Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
You want AB convicted because he is a member of a group righties love to bash. This has very little to do with his actual culpability. I have yet to see ANY evidence he failed to do something he was instructed or required to do.

I refer to my brake job analogy.
Of course he does, because Taj is a shit stain on humanity. The guy never makes a thread and he does to gloat about Alec Baldwin being involved in a fucked up situation like this.

Trust me that sick subhuman scumbag is happy that woman died because it would give a chance for Alec Baldwin to get in trouble.

All these charges are a political hit job to satisfy the absolute shittiness that are the right wingers in this country.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,649
1,548
136
You want AB convicted because he is a member of a group righties love to bash. This has very little to do with his actual culpability. I have yet to see ANY evidence he failed to do something he was instructed or required to do.

I refer to my brake job analogy.


If it had been John Wayne instead of AB he would have never started a thread and would have argued that it was not JW’s fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,932
20,891
136
The whole clusterfuck was his responsibility, the gross negligence that resulted in the death of Halyna Hutchins can be pinned on him
Car owners are responsible for maintaining their vehicles. If brake maintenance is entrusted to a professional and that pro screws up driver is not held responsible. Car owners are not expected to know if work was faulty. That’s why a pro is hired
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Car owners are responsible for maintaining their vehicles. If brake maintenance is entrusted to a professional and that pro screws up driver is not held responsible. Car owners are not expected to know if work was faulty. That’s why a pro is hired

If an owner of a haulage or delivery business, or a taxi firm, or something, employs incompetent mechanics or drivers with convictions for drunk-driving, say, and that leads to a disastrous road accident, is it not possible they could face a criminal conviction?

I mean, I don't actually know, really, what the law says, maybe the consequences would only involve purely civil cases, but morally I'm not sure it's right that the bosses should always be let off the hook on a personal level - sometimes the irresponsibility is so severe that there ought to be criminal sanctions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11 and Leeea

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,945
11,564
146
This is not a failure of one person.

The prison has room for more. The armorer. The assistant director who decided to do a job he was not qualified for. The management offsite who decided to ignore safety and hire scabs.

Lock them all up.
There are 12 producers credited on IMDB
for Rust along with 1 Director, 2 assistant directors and an armorer.

That’s a lot of people to spread the culpability around for a jury to pin on only one or two.

It’s by no means a sure thing that Baldwin will be found guilty or get a significant sentence if he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski and Leeea

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,738
4,124
106
If an owner of a haulage or delivery business, or a taxi firm, or something, employs incompetent mechanics or drivers with convictions for drunk-driving, say, and that leads to a disastrous road accident, is it not possible they could face a criminal conviction?

I mean, I don't actually know, really, what the law says, maybe the consequences would only involve purely civil cases, but morally I'm not sure it's right that the bosses should always be let off the hook on a personal level - sometimes the irresponsibility is so severe that there ought to be criminal sanctions.
Depends on if said responsible people were aware said mechanics or etc were incompetent. I would argue management would not be responsible for the work of an incompetent mechanic unless management had reason to believe something was wrong.

ex: truck brakes fail out of the blue and run over a child, turns out mechanical failure due to shoddy brake job. Management is innocent, how were they supposed to know?
ex2: truck brakes fail for the 20th time this year and runs over a child, once again due to mechanical failure associated with shoddy brake job. Previous driver quit because it was not safe. Management = guilty.


The prior incidents in this case is what is so shocking. The gun did not just go bang one day.

It went bang over and over. The union walked because of safety. Anyone with a brain could see the safety issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,932
20,891
136
If an owner of a haulage or delivery business, or a taxi firm, or something, employs incompetent mechanics or drivers with convictions for drunk-driving, say, and that leads to a disastrous road accident, is it not possible they could face a criminal conviction?

I mean, I don't actually know, really, what the law says, maybe the consequences would only involve purely civil cases, but morally I'm not sure it's right that the bosses should always be let off the hook on a personal level - sometimes the irresponsibility is so severe that there ought to be criminal sanctions.
I think so but maybe not a homicide. The armourer would have to have been known to be incompetent. If so that will come out in trial.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
A lot of Legal media commentators who's opinion I've learned to respect all think this was an overcharge. Now they can be all collectively wrong or it can just be an overcharge. I'll go with an overcharge.
With the "justice" system we have in this country sometimes the punishment is the process.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
Every single time taj gets owned, like with this post, he will ignore it, never reply to it, strut around the board knocking pieces over and pretend like he won.
Every.
Single.
Time.
There is no honest debate here, taj is a coward, a troll and most likely a purebred psychopath. There is *nothing* of value to be obtained from this husk.
Bullshit, the firearm is perfectly safe as attested to by the FBI examination. It didn't go off "accidentally" it didn't go off without the trigger being pulled. Just because of the ignorance of a poster or 3 on this forum it doesn't make the firearm at fault. You are a coward and a troll.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,559
1,169
136
Bullshit, the firearm is perfectly safe as attested to by the FBI examination. It didn't go off "accidentally" it didn't go off without the trigger being pulled. Just because of the ignorance of a poster or 3 on this forum it doesn't make the firearm at fault. You are a coward and a troll.
It is impossible to recreate exactly the conditions when the gun went off. I would say the FBI test made it very unlikely the gun could go off without the trigger being pulled, but I would not say impossible.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,654
10,306
136
Bullshit, the firearm is perfectly safe as attested to by the FBI examination. It didn't go off "accidentally" it didn't go off without the trigger being pulled. Just because of the ignorance of a poster or 3 on this forum it doesn't make the firearm at fault. You are a coward and a troll.
Playing hide’n seek at your late stage age is fucking pathetic.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
30,238
7,638
136
I'm kinda amused that the far right has suddenly come full circle and now wants corporate leaders held criminally liable for potentially negligent business decisions.
i'm also surprised at the concern taj is showing over the loss of a single life in a negligent workplace fatality.

imagine the emotional devastation that would be caused to him if someone murdered a an entire classroom full of children. surely he'd be crusading for consequences and laws to prevent such a horrifying scenario from happening again.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
i'm also surprised at the concern taj is showing over the loss of a single life in a negligent workplace fatality.

imagine the emotional devastation that would be caused to him if someone murdered a an entire classroom full of children. surely he'd be crusading for consequences and laws to prevent such a horrifying scenario from happening again.
You mean you think i should be crusading to curtail and limit the rights of US citizens so you could feel a bit more secure for no reason at all ? No thanks.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: zinfamous

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
36,307
16,010
146
i'm also surprised at the concern taj is showing over the loss of a single life in a negligent workplace fatality.

imagine the emotional devastation that would be caused to him if someone murdered a an entire classroom full of children. surely he'd be crusading for consequences and laws to prevent such a horrifying scenario from happening again.
pretty sure he’s ok with it, we need more grenades too
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
How do you guys talk to that thing? The world would be a better place without him in it and we all know that. And there are millions just like him. Destroying this country and humanity. There's no discussion to be had with such horrific scum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
109,246
26,815
146
If an owner of a haulage or delivery business, or a taxi firm, or something, employs incompetent mechanics or drivers with convictions for drunk-driving, say, and that leads to a disastrous road accident, is it not possible they could face a criminal conviction?

I mean, I don't actually know, really, what the law says, maybe the consequences would only involve purely civil cases, but morally I'm not sure it's right that the bosses should always be let off the hook on a personal level - sometimes the irresponsibility is so severe that there ought to be criminal sanctions.
You should ask Tracey Morgan about liability of the corporate bosses when this happens....

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = personal shark aquarium. literally
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
However, if I took the gun from an assistant, and he said it was "cold", one would most likely assume that it had been inspected by the armorer. To me, though, that is the biggest frustration of all, that the person who actually handed him the gun and told him it was safe is getting off with a slap on the wrist because he threw Baldwin and the armorer under the bus.
The problem with your position is that Baldwin as an actor and/or a producer should have known that's not the person who has responsibility to make that determination.

He did anyway, and that failure to follow procedures (even as lax as they were) was not followed and it resulted in someone's death.

I don't understand the deal with the AD, but we'll learn more about everything at trial.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
I agree there seems (to me with no legal-expertise at all), to be a strong argument there. Why did the assistant director hand him the gun and say it was "cold", and why did Baldwin take that guy's word for it (when he hired the armourer in the first place)?

And why did the armourer let that happen?

And that's without even getting into the question of why there were live rounds on set and why the crew was (apparently, just going from what's been said on here) using a 'prop' gun to fire those live rounds for recreational purposes?

Hopefully that's what the jury/court will make an objective decision about. I'm in no way qualified to do so, but it certainly seems that there's a case to answer.
Yup. We need the trial to get more of the facts.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
What was considered safe enough in 1873 is not what we consider safe today.

...
Well, it is a faithful reproduction.
Finger slips on that hammer before half cock or whatever? BANG!
This is not a modern firearm design.
Several inaccurate claims you have made. This is not how they work, at all.

1. Older style SAA revolvers are carried with the hammer resting on an empty chamber, and the firing pin would be resting directly on the primer. A strong blow (such as dropping) to the hammer could simulate the force of a fully cocked hammer and spring. Rare, but not impossible.

As far back as 1970, changes to such revolver designs were made that made to decouple the firing pin from the hammer unless fully cocked (eg transfer bar mechanism). These are known throughout the industry as "New Model".

You cannot drop a hammer and firing pin onto cartridge unless it's fully cocked and you pull the trigger.

2.
The safety mechanism was not engaged in this accidental shooting. See the manual you linked.

The cylinder pin can be easily positioned so that even a fully cocked, fully loaded firearm will not fire because the hammer will strike the cyl pin before the cartridge.

Again, another point of negligence in following safety practices, assuming they bought new firearms, and did not deliberately seek out old guns without these features.


The problem with old firearms is that hammer pull is difficult and strong, and if your a noob like me it is real easy to accidentally discharge.
3.
I don't know what rusty, broken firearms you used, but this is an absurd statement.

Unless abused, the hammer pull is not heavy, at all. Your finger should not be on the trigger until ready to fire, regardless of grip style.

The triggers in revolvers are fantastic. They are light, and break crisply. You do not put your finger there before you are ready tho.

These look like 1873 models, but there are many functional changes to add more safety layers in the event of the careless, ignorant, idiots and drunks shooting themselves and others. Congrats Alec, you managed to defeat all of them!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,606
12,171
136
i'm also surprised at the concern taj is showing over the loss of a single life in a negligent workplace fatality.

imagine the emotional devastation that would be caused to him if someone murdered a an entire classroom full of children. surely he'd be crusading for consequences and laws to prevent such a horrifying scenario from happening again.
Where was all this concern from them when BP management knowingly cut corners with Deepwater Horizon which resulted in 11 deaths and billions in property damage?
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
It is impossible to recreate exactly the conditions when the gun went off. I would say the FBI test made it very unlikely the gun could go off without the trigger being pulled, but I would not say impossible.
It's no more possible than your car sometimes randomly moving in reverse when you put in first gear, or your watch hands moving backwards some days, or voting machines randomly turning Trump votes into Biden.

The hammer and trigger mechanisms are based on clockwork motifs.

He handled a loaded gun
Hammer was cocked
Safety not engaged
Weapon was directly pointed at someone
Trigger was pulled

Concluding otherwise it's fantasy.

Focus on explaining that why it's not a criminal act, even if he didn't mean to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

ASK THE COMMUNITY