Yeesh - Alec Baldwin just plopped into a world of hurt

[Baby Lee]

Breaking - details forthcoming

Discharged a 'prop' weapon that resulted in a death and another severe injury.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...c47b69ce5.html

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

did someone die in a refrigerator?

Was Frazod in the area?

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Because he was the holding the ****ing gun when the tragedy happened.

Add in the possibility he might have been complaining about unqualified armorers on set and his responsibility goes way up. If he thought they were unsafe it is even more incumbent on him to check the weapon himself.

LOL @ the idiotic notion that calling out unsafe practices is enough by itself to absolve someone of responsibility.

I'd question if he knows how to check a weapon.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by Otter

I'd question if he knows how to check a weapon.

He's handled them in films enough to know.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Take everything else out of it, someone, . . . perhaps a very expert and very learned someone, but someone besides you is the point, . . . someone hands you an operational weapon and tells you to point it at your child and pull the trigger, . . . it's OK it's safe to do so.

What do you do?

Originally Posted by jd1020

Not even close to the same thing.

But like I said earlier, some people can't seem to separate a film prop from reality.

Enjoy.

It is the same, in terms of danger and consequence.

He was handed a gun, he was told it was safe, it was an operational gun, he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. . . . What crucial distinction do you see?

I don't think your observation about separating a film prop from 'reality' settles the way you'd like to think. Reality is this was a real gun that really killed someone. That reality doesn't go away.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Otter

I'd question if he knows how to check a weapon.

Yeah. Seems like, if Baldwin is going to get blame here (if the story stays as it is), then actors should get firearm training as part of taking on roles like this so they are at least equipped to handle a weapon and check for issues like this.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by jd1020

If this was some instructional course on gun safety and he just popped off a round and killed someone I might have beef with the man. But we are talking about a movie prop that was seemingly loaded with live ammunition. Even if he was ****ing inspecting the gun are we to assume that an actor is going to identify blank rounds vs live?

Plus the movie was a Western and the gun was a revolver, and probably would have been loaded with dummy rounds in the cylinder. And actually I wonder if it's as simple as a live round got mixed up with a dummy round, because it sounds like the scene they were shooting didn't actually involve firing a blank.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

It is the same, in terms of danger and consequence.

He was handed a gun, he was told it was safe, it was an operational gun, he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. . . . What crucial distinction do you see?

I don't think your observation about separating a film prop from 'reality' settles the way you'd like to think. Reality is this was a real gun that really killed someone. That reality doesn't go away.

If I get a gun pointed at me I'm instinctively getting the **** out of the way. Like I said, the level of incompetence here is hard to believe. Still say there's a good chance there's intentional ****ery involved.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

It is the same, in terms of danger and consequence.

I don't think your observation about separating a film prop from 'reality' settles the way you'd like to think. Reality is this was a real gun that really killed someone. That reality doesn't go away.

It was a prop gun loaded with live ammunition by a armorer on set. If a ****ing armorer can't tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round then I don't expect Alec Baldwin to be able to distinguish them apart.

There is a huge difference in the setting of where these guns were being handled and how live ammunition is suppose to be prohibited on set, according to people working in Hollywood chiming in on this matter.

Pretty damn good odds Alec Baldwin isn't charged with anything and it has nothing to ****ing do with his celebrity status.

[LongSufferingToady]

Originally Posted by jd1020

It was a prop gun loaded with live ammunition by a armorer on set. If a ****ing armorer can't tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round then I don't expect Alec Baldwin to be able to distinguish them apart.

There is a huge difference in the setting of where these guns were being handled and how live ammunition is suppose to be prohibited on set, according to people working in Hollywood chiming in on this matter.

Pretty damn good odds Alec Baldwin isn't charged with anything and it has nothing to ****ing do with his celebrity status.

That's the way I understand the latest reports. Live rounds. But Baldwin shouldn't have pointed a gun (and fired) at anyone in jest. You just don't do that. He's culpable in that he should know better. The armorer is in a whole shitload of trouble.

[Raiderhater]

BTW, for those of you think it is some how difficult to tell the difference between live and blank rounds -

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

BTW, for those of you think it is some how difficult to tell the difference between live and blank rounds -

Send this to the armorer on the set of Rust before something bad happens. Oh wait....

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Send this to the armorer on the set of Rust before something bad happens. Oh wait....

No where have I stated the armorer does not share in the culpability.

But, at the end of the day when the gun went off, it was in Baldwin's hand. Nothing you can say or point to changes that fact. As an individual who owns and carries firearms I can tell you that any gun I am holding in my hands I am ultimately responsible for, even if it isn't even my gun. Consider it a sort of take on possession being 9/10ths the law.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by LongSufferingToady

But Baldwin shouldn't have pointed a gun (and fired) at anyone in jest.

If you're referring to the rumor that he was joking about doing another take, that's fake. From the LA Times article that was posted earlier, it happened while the crew was setting up the shot, and he was rehearsing pulling the gun out of the holster.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

No where have I stated the armorer does not share in the culpability.

But, at the end of the day when the gun went off, it was in Baldwin's hand. Nothing you can say or point to changes that fact. As an individual who owns and carries firearms I can tell you that any gun I am holding in my hands I am ultimately responsible for, even if it isn't even my gun. Consider it a sort of take on possession being 9/10ths the law.

Also consider you aren't on the set of a ****ing movie.

This easy to understand fact is so hard for some of you to wrap your head around.

[srvy]