sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,085
- 5,618
- 126
........
Concluding otherwise it's fantasy.
Focus on explaining that why it's not a criminal act, even if he didn't mean to.
That makes all the difference.
........
Concluding otherwise it's fantasy.
Focus on explaining that why it's not a criminal act, even if he didn't mean to.
If behaving like a fking idiot were a defense, the jails would be much emptierThat makes all the difference.
If behaving like a fking idiot were a defense, the jails would be much emptier
"Criminal Negligent Homicide
Criminal negligent homicide (more commonly referred to as “Involuntary Manslaughter” and also referred to as “Negligent Homicide”) is a crime of causing another's death through criminal negligence. Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment.
A person acts with criminal negligence when:
He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and
A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk."
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.
If behaving like a fking idiot were a defense, the jails would be much emptier
"Criminal Negligent Homicide
Criminal negligent homicide (more commonly referred to as “Involuntary Manslaughter” and also referred to as “Negligent Homicide”) is a crime of causing another's death through criminal negligence. Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment.
A person acts with criminal negligence when:
He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and
A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk."
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.
Sounds pretty violent to me.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.
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.
1. The person authorized to hand him a "cold gun", not only wasn't the person who handed it to him, but not the person he hired to be the armorer.He handled a loaded gun - Here’s your cold gun Mr Baldwin
Hammer was cocked - Our scene is you pulling a cross draw
Safety not engaged - Quick draw the pistol
Weapon was directly pointed at someone - And point it at the camera.
Trigger was pulled - There were reports of two accidental firings prior to this incident
Some of you have never been part of a failure analysis and it shows.
1. The person authorized to hand him a "cold gun", not only wasn't the person who handed it to him, but not the person he hired to be the armorer.
2. There was no reason in a rehearsal for him to cock the gun.
3. Hate to tell you, but that revolver doesn't have a safety.
4. There was no reason for him to point it at his 2 victims.
5. There had already been 2 negligent discharges on the set, reasonable care would have kept him from pointing the firearm at a person and pulling the trigger.
Thanks for contributing to the thread.And you received your relevant experience in workplace safety on production sets.. when?
It never ceases to amaze me how at the heart of right-wing populism is the belief that right-wingers can claim to know more than all the experts on any random subject despite a complete lack of relevant education, experience, or training.
You don't.
You don't know more about climate than the scientists.
You don't know more about vaccines than the doctors.
And you don't know more about workplace safety than the people who specialize in workplace.
That you think you do is just your ego. Which I wouldn't care about except for it how it makes you so easily susceptible to propaganda and manipulation.
Pointing and Shooting was part of his job. He didn't just randomly grab a gun and start playing with it, playing with it was part of what he was doing.
That is incorrect. She was recklessly irresponsible. Almost made Nic Cage deaf: https://www.thedailybeast.com/nicho...-on-the-old-way-before-fatal-baldwin-shootingPimentel: Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer, was inexperienced.
Interview with a professional Hollywood armorer by the Atlantic.
Trimmed for relevance. It's worth a full read
---
Caroline Mimbs Nyce(interviewer): Just right off the bat, what did you make of these charges?
Thomas Pimentel (armourer):
I’m happy about it. This never should have happened. It was definitely preventable. I am married with children, and I’m an armorer. So when I hear that someone gets killed because of negligence, and they leave a mom behind and they leave children behind, it’s horrible.
Nobody should lose their life over make-believe. They shouldn’t. You should expect a level of professionalism and safety in whatever workplace that you’re in. And it was unacceptable.
Nyce: Obviously, there are multiple people being charged here. Do you have any opinion about who’s responsible?
Pimentel: Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer, was inexperienced. There was live ammunition on the set. That’s just absurd.
And the assistant director never should have been handling any of those firearms or the props. That’s the armorer’s job.
Pimentel: So first of all, if the assistant director was the one who handed (Baldwin) the pistol, there was no professional involved who knew anything about firearms. So that’s hugely concerning.
Baldwin has been doing this long enough. He’s been in a lot of movies, action movies and things like that. If someone hands him a gun, what’s stopping him from looking down and looking through that chamber and saying, “oh, I got rounds in here”? “Why are we dealing with rounds? Are they dummy rounds? Can I inspect the dummy rounds myself?" He’s totally okay to ask that.
Nyce: Do you think safety is partially the actor’s responsibility?
Pimentel: Of course it is. If you do a movie about Ford versus Ferrari, you’re going to drive cars. You get in a race car, and you learn how to drive race cars. You do everything that you have to do to get as competent and proficient in that particular field as possible. Handling firearms is no different.
Anybody that uses guns in a movie should have to go through the exact same training and licensing process that people like me go through: background checks by the FBI, local and state police, insurance, things like that.
[Additional discussion on safety protocols, standards, and what the idiots on Rust were doing vs industry norms]
..
Nyce: That sounds like an acting problem.
Pimentel: Ahh, yes! Thank God somebody finally said it. You’re absolutely right. Which goes back to my original point: These people are so concerned with “My character’s left-handed, so I have to spend six weeks eating soup with my left hand.” There are so many microscopic details that they pay attention to, and yet they gloss over firearm safety and realistic acting with firearms.
...
But nothing has changed in the industry on firearm safety because of what happened with Alec Baldwin. The day that happened, people were calling for—not only did they not want guns in movies, they didn’t want guns at all. All the celebrities came out, and they were tweeting about it. But they’re gone now. They’re on to something else, and nothing has changed.
1. The person authorized to hand him a "cold gun", not only wasn't the person who handed it to him, but not the person he hired to be the armorer.
2. There was no reason in a rehearsal for him to cock the gun.
3. Hate to tell you, but that revolver doesn't have a safety.
4. There was no reason for him to point it at his 2 victims.
5. There had already been 2 negligent discharges on the set, reasonable care would have kept him from pointing the firearm at a person and pulling the trigger.
That idiot of an armourer should have quit, especially when the union workers quit over safety reasons.The armorer alleges that Baldwin skipped some of the skill training that was offered (cross draw) but he was then practicing those maneuvers with the AD with guns they should not have been accessible nor touching when the shooting occurred.
That is incorrect. She was recklessly irresponsible. Almost made Nic Cage deaf: https://www.thedailybeast.com/nicho...-on-the-old-way-before-fatal-baldwin-shooting
That idiot of an armourer should have quit, especially when the union workers quit over safety reasons.
Oh Not violent at all. As we've seen you crack pot right wingers are the violent ones.Sounds pretty violent to me.
Well, he has a definite opinion on what actors handling prop guns should do, which is check every prop gun they're given. But what he later says implies that actors do not routinely do this. I'm betting 90%+ of the time that actors rely on the people handing them the gun to make sure it's safe. And I'm also betting Baldwin will have one or more industry experts testify to this at trial.
Well, he has a definite opinion on what actors handling prop guns should do, which is check every prop gun they're given. But what he later says implies that actors do not routinely do this. I'm betting 90%+ of the time that actors rely on the people handing them the gun to make sure it's safe. And I'm also betting Baldwin will have one or more industry experts testify to this at trial.