This is such a stupid trial. Some of you that are claiming otherwise need to actually read more than just the headlines.
Printable View
This is such a stupid trial. Some of you that are claiming otherwise need to actually read more than just the headlines.
I'm pretty sure this ^^ has already been said in the last 44 pagesQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
consider if he was Donald Trump he would have got off eh
Yikes. Beyond negligent. Live ammo in the bandolier.Quote:
Live bullet found in prop holster of actor Jensen Ackles on ‘Rust’ set, crime scene technician testifies
Obviously armorer was reckless/incompetent - perhaps, substituting live ammo for displays where there was shortage of blanks/props? Dunno but inexcusable with a conviction to the fact.
Some of the distortions and gymnastics here are boggling. Almost as if you're intentionally depriving yourselves of the material facts of the case.
Juries can do funny things so I don't want to call it. But the arguments about routine personal gun handling practices while hunting and at the range are absurd in the context of a movie. Which is why there are professionals employed to ensure that these non-normal actions can be performed safely on a set by lay person actors. Have you watched action movies before? Cocked guns pointed directly at cameras, actors. Firing while running, pointed backwards over a shoulder done blindly. Guns held to heads. And on. Just like insane vehicle chase scenes. Violates all sense of vehicle safety when done in public. But, whilst shooting a scene - are you going to find ultimate negligence on an actor who didn't check brakes/tires/throttle on a prop vehicle before doing their role? There are professionals whose sole function is to provide safety in props & sets and their use.
yeahbut those people didn't go on SNL and mock the orange jesus...
fact.
“Some of the distortions and gymnastics here are boggling. Almost as if you're intentionally depriving yourselves of the material facts of the case.”
^this
sure, but it sure seems like some people still don't get it, which is why I posted (or reposted, if you will) it.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
What I’ve heard from people I know that worked on that set was that it was an out-of-control shitshow, poorly run, chaotic, stoned, etc. I kind of wonder if somehow the prosecutors are going to try to work something up from that angle. NM prosecutors seem kind of wack to me, so their approach could just collapse in flames going up against Baldwin’s firm.
total idiot question(and admittedly I haven't kept up with the case); If its know known that they were "stoned" on set....wouldnt that fall back on baldwin(the producer) to reign that type of environment in?
i think the judge has already said that Alec's producer role has no bearing on the case. could be wrong...
fact?
If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. If you pull a trigger, your lawyer's gettin richer.
No matter what Leroy or you guys think, if Baldwin aimed a real weapon at a person, pulled the trigger and a fake or a live round exited it and harmed a person, he is responsible for that.
That's why he made a big deal about not pulling the trigger and the gun being broken. He knew that the day he shot her and was his best way out.
The judge ruled his status as a producer wasn’t relevant and evidence related to producing role is inadmissible. So the stupid hijinx on set are irrelevant to his case
And it isn’t relevant whether he pulled or didn’t pull a trigger. The persons fully responsible are the armorer and the A.D. that gave the gun and confirmed to him it was “cold”. It’s their responsibility, not the actor. Even if his name is Alec
Every gun is loaded
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Is that why there are thousands of dead and wounded actors?Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
Judge dismisses Alec Baldwin involuntary manslaughter case for ‘Rust’ shooting
Source:https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...llets-evidence
Dismissed with prejudice.
^ Yep. It’s over, the charges against Baldwin were just thrown out.
Most judges aren't that smart.
Damn those prosecutors are some fkn idiots.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It’s not that far a leap from that sentiment to “maybe the shit I’ve read was promoted by these same fucking idiots to make me believe Alec is at fault”
i missed the part where i expressed the belief alec was at fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Sorry if I misread where Leeroy assigned blame and then you called his comment valid and cohesive
valid and cohesive in that it seemed cogent, but definitely not correct. sorry it sounded that way. like i said before , i think the only reason the case, in both the kangaroo NM court and the court of public opinion, got as far as it did is because he has a reputation for being a douche.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Gotcha. I think probably 40-50% of celebrities on par with Alec probably have douchebag behavior. Not excusing it - but he’s not alone. That being said he doesn’t seem like the biggest douche - eg his two episodes on comedians in cars getting coffee with Seinfeld he comes across as genuine and vulnerable.
I believe (but don’t have evidence to prove) that most of the motivation behind trying to prosecute him here comes from a right wing desire to punish the wealthy Manhattan/Hollywood blue blood who dared make fun of dear orange leader. Who knows what strings were being pulled in the background to make this shitty case happen.
Mix that with a lot of peoples desire to throw out all nuance, context, and common sense in some transparent desire to tell themselves (and hopefully anyone who is in earshot) that they are on the highest moral plane of firearm safety and anyone lower is an irresponsible killer. I can only imagine that if they truly believed what they professed they wouldn’t ever let their kids point a squirt gun at another person.
Well, that was a waste of taxpayers' money.
I kinda like living in a country where prosecutors turning over potentially exculpatory evidence is required or at least supposed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by exsparky
That’s not exactly likely. Santa Fe is way blue/liberal. More like the dopey prosecutor (a woman) really wanted to bring justice for the poor woman who got killed. Not much support here for the orange baboon. Though it didn’t help that AB was a dickish Hollywood type that gets no sympathy around here in NM. For the most part Santa Fe loves the actors that live here - Hackman, Studi, McGraw etc. But actors that don’t live here…eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
It would’ve been interesting if it went to the jury.
More likely a prosecutor wanted a splashy case she could ride to higher elected office
this 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
The woman shot was not an actor. If they were rehearsing a scene, she wasn't in it. The gun should NEVER have been pointed at her. Zero reason to. The script did not call for it, and I know this without reading it, because she was not an actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
Or they actually want yaknow, there to be the threat of consequences if not actual consequences, to further incentivize the movie companies to make sure this doesn't happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
You can't legislate the world into being a safe place, but you can prevent things like this.
Ok troll. We know your dumb but now you are saying you know that’s what happened because you didn’t read the script?
She was behind the camera. They were rehearsing a pov w the camera facing baldwin and the gun. That’s in the script. Her job was to be behind the camera. They were both doing what they were supposed to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
x3Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Horrendous behavior by the Investigators. It sure as shit read like somebody made conscious decisions - plural to make it very difficult for the possible exculpatory evidence to be discovered. Crazy stuff that could be it's own B rated movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk
except this is America and nobody believes thatQuote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
No asshole. It’s what anyone who handles a firearm is, or should be, taught from day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Wrong. EVERY prosecutor knows the rules. See, there’s case called Brady…anyway, look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Judge breaks dismissal down in detail here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMU4dLOMYzA
Over 2500 movies made each year plus TV shows. How many include guns? Multiply by number of times that guns are pointed or fired at another actor or camera. That’s why they have armorers. Otherwise there be more than a couple dead people in the last 100 years of prop use.Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
Nice job crying on demand. He is an actor after all. Im sure he was relieved to hear the judge say those words because I really don't think he intended to kill anybody, but the question remains. Why was there a loaded handgun with a chambered round given to somebody? Wasn't there an armorer on site who was responsible for the fire arms? If somebody hands me a hand gun and I didn't drop the magazine and rack the slide in order to hit the "reset button" then on some level I would be responsible for whatever damage I cause.
armorer already in jail for that very action... try to keep up bub.
fact.