Baldwin fans, sorry but that is reality.
Oct 25, 2021 17:38:19 GMT
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Oct 25, 2021 17:38:19 GMT
Wildest cat from montana said:
This is a bizarre incident.Grant said:
I'm going to wait until the ballistics report.Matt Richardson said:
Goodness, how low budget was this movie and why did Baldwin involve himself with it?SoundAdvice said:
Past divorce payments, younger wife, several young kids, NYC lifestyle means he accepts anything and will work until he physically can't. Nic Cage/Michael Caine standards of role selection. Several years ago he joked that he will end up a Vegas casino greeter like the famous boxer Joe Louis, and I doubt he was totally kidding.vamborules said:
#AlecForPrison is trending on twitter. No prizes for guessing what type of accounts are participating.Michael said:
so you have to turn this political...no politics here just a terrible, horrible accident that should have never happened...vamborules said:
Facts don't care about your feelings.Michael said:
feelings? no, fact! you had no reason to drive the situation into the political arena...other than to cause trouble ...vamborules said:
So it's not the people doing the hateful thing that made it political. It's noticing the people doing the hateful thing that's political.Sorry but that is ridiculous and I'm not going to play that game with you. Feel free to ignore if reality bothers you that much.
Michael said:
REALITY? ..IT should not have even been brought up...YOU POINTED IT OUT THEREFORE YOU WENT POLITICAL IN THIS THREAD...I'M CURIOUS, WHY DID YOU FEEL THE NEED TO POINT IT OUT? WE are done...intv7 said:
No one brought "politics" into it. @vamborules was intentionally vague, and that's certainly appreciated.Michael said:
...IT WAS AS BLATANT AS IF IT WAS SPELLED OUT IN giant capitol LETTERS...TurtleIsland said:
Garbage blogs like Breitbart are just rabidly foaming at the mouth to condemn Baldwin because he made fun of their orange führer. :rolleyes:ChazFromCali said:
You're defaulting to politics.Possibly letting TDS affect your judgement?
If you need to see the same info in a different venue more to your liking you can find it. Same info. This is NOT about politics. It's about working conditions and the eco-system of a movie set.
This was an Alec Baldwin project. Ultimately it's his responsibility. A person is dead another wounded. He failed. Bigtime. Bottom-line.
mknopfler said:
What a terrible tragedy !! It's clear the most basic rules of firearm safety were not followed by the crew or Alec Baldwin. For such an ardent anti gun person to behave so irresponsibly with a firearm shows his true ignorance about firearms themselves and his lack of respect for human life. Will be waiting to see how this unfolds.ChazFromCali said:
I tend to agree.An opinion based on politics like that guys post is inappropriate. That's why I pointed it it out.
This has NOTHING to do with politics.
As for piling on.
If you wanna be boss you gotta pay the cost. Harsh reality. Baldwin is at fault, bottom-line.
mknopfler said:
Unless movie sets are exempt from firearm safety rules, then Alec Baldwin ultimately the one to blame. He did not check the firearm before using it, he pointed it at people and he pulled the trigger. Involuntary manslaughter at least, gross negligence and disregard for human life. You do not point any firearm at a person that you don't want to kill, loaded or unloaded. You always check to make sure the firearm is not loaded before handling it. ANYONE who has ever trained with firearms knows this. The buck stops with Baldwin, others screwed up, yes - big time. But he did not follow the rules which would have kept this from happening even with those other errors. Baldwin fans, sorry but that is reality.mknopfler said:
Sorry, I will disagree with you. A functioning firearm is NOT a "prop", but a deadly weapon. Obviously if it had been treated as such Baldwin wouldn't be a killer now more than likely...Being an "actor" is not a shield from responsibility. What, are they politicians now ? Nothing is their fault ? The person handling the firearm is ultimately responsible.Matthew Tate said:
first off we don't know yet exactly what he was doing with the gun. thats why there is an investigation ongoingsecond i'm pretty sure he can't check the gun. i'm willing to bet as soon as an actor starts messing with a gun they are given the production stops and the armorer has to come on set and check everything. i know if a gun is ever even dropped it is supposed to be given to the armorer immediately
mknopfler said:
Well, that certainly would have preferable to a shooting and death. Your pretty sure's, don't mean anything, I'm pretty sure.Matthew Tate said:
i was trying to be nice man. the actors 100% are not allowed to start loading and unloading the weapons and randomly inspected firearms those are the protocols on set.mknopfler said:
So movie sets have rules that run directly the opposite of known and accepted firearm safety rules that everyone is supposed to follow ? How do they get an exemption from safety rules ? Well, now they are paying the price. Those people would not have been shot had the proper rules been followed.ChazFromCali said:
Producers do not do any work on the set. They're the money people. The "work" they do is getting the money lined-up to get the film made in the first place. Certainly a valuable contribution. But no, they are not liable.This was Baldwin's project. He. Is. Ultimately. Reponsible.
I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm smart enough to know that's what the law will probably say. I actually have no axe to grind here if that's what you think.
mknopfler said:
"I didn't know it was loaded" has been used many times before. Told it was cold, didn't check himself and shot two people. His faultmknopfler said:
An armorer is wonderful, but it is still up to the person wielding the firearm to check it for safety. Anyone hands you a firearm you check the action to be sure it is unloaded and never point it at anyone you don't want to kill. These are the most basic rules of firearm safety for well over a century and being on a movie is no exemption in my eyes. Because he is a millionaire playing pretend he is exempt from following those basic rules ? Look what happened, time to rethink that.mknopfler said:
That is ridiculous. If he had checked the gun and found it loaded he hopefully wouldn't have killed somebody and shot somebody else. why even type something so ridiculous ?Firearm safety is a PERSONAL responsibility. You can't hire somebody else to do it for you, anyone who handles a firearm is responsible to be sure it is handled safely. Nobody else can do that for you. In this age of no personal responsibility it's not a wonder people are defending a famous actor, even though he killed someone through gross negligence.
STeVE Hoffman said:
Hi, everyone. The actor has NO right to inspect weapons, that is a big no-no on any movie or TV set. Let's move on.JediJones said:
We can at least say this, the armorer had been hired once or twice before. So these weren't the only people who thought her resume was good enough. I'm going to guess she claimed she apprenticed and/or was trained by her father. Certainly sounds good on a resume. She had said she helped her father on a film set before. But either the training was far less frequent and minimal than it should've been, or she was simply a careless, sloppy, unfocused person, and/or lacked the intellectual capability to handle the job. From what I've seen of her social media before it was deleted, she comes off as the kind of young, immature, irresponsible person who would mess up your order at McDonald's and blame you for her mistake.STeVE Hoffman said:
Posts deleted. Actors on set do NOT have the right to examine firearms. In fact, it is forbidden. Move on, or move out.notesfrom said:
Baldwin looks to be buddy-buddy with the widower and son, and her father doesn't blame Alec (Ukranians reputedly avenge vendettas with an eye-for-an-eye, seriously), so they'll probably work something out as as to not tarnish too many reputations.