Alec Baldwin WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Cars are used as weapons relatively frequently

---

Yes, and guns are always weapons. I don't understand why that distinction is not clear. A car on a set isn't particularly dangerous in and of it itself. A gun is.

Well, there was this Town Car that the commercial production company rented for the ad agency that ended up going through a barbed wire fence late one night due to some extra curricular activities with the P.A.'s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Yes, and guns are always weapons. I don't understand why that distinction is not clear. A car on a set isn't particularly dangerous in and of it itself. A gun is.

---

Well, you know how it goes. A couple crew members are screwing around with the car and they put some high octane race gas in it. Then the next day, Alec Baldwin's shooting a scene with that same car. He *thinks* it's got regular gas in it, but the crew forgot to switch the gas out. Next thing you know, he steps on the gas and mows a bunch of people down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK47bp

Attachment 443759



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Sure but did Baldwin shoot it yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Yes, and guns are always weapons. I don't understand why that distinction is not clear. A car on a set isn't particularly dangerous in and of it itself. A gun is.

---

Actually you're completely wrong here. Guns, on their own are NOT dangerous at all. It's the BULLETS that are dangerous.. No bullets, no danger.. Even without a gun, a bullet can be very dangerous..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Actually you're completely wrong here. Guns, on their own are NOT dangerous at all. It's the BULLETS that are dangerous.. No bullets, no danger.. Even without a gun, a bullet can be very dangerous..

---

I fully understand what The AD is saying...just pointing out that cars are pretty dangerous, especially if the intent is to do harm.

Guns are not always weapons...get this, often times in films they're props!

I'm sure there are all sorts of safety protocols for film production around use of cars. Doesn't seem like this is a hill worth dying on, so I'll just leave it at that.

Some of you guys are still paying attention to SJG? Because…?

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding that a big part of Baldwin’s responsibility is due to being a Producer of the film. So, not only did he pull the trigger, but he also hired the armorer who gave him the loaded gun. Lots of other pros on the film say the set was absolute chaos, so theoretically the armorer wasn’t given the tools or environment to do her job properly.

I doubt it will stick, but it does change the scenario vs. he was just an actor given a dangerous prop. He was also the Producer who hired the armorer who negligently gave an actor a deadly prop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowsparkco

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding that a big part of Baldwin’s responsibility is due to being a Producer of the film. So, not only did he pull the trigger, but he also hired the armorer who gave him the loaded gun. Lots of other pros on the film say the set was absolute chaos, so theoretically the armorer wasn’t given the tools or environment to do her job properly.

I doubt it will stick, but it does change the scenario vs. he was just an actor given a dangerous prop. He was also the Producer who hired the armorer who negligently gave an actor a deadly prop.

---

Someone else pointed out there are 6+ other producers on that film who hired and managed the staff. Are they all just as liable as Baldwin as a producer? Why haven't they also been charged?

It would be interesting to see if they offer Baldwin the same deal they offered the guy who handed him loaded gun and said "cold gun".....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The main thing I have gleaned in thinking about this discussion is that there sure are a hell of a lot of movies with a hell of a lot of guns. ( And as Chekhov said, if you show a gun in the first act someone better use it in the last.) Is Hollywood a bigger problem than the NRA? Even those of us who don't own guns, haven't fired one in many years, who want stronger gun laws, etc, etc, are fascinated by them. (Even those of us with big dicks.)

---

https://youtu.be/Ebg2YnBj9II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Actually you're completely wrong here. Guns, on their own are NOT dangerous at all. It's the BULLETS that are dangerous.. No bullets, no danger.. Even without a gun, a bullet can be very dangerous..

---

Wtf is this moronic shit? This is a new level of stupidity and that’s impressive considering the source


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowsparkco

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding that a big part of Baldwin’s responsibility is due to being a Producer of the film. So, not only did he pull the trigger, but he also hired the armorer who gave him the loaded gun. Lots of other pros on the film say the set was absolute chaos, so theoretically the armorer wasn’t given the tools or environment to do her job properly.

I doubt it will stick, but it does change the scenario vs. he was just an actor given a dangerous prop. He was also the Producer who hired the armorer who negligently gave an actor a deadly prop.

---

Did he personally hire her or was it the production company?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I don’t know the details. Just passing along the commentary that the prosecution has expressed that he has a greater responsibility because of his role as Producer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowsparkco

I don’t know the details. Just passing along the commentary that the prosecution has expressed that he has a greater responsibility because of his role as Producer.

---

Is he the only producer?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Wtf is this moronic shit? This is a new level of stupidity and that’s impressive considering the source


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

The gun was not the problem.. The bullets were the problem here... But that's true 99.999% percent of the time in all gun related deaths ya moran..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I fully understand what The AD is saying...just pointing out that cars are pretty dangerous, especially if the intent is to do harm.

Guns are not always weapons...get this, often times in films they're props!

I'm sure there are all sorts of safety protocols for film production around use of cars. Doesn't seem like this is a hill worth dying on, so I'll just leave it at that.

---

Yeah, I'm sure if you look at the stats there have been probably been many more accidents involving cars on movie sets than guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

The gun was not the problem.. The bullets were the problem here... But that's true 99.999% percent of the time in all gun related deaths ya moran..

---

So in your car analogy the problem is the gas, not the car?

What about a grenade? The finger that pulls the pin is the problem, otherwise a grenade isn’t hurting anyone.

Where’s that horse?




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

The gun was not the problem.. The bullets were the problem here... But that's true 99.999% percent of the time in all gun related deaths ya moran..

---

I thought it was humans that are the problem but you do stupid


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Is he the only producer?

---

Well, I’m pretty sure he’s the only producer that shot someone and killed her. If that makes a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

Well, I’m pretty sure he’s the only producer that shot someone and killed her. If that makes a difference.

---

I’m mean yeah if he’s the only producer, films usually have several producers and a production company. I doubt Alec Baldwin was the sole producer and responsible for the entire production. Does that make sense? A lot of actors are producers on their films but that doesn’t mean it’s their production.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I’m mean yeah if he’s the only producer, films usually have several producers and a production company. I doubt Alec Baldwin was the sole producer and responsible for the entire production. Does that make sense? A lot of actors are producers on their films but that doesn’t mean it’s their production.

---

There are probably other producers, but I wouldn’t think the prosecution will dwell on that. The prosecution will be dealing with a jury (of people that can’t get out of it), not the fine legal minds in TRG.

But that gives me a thought - it’s entirely possible I could get called to jury duty for that case. If so, expect a note passed to the judge during deliberations asking for change for a nickel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I’m mean yeah if he’s the only producer, films usually have several producers and a production company. I doubt Alec Baldwin was the sole producer and responsible for the entire production. Does that make sense? A lot of actors are producers on their films but that doesn’t mean it’s their production.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

yeah but he is the one ever buddy hates

Is it possible this brain twister of a situation could be rolled into the fastfred screenplay that's apparently in the works in the life falling apart thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Yeah, I'm sure if you look at the stats there have been probably been many more accidents involving cars on movie sets than guns.

---

As far as fatal accidents it's helicopters by a mile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

As far as fatal accidents it's helicopters by a mile.

---

no, it's knot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sion_accidents
from 1980-`1990 24 of 37 deaths were from helicopters. If you care you're welcome to pick through more recent decades. I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

yeah but he is the one ever buddy hates

---

I don't know - my buddy loves Alec Baldwin

.......... Nevermind. Posted in wrong thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

I don't know - my buddy loves Alec Baldwin

---

I think he's a good actor and a funny actor, but I could definitely imagine him being a big time prick in person.

"An actor does not get a free pass just because they are an actor. That is what is so important. We are saying here in New Mexico, that everyone is equal under the law."

I hadn't heard anything about the DA commenting on his role as producer, but of course that is an issue. It should be the only issue- whomever was paying for this production is ultimately responsible for its safety.

I highly doubt Baldwin was interviewing armorers- as an actor producer I bet he was not looking at spreadsheets. Had he pistol whipped someone to death I may look at it differently, but I don't think there's anything here but an accident and a tragedy. It's just theatrics- Kevin Costner would not be going to court alone representing the production of Yellowstone in Montana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Actually you're completely wrong here. Guns, on their own are NOT dangerous at all. It's the BULLETS that are dangerous.. No bullets, no danger.. Even without a gun, a bullet can be very dangerous..

---

All a bullet is is a projectile. You mean a cartridge, but ok, even ignoring that, can you tell me how a cartridge without a bore to propel the bullet is dangerous? Unless its like a 50BMG or larger there really is not much destructive power there without a bore to focus it. And they are fairly stable. Theyre not going to go off by getting dropped.

When I was as smart as I used to be, I played with bullets, cartridges, and primers a lot. If you hit the primer the right way, you can get it to go off. One in a million shot on a little rock or something is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VMTSnzOPg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

All a bullet is is a projectile. You mean a cartridge, but ok, even ignoring that, can you tell me how a cartridge without a bore to propel the bullet is dangerous? Unless its like a 50BMG or larger there really is not much destructive power there without a bore to focus it. And they are fairly stable. Theyre not going to go off by getting dropped.

---

A cartridge will definitely go off if it lands just right on something. I personally know of an instance where a guy loading 9mm into a magazine dropped a cartridge and it went off.

Been trying to wrap my head around this one, if you strip down all the circumstances around the film and production, what it comes down to is two folks playing pretend with a firearm. One loads the firearm and the other pulls the trigger. Everything else circumstantial will be left to attorneys, jurors and a judge to sort out?

If two people were doing this same activity in their backyard and a bystander gets killed, are the charges brought forth any different?

In your scenario remember the one who loaded the gun is a professional and relied upon to deliver a safe gun. The person was paid to fulfill this responsibility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by present tense

Been trying to wrap my head around this one, if you strip down all the circumstances around the film and production, what it comes down to is two folks playing pretend with a firearm. One loads the firearm and the other pulls the trigger. Everything else circumstantial will be left to attorneys, jurors and a judge to sort out?

If two people were doing this same activity in their backyard and a bystander gets killed, are the charges brought forth any different?

---

Also remember that the bystander knowingly and willingly stood in front of the gun as the trigger was pulled. Because everyone, including the bystander, was relying on a professional's statement that the gun was cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK47bp

So in your car analogy the problem is the gas, not the car?

What about a grenade? The finger that pulls the pin is the problem, otherwise a grenade isn’t hurting anyone.

Where’s that horse?




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Nope, regardless of the gas, if the CAR hits someone the car is what kills them.. If someone waves a toy gun at police and the police shoot them it's the bullet that kills them.

This whole incident just supports the whole concept that it's bullets that should be more regulated. Keep your AK47.. but lead projectile bullets for it should be harder to get than Sudafed is..

In fact, perhaps blanks and wads should be all you can get. You can shoot targets with wads.. at least from 30 feet away or so..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Nope, regardless of the gas, if the CAR hits someone the car is what kills them.. If someone waves a toy gun at police and the police shoot them it's the bullet that kills them.

This whole incident just supports the whole concept that it's bullets that should be more regulated. Keep your AK47.. but lead projectile bullets for it should be harder to get than Sudafed is..

In fact, perhaps blanks and wads should be all you can get. You can shoot targets with wads.. at least from 30 feet away or so..

---

This is some wonderful circular logic. I’m all for more stringent gun controls but it’s people that are the problem not cars and projectiles. Do you mean cartridge when you say bullet or just the bullet?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

All a bullet is is a projectile. You mean a cartridge, but ok, even ignoring that, can you tell me how a cartridge without a bore to propel the bullet is dangerous? Unless its like a 50BMG or larger there really is not much destructive power there without a bore to focus it. And they are fairly stable. Theyre not going to go off by getting dropped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garbowski

When I was as smart as I used to be, I played with bullets, cartridges, and primers a lot. If you hit the primer the right way, you can get it to go off. One in a million shot on a little rock or something is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VMTSnzOPg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKPogue

A cartridge will definitely go off if it lands just right on something. I personally know of an instance where a guy loading 9mm into a magazine dropped a cartridge and it went off.

---

A kid i our neighborhood taped a BB to the middle of a shot gun shell end and kept throwing it up in the air until it landed just right and exploded. I've heard other idiocy of drunk people putting rounds in a camp fire.. Redneck Roulette..

In this situation.. Whoever added real bullets to the box of dummy bullets set off this chain of events that resulted in death.. Whoever loaded the gun whatever EXPERTS declared it safe are also more responsible than the idiot who believed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

This is some wonderful circular logic. I’m all for more stringent gun controls but it’s people that are the problem not cars and projectiles. Do you mean cartridge when you say bullet or just the bullet?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Let folks have blanks/wads. You can defend yourself with them but not likely to also kill bystanders 50 yards away. The lead bullet is usually the problem not the cartridge. Yes you can kill someone with a blank at point blank.. just like you can with a knife.. It's way more likely if they're 5-10 feet away and threatening you and you shoot them they will just wish they were dead giving you time to get away from them..

If it was blanks instead if an actual 45 caliber bullet the woman likely survives the accident. Of course if it was the dummy it was supposed to be the human dummy(s) wouldn't be going on trial for manslaughter.