Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.
- Thread starter Kenny Phillips
- Start date
See post 1032. About personal responsibility.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
I totally stand by that. Critical Theory teaches that behavior is conditioned by one's position as an oppressor or a victim of oppression. Any call to "personal responsibility" is racist.
If you think I'm wrong, it's because you're looking at it from a perspective of White Privilege.
Care to cite that? I might not have any argument with the first part, but I disagree with the second part about personal responsibility.
There's a lot of things I don't know about how other groups live and interact with other groups. But you haven't met me nor my wife, so you are making assumptions about what sort of privilege I may or may not have, nor what I've seen. As one example, I was with a colleague who made good money as a chemist and could afford a nice Mustang and he got pulled over while we were going to lunch someplace- after a license and registration check, he was free to go. He explained it happened to him commonly. So I know that bad things happen to responsible people.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
I’m free to make all of the assumptions I want about you, your wife, or anyone else who disagrees with CT. If you disagree, you’re a racist and you see everything from a White Privileged perspective. It’s that simple.
Clearly it’s hogwash, but that’s what they say.
Clearly it’s hogwash, but that’s what they say.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 19,560
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
IBTL, baby!!!
I'm done. No citations, the mysterious "they" mentioned in "that's what they say".
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,888
- Display Name
Display name:
Albany Tom
I'm having trouble following which bad actor we're talking about. Did it shift from Baldwin to Cosby? Or is Baldwin identifying as black now? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Could we get back to black power ballistics and discussing the legalities of shooting members of a Hollywood film crew?
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,874
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Reviving this thread again as it appears Mr. Baldwin may not be out of the woods just yet ...
www.foxnews.com
Alec Baldwin could be charged again in fatal 'Rust' shooting as new report claims he pulled trigger
Alec Baldwin could be facing charges again as experts commissioned by the prosecution found that the trigger on the revolver used in the "Rust" shooting had to be pulled.
Reviving this thread again as it appears Mr. Baldwin may not be out of the woods just yet ...
Alec Baldwin could be charged again in fatal 'Rust' shooting as new report claims he pulled trigger
Alec Baldwin could be facing charges again as experts commissioned by the prosecution found that the trigger on the revolver used in the "Rust" shooting had to be pulled.
Did he get off based on his claim that the gun discharged due to a malfunction ?
wanttaja
En-Route
They apparently found a different expert who said there was nothing wrong with the gun.
Ron Wanttaja
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,874
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Here's the gist of it from the article:
"Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver," the report, obtained by Fox News Digital, read. "This fatal incident was the consequence of the hammer being manually retracted to its fully rearward and cocked position followed, at some point, by the pull or rearward depression of the trigger."
Special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin in April but noted in a June 9 filing that they would refile if the revolver had not been modified.
"Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver," the report, obtained by Fox News Digital, read. "This fatal incident was the consequence of the hammer being manually retracted to its fully rearward and cocked position followed, at some point, by the pull or rearward depression of the trigger."
Special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin in April but noted in a June 9 filing that they would refile if the revolver had not been modified.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Substitute thread for brainReviving this thread again as it appears Mr. Baldwin may not be out of the woods just yet ...
Alec Baldwin could be charged again in fatal 'Rust' shooting as new report claims he pulled trigger
Alec Baldwin could be facing charges again as experts commissioned by the prosecution found that the trigger on the revolver used in the "Rust" shooting had to be pulled.
bflynn
Final Approach
his claim never made sense to me because what they were doing was testing what the shot would look like when the revolver fired.
Right. But logic would suggest that this only matters if he was let off based on the claim that it was a mechanical malfunction rather than him pulling the trigger. If the prosecutors reasoning didn't include the functional status of the gun, a change in that assessment shouldn't affect the charging decision.
wanttaja
En-Route
I don't have any animus toward the guy, but was the weapon single-action? If so, normally, the hammer would have had to be manually pulled back. That's basically two steps to fire the gun, and unless they were blocking out the scene, seems like there would have been no reason to do that.
The other possibility is that the hammer was down and resting on a live round. Hit the hammer right, and the gun will go off. Some folks leave an empty chamber under the hammer to avoid this. I doubt Baldwin was knowledgeable enough about guns, so it goes to the armorer, again.
Ron Wanttaja
I believe this gun had a hammer block or a transfer bar that protected against a hammer strike. In any case there is no assertion that the hammer was struck.
See post #809 for what seems to me a plausible theory. I suspect Baldwin was instinctively holding back the trigger without realizing it when he released the hammer.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Occam's Razor: He pulled the trigger.
GaryM
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,573
- Location
- Was KMMU, looking at KCOE
- Display Name
Display name:
Gary M
He cocked the hammer AND he pulled the trigger.
I saw this old thread pop up and my first thought was “What? Again?”
Yes, but not necessarily in that order. Pulling the trigger back and holding it, then thumbing back the hammer and releasing it, will fire a SA revolver.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,874
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Much as I dislike the guy, this is still more on industry procedures than him. If his job is to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger, then somebody better have some very failsafe procedures to make sure there is zero point zero chance of a real bullet getting in there.
For AB the actor, I could agree, though maybe not 100%. It was still his finger on the trigger.
But for AB the producer, it’s 100% on him that proper procedures were not being followed.
DaleB
Final Approach
And even then... no live operator in the line of fire. Call me paranoid maybe, but I've never shot anyone.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
I carried a gun professionally for many years. There are numerous training scenarios where it is necessary to point your weapon at someone and pull the trigger. The military and LEOs do this millions of times a year, and I have personally done it at hundreds of times at least. Various controls keep it safe depending on the scenario, such as inert weapons, training barrels and ammo, or blank fire adapters. Accidents do happen; I saw one once. But the incidence is vanishingly rare when divided by the number of opportunities.
Last edited:
Military and LEO training always entails certain risks, deemed acceptable because of the critical missions of the roles.
A movie? Not the case.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
That is your judgement. A movie production company may decide differently when hundreds of millions of dollars are invested. That is their prerogative.
The "nobody in line of fire" rule is meaningless in the context of the weaponry used in modern movies anyways. How many street shootout scenes have you watched with dozens of SWAT and criminals spraying assault rifle fire at each other on full auto? Those bullets go right through vehicles and structures, ricochet wildly, and have a range of roughly one mile. Do you think when they film in Boston or NYC, they evacuate a one mile radius? The reality is everyone on or near that set is potentially in the line of fire: actors, crew, caterers, bystanders, etc.
Regardless of what Grandpa or the BSA taught you, there are ways to do this safely in a professional environment. The industry has standards and controls. In this instance those standards and controls were apparently negated by nepotism and poor management.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
First: Not very many.
Second: There should be no bullets to 'go through vehicles and structures...' if the production was following any kind of safety protocol.
Third: Media companies frequently use CGI to add in muzzle flash (and the associate noises) thus dispensing with the need for even blanks.
Fourth: There are ways to film the actors acting WITHOUT PLACING OTHERS DOWNRANGE OF THE FIREARM.
Which puts it right back in AB’s lap, as I said in post #1068 above.
Yes, there are ways to point guns at people with acceptable safety when the situation requires it. This rehearsal and blocking exercise was not such a situation. Yes, that’s my judgment.
AB was the producer responsible for the personnel involved, for the rehearsal being conducted, for the standards and controls on the set, AND he was the guy who pointed a gun at a cinematographer and dropped the hammer. There is no way he cannot be considered responsible for this tragedy.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Think about that for just a moment…
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
I‘m no professional videographer, but I know a couple. They tell me that the Assistant Director is the one ultimately responsible for on-set safety. I wonder what’s happening with him.
Ultimately?
He may be tasked with it, but I doubt the buck stops with him. I suspect all responsibility rolls up to the director and then to the producer.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,959
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
There is absolutely no justification for actual bullets being used for a freakin' movie.... unless you are into snuff films.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
I disagree. The two roles are separate, as are the legal rationales for involuntary manslaughter charges for each role.
If Baldwin as producer followed accepted industry safety standards in implementing safeguards, and someone else violated those safeguards, then he was not grossly negligent as producer.
If Baldwin as an actor followed the safety rules established for actor conduct, and those safeguards failed due to someone else's actions, he was not grossly negligent as an actor.
Now if he knowingly violated the rules for weapons handling by actors, say by loading the gun himself or disregarding instructions from the personnel responsible for safety, then he could be negligent. Likewise if he failed as producer to implement industry standards, or directed violation of those standards, then he would be negligent.
