a film set? It’s an effort defined by very specific teams that each bring a different expertise to produce a complete project. If that woman had been killed by a lighting rig falling on her, you’d be damn sure the rigging company would get sued into oblivion.

You seem to be quite emotionally equating the armorer’s JOB with the actor’s LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The armorer is paid by a private company to do a job.
The actor is paid by a private company to do a job.
None of their job titles or duties relieves them of LEGAL RESPONSIBLITY to Not Kill Someone.

By your rationale, a simple job title relieves everyone around that person of culpability?

So then, for example, I could start an LLC that is filming a mockumentary of my life. The LLC will hire someone with terminal cancer to be the ”set armorer”. He will hand me weapons and a script that says to point the weapon at certain “undesirables” and pull the trigger. Then, BY YOUR RATIONALE, the Armorer is to blame (and supposedly needs to be hit with all kinds of legal fireworks) and I would be completely innocent and untouchable?

Wow.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

It was not his community. You can spin this any way you wish, but it doesn’t change the fact that a child armed himself and then inserted himself into a potentially dangerous situation to take matters into his own hands. This is vigilantism, not justice.

I forgot to address your last post to me in its entirety.

You can split hairs on what the geographical boundaries of a “Community” should be. “Behold my field of f@k$ and thou shalt see it is barren…”

To say “a child armed himself and then inserted himself into a potentially dangerous situation to take matters into his own hands” would be an accurate description of many scenarios in life that should garner popular approval. A kid grabs his parent’s gun to defend against a home invader. A kid takes the grandparent’s shotgun to help the neighbors defend some livestock. A kid takes a rifle to defend the neighborhood against mobs of looters and murderers. Oh wait. That’s what Rittenhouse did.

And just because it’s a vigilante doesn’t preclude it from being Justice. By definition, a vigilante is usually because law enforcement is deemed “inadequate”. So, the vigilante might actually be doing the right thing…

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Next time someone breaks into your neighbor’s house, give me a call and I’ll head over and shoot the guy, then brag about it to some folks in a bar. I’m sure the judge will understand.

Again, you miss the point. Rittenhouse didn’t need to be called after the fact to clean up. He was THERE Beforehand to try to Prevent problems and help those who needed it after the problems he couldn't stop happened anyway. He wasn’t some kind of “I’m just here to kill people” mop-up team. He was there to literally clean graffiti, tend to the wounded, and help prevent other crimes. For that, he was targeted by a mob of cowards, pedophiles, and felons.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

I’m not a fan of Baldwin’s, but his ignorance of firearms in this situation is paramount to a criminal case. If it were his own firearm and he was ignorant of its operation and safe handling, I would totally back a manslaughter charge. The armorer of this film is responsible for the safe handling of firearms and associated items on the set, IT IS LITERALLY WHAT THEY ARE PAID FOR.

I think I covered this one. Baldwin’s ignorance of firearms isn’t relevant “Legally”. He killed someone using a firearm. At a MINIMUM, that should be involuntary manslaughter.

For a CIVIL trial, he was the boss on set. Producer, etc… That armorer was HIS job hire. That set was HIS responsiblity.

Whatever, though. you believe he’s completely innocent because he hired someone else to think for him. Right?

 

[mutant_survival]

I forgot to address your last post to me in its entirety.

You can split hairs on what the geographical boundaries of a “Community” should be. “Behold my field of f@k$ and thou shalt see it is barren…”

To say “a child armed himself and then inserted himself into a potentially dangerous situation to take matters into his own hands” would be an accurate description of many scenarios in life that should garner popular approval. A kid grabs his parent’s gun to defend against a home invader. A kid takes the grandparent’s shotgun to help the neighbors defend some livestock. A kid takes a rifle to defend the neighborhood against mobs of looters and murderers. Oh wait. That’s what Rittenhouse did.

And just because it’s a vigilante doesn’t preclude it from being Justice. By definition, a vigilante is usually because law enforcement is deemed “inadequate”. So, the vigilante might actually be doing the right thing…

Kenosha was not a home invasion. Looting is not punishable by death (in this country), and as far as “murderers” go, the only person that killed anyone that night was Kyle Rittenhouse. The idea of value of property over life is mindboggling to me. Is looting and property damage okay? Of course not. Should you be killed over it? I’m gonna go with my gut and say no.

I guess what I’m asking is, is following the absolute letter of the law the right thing to do (as you suggest in the case of Baldwin,) or is “doing the right thing” (as you suggest what it was that Rittenhouse did,) the way to go? Does the law handle it or not?

I need a drink.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Anyway. I doubt my opinions are gonna sway the thought process of someone that uses “libtard” as a pejorative, but that’s my 2.5 cents.

And finally, then I have to get back to the Honey-Do lis….
My favorite discussion derailment attempt: let’s focus on a “hurtful word” instead of the substance of the what was said.

LIBTARD. Liberal (as in not a conservative) and Retard (as in retarded, as in mentally retarded, as in someone whose mental development is slowed/retarded when compared to normal progression at a specified age).

Mental development retardation. Mentally retarded. Retarded. A retard.

Before everyone’s skin got rice-paper thin, to refer to someone who did Not have Down’s Syndrome as a “Retard” was considered a simple insult. Now, it’s probably considered “hate speech” or something as ridiculous.

It‘s simple a shortened version of a scientific description, but oh no… can’t say it.

So, is Alec Baldwin a Liberal? YES.
Is Alec Baldwin apparently profoundly Ignorant of Firearms handling procedures? YES.
Has Alec Baldwin had firearms handling training before, on multiple occasion for multiple prior films? YES.

So can we conclude that his retention of the firearms training would be considered SLOWER than an average person? YES.

Therefore, Alec Baldwin is a LIBERAL and RETARDED.

So, calling him a “Libtard” is technically accurate and succinct.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Kenosha was not a home invasion. Looting is not punishable by death (in this country), and as far as “murderers” go, the only person that killed anyone that night was Kyle Rittenhouse. The idea of value of property over life is mindboggling to me. Is looting and property damage okay? Of course not. Should you be killed over it? I’m gonna go with my gut and say no.

I guess what I’m asking is, is following the absolute letter of the law the right thing to do (as you suggest in the case of Baldwin,) or is “doing the right thing” (as you suggest what it was that Rittenhouse did,) the way to go? Does the law handle it or not?

I need a drink.

If a mob was destroying my town, I’d square away my home and family, and then yeah, I might venture out in a like-minded group to help others.

Looters SHOULD be punished. The “death” sentence was for the attacks on HIM, not for their attacks on property. If the punishment for property damage was death, everyone one of those THUGS wold be fertilizer by now. Rittenhouse defended HIMSELF from criminals who acting like criminals.
Rittenhouse had every right to be there.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Gotta go for now. Stuff to do. I look forward to your logical responses.

 

[NavCorman]

Kenosha was not a home invasion. Looting is not punishable by death (in this country), and as far as “murderers” go, the only person that killed anyone that night was Kyle Rittenhouse. The idea of value of property over life is mindboggling to me. Is looting and property damage okay? Of course not. Should you be killed over it? I’m gonna go with my gut and say no.

I guess what I’m asking is, is following the absolute letter of the law the right thing to do (as you suggest in the case of Baldwin,) or is “doing the right thing” (as you suggest what it was that Rittenhouse did,) the way to go? Does the law handle it or not?

I need a drink.

Would you point a gun that someone says was unloaded at someone , cock and pull the trigger ? No matter if you were filming a scene ?

 

[IronBeard]

Would you point a gun that someone says was unloaded at someone , cock and pull the trigger ? No matter if you were filming a scene ?

Getting caught up here, but to answer your questiin, no. I was not raised, taught, or trained that way. I don't care who said/did what, I'd verify myself.

Reading through some of this, I suspect those of us who carry concealed, risk being accused of going out and looking for trouble if we leave our own home/vehicle armed. That's not a personal attack on anyone. I suspect that's exactly how lawyers think/act.

 

[BluesBrother]

Kyle Rittenhouse anyone? 17 year old that crossed state lines to “intervene” in a situation that didn’t involve him and shot 3 folks, killing two. Then the kid bragged about it and does the Fox News rounds now after his acquittal.

Short term memory on a lot of folks when political football team alignments come into play.

I don't mean to ad to the error of jumping the OP. However, as I recall Rittenhouse's parents are separated or devoured (sad) and he shares residence with both. Mom in Antioch, Ill. Dad in Kenosha, WI. A distance of < 100 miles. So Carl was dwelling with his dad when as a paid contractor was attacked protecting a car dealership by a felon trying to kill him with an illegally acquired and possessed Glock pointed in a threatening manor when he killed two POS for civilization. Where they "peacefully protesting"? Depends on the spin you put on it. We have a black, female (not that there's anything wrong with that) supreme court justice for life that can't define what a woman is. ta da.

 

[Carl]

Where’s the who gives a shit option

 

[Carl]

We have a black, female (not that there's anything wrong with that)

That’s right you better put that disclaimer in there, now on your knee

 

[BluesBrother]

Carl Rittenhouse is a scab that some still wish to pick ignoring proven, authenticated facts brought up at trial. Well, there is a Georga democrat representative, Hank Jounson that thinks if we move all the troupes and their families to Guam, it will tip over. So there's that. There are several opinions that were erroneously attached to this Baldwin thread that deserve to be in their own thread. My hope is they don't get lost forever because the OP wasn't followed.

 

[fl57caveman]

Gotta go for now. Stuff to do. I look forward to your logical responses.

don't hold your breath..

 

[fl57caveman]

so baldwin is handed a gun, told it was "cold", unloaded or loaded with blanks, he points the gun at someone, pulls the trigger, and kills her, wounds another...


so who has the responsibility here? how does this go down legally?

this op has nothing to with left/right politics, nothing to do with rittenhouse, george floyd or whatever other crap.

cold simple facts, read it again....

and who among us would do this? point a gun at another and pull the trigger without checking it, based on what someone else said, ? if there are any, remind me not to go shooting with you....

i knew from the gitgo he would walk, but that is beside the point. how many think that a 2A supporter would have walked? the NM law is clear.. he should have been charged, and convicted..


laws for thee, but not for me...it's time we wake up

 

[fl57caveman]

Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Case to Go Before New Mexico Grand Jury

Prosecutors announced Tuesday that they will present a criminal case against Alec Baldwin to a New Mexico grand jury within the next two months.

variety.com

 

[BluesBrother]

Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Case to Go Before New Mexico Grand Jury

Prosecutors announced Tuesday that they will present a criminal case against Alec Baldwin to a New Mexico grand jury within the next two months.

variety.com

I don't think the outcome will change because the jury pool will be the same.

 

[fl57caveman]

I don't think the outcome will change because the jury pool will be the same.

we can only hope

 

[BluesBrother]

we can only hope

absolutely let's hope.