IKR?
Printable View
IKR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
I don’t think he deserves jail, I think he owes that woman’s family alot of $$$ in a civil trial. A lot.
people are quick to judge the blue blood Manhattanite who dared made fun of the god emperor
based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Based on the dead mother and his large bank account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I bet he offered already, I like the guy. But he seems to have possed off the family not owning up to everything.
Danno
This is my take. If he was handled a real gun by mistake , vs a rubber gun/non working prop, I’d say zero liability.
But they all knew these were not toys. 100%.
Anytime you pull the trigger it’s on you.
well thank you for providing your well reasoned legal analysis on the legal standards and burdens of proof. Based on what I know, he would not be liable for the same reason the prosecution dropped the charges. Because his actions were industry standard and thus not negligent (again, based on what I know). Live bullets were not supposed to even be on set, and there were people employed for the express purpose of making sure that the actor doesn't have to be responsible for gun safety, because they are paid to do that. And that person or those people told him that the gun was unloaded. I don't see how you prove negligence if those are the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Well yeah, we know that. We’re just grateful to be located between Colorado and Texas because they make us look better in comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Montana used to have Idaho and N Dakota for that same purpose, but not so much anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
Hey man, I was a Junior Statesmen. And Harry is an insurance expert, we’re all experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
you might be the only one. i don't really have an opinion on the situation at hand but have always found him to be a flaming fucking douchenozzle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
I don't have an opinion on this but I'm genuinely lost and can't understand how someone would hand me a gun, tell me it's unloaded, and me still not have the ability to not check myself. There's no way I could resist checking.
But I grew up with guns. So maybe that's it.
Hunt for red October.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealurface831
That’s enough. And I actually like some of the environmental stands he’s taken.
how many movies have you made ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
you weren't suposed to point a gun at people either
unless of course you are the PO-lice or some random person knocks on your door or or
Last thing you want is an actor fiddling around with a hand prop. You give it to them, they film the scene, you take it away from them.
When the hand prop is a gun, procedure is a little different as described way up in thread, but the principle is the same - don't ever let actors fuck around with shit.
Yes I've worked on movies and TV shows with guns involved.
Nobody is to blame, it's all just guns just doin' gun stuff.
Oh, someone is to blame and she's still up on charges. She's just not someone famous who made fun of a cult leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
Nobody has ever seen a Dirty Harry movie? They did not CGI those guns in Clint's hand or other people he was aiming them at..
Except that person who hands you the gun and tells you it's unloaded? That's literally their job, they are being paid to do that very thing. And you may have grown up with guns, but they're paid to do that job precisely because not everyone is expected to have grown up with guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Who wants to grow up with guns?
Hot stripper mom....ok. I get that.
Weed Smoking hippy dad. Ok yeah...al right.
But guns?
The whole context of the situation is to simulate doing things with a 'gun' that are inherently dangerous and unsafe. Applying range customs and practices to this setting is absurd. This ain't plinking cans in the back woods.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Yep. When a rental shop employee gives your cousin from Chicago his skis and boots for a day on the slopes, it is not expected of the the cousin to check the DINs and forward pressure are all set correctly. You trust the fucking expert getting paid to do their job... your jerry cousin will only make the situation worse 999/1000 if he starts messing around with stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
I just do not fundamentally understand why the actor is getting blamed for a prop malfunction?
Rich Manhattan resident who made fun of dear leaderQuote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Special prosecutor who thought it would help her election chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-fatal-...ry?id=98760315
The special prosecutors' decision to drop the charges against Alec Baldwin over the fatal on-set "Rust" shooting was made, at least in part, because investigators found the gun that fired to be mechanically improper, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Investigators effectively conducted an autopsy of the Colt .45 revolver and found that there were worn joints and that the trigger control was not functioning properly, according to the source.
It became evident to prosecutors the gun could fire without pressure on the trigger, according to the source.
——
AB did say he never pulled the trigger - which a lot of “experts” then said wasn’t possible.
Its obvious to me they should go after the armorer
who would then go postal/ kill some people
cuz its america
So they make a movie about it
I guess you can't make it as an expert without proclaiming certainty these days, but the implicit assertion that personal experience > first hand knowledge got pretty strong on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
I'm curious how many of those "experts" have any experience analyzing mechanisms that failed in unexpected ways. The armorer's trial should give them all another bite at the apple.
I'm sure this will be followed by an avalanche of people correcting their record on the haste in which they drew conclusions and then a promise to be patient while examining future evidence; no doubt we'll be deafened by the chorus of people going: "truth be told, I don't know the first thing about antique firearms, how they wear and can fail plus I never examined this weapon so it'd be reckless to pass my speculation as fact".Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
you can’t. By definition, not just the press but people in general want/expect experts to be certain. there’s no room on the news for grey area nuances and for the most part that’s what people want.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Nearly every expert expressing certainty is most likely not the best person to get your information
in a country with > 400 million gun owners isnt everyone is an exspurt ?
Gotta keep the gold fishes' interest. Easier while being creatively wrong than right. It seems like they could manage it without saying "impossible" so much, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
You of all people should know never to trust the end loser.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Didn't Hutchin's husband sue Baldwin in the wake of the FBI analysis? I wonder if that's still in progress.. Previously it to that they were still friends and talking it out.
FWIW only about 140 million Americans own 400 million guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
well then with multiple gun ownership those 140 million would be really good
right in this thread we have already seen some of them exspurts school us on the gun ownership eh
The very same gun literally went off accidentally without pulling the trigger while it was being tested by the FBI. They also got it to go off another way without pulling the trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Here's the actual report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ports-aug-2022
But yes, the geniuses are right and revolvers are designed to not shoot at random.
Thanks for the link. Are you talking about the last paragraph of Ziegler's 4th page? Am I missing something, or is that a grade A Shitshow, too? Reminds me of auvgeek's binding mount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbowski
If I'm reading it right, they broke the gun while performing the one test most likely to damage it (hitting it with a rawhide hammer) and just continued on with the tests. Then when the gun subsequently malfunctioned he said: "This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanism."
So many questions for the nation's premier crime lab:
Why would they possibly decide to do the tests in that order instead of checking all normal functions first?
Did they discover the damage only after the gun discharged in the later test--in which case how do they know when it was damaged? Or did they know it was damaged and continue to test it anyway, hoping to find or prove what, exactly?
WTF indeed.
One redeeming portion:
"When an accidental discharge examination is performed, it may not be possible to recreate or duplicate all of the circumstances which led to the discharge of a firearm without a pull of the trigger."
Its not really relevant to this exact model and this exact situation, but old west type guns have all sorts of safety issues people aren't really aware of.
There are documented cases of lever guns with tube magazines having accidental discharges, the nose of one round in a tube magazine setting off the primer of the round in front of it, which then of course fires that round into the round in front of it. This was thought to only happen with non recessed primers and not flat nosed bullets, but that isn't accurate, its happened with flat nosed bullets with recessed primers.
Back in the day, the failure rate for catastrophic kabooms with the venerable walker colt and dragoon revolvers were abysmal. The numbers are thought to have been fudged just a bit by rangers and soldiers who embezzled their guns and lied about it but still, over half the walker colts were listed as destroyed or returned to the company.
Then theres the revolver carbines, which look super cool and seem practical, but the reason they weren't more popular is because they too had unacceptably high rates of catastrophic kabooms. This was obviously especially bad when instead of held at arms length as a handgun, they were held up next to the face as a carbine with a stock.
I'm pretty sure this type of revolver has been known to have accidental (not negligent) discharges. Still though, even if it's historically accurate and looks cool on screen, you'd think they'd have modern internals inside the thing with multiple internal mechanical safeties.
No real point one way or the other re Baldwin, not really my business, but I do think the less than stellar safety of the old west guns is pretty interesting. I'm sure there are other examples I am not remembering or aware of.
Baldwin said they told him to pull back the hammer and then told him to release it.. He said the gun fired when the hammer sprung back in to place. Also that he was asking them to confirm it was OK to release the hammer like that. I can see an old worn revolver failing like that.
Still wondering how an actual bullet ended up in the gun.
Ya. Regardless of whether or not the gun could fire without touching the trigger, why was there a real round in it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski