OT Alec "The Jerk" Baldwin kills one and injures another with a firearm

Flyguy snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You're a f****ng retard. First off, it is not a firearm.

A: Because it is not made to be an arm. It does fire, but it does NOT comply with the requisite for the moniker ofd firearm, you f****ng total retard.

B: You are the f****ng jerk on this bus, TrumpTard.

I see that your intelligence level hasn't crawled out of the sewer you live in.

Perhaps we should wait for the results of the investigation before slinging mud.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote: =============

IMO: Some serious negligence is involved here and a manslaughter charge likely. Maybe Alec himself or someone else. It was Alec's film, as lead actor and producer he was in charge.

BTW

The movie is of a true story where a 14 year old boy was hanged for an accidental killing. Youngest person ever in the USA. Alec's character is the boy's grandfather who sets out to save him from the noose.

....... Phil

F****it snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: =======================

I win again, hands down.

" Like shootin' fish in a barrel "

.... Phil

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:56:17 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sl0861$lpo$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

ppywG0JjCjY/

Acting is fundamentally pretending to be someone that you aren't. Some people never stop acting.

If that rifle was replica of 19th century hunting rifle, it had a BIG bore, maybe as big as 50-cal but probably a 45-cal. And because it was a long barrel, the muzzle velocity should be something lethal, 1500-2000 fps range. That round had to go clean through the victim. Definitely don't want to get hit by that thing.

This whole accident perplexes me.

First, I don't get is why Alex Baldwin did not personally inspect the gun, which (in some reports) was presented as being "cold", which means no rounds (blank or otherwise) in the gun. Other reports say that the gun was presented as "safe", which could mean empty, or with blanks, but no metal bullet is present.

Given that this was telling a story from the 1920s in the US West, the firearm was likely a revolver of some kind, like a Colt 45, so it's easily inspected by anyone - no special expertise needed. And it would be a good subject in which to train everybody.

And I would guess that one can tell a live (has bullet) from a dummy (paper or plastic wad) round by its weight alone, if looks don't suffice.

Nor do I understand how any 24-year-old would have the experience and judgment to be the Armorer in charge. Whoever gave her that responsibility should expect questions. And this would seem like a good reason for Baldwin to do his own inspection.

Normally, live rounds are forbidden on the set, precisely to reduce the chance of a mix-up. So, where did that live round come from? (And as said elsewhere in the present thread, wads don't punch through one person and into a second person behind the first - that has to be a large metal bullet.)

Joe Gwinn

Why didn't the dead cinematographer also inspect the gun? She knew the script. I view her as the 4th link in the chain of events. If just one of those links had been broken, the accident would not have happened.

"Gutierrez-Reed is the daughter of legendary Hollywood armorer Thell Reed who trained her from a young age."

Joe Gwinn wrote: ==============

Bugger off fool.

...... Phil

She was trained by probably the best. However she said something about being afraid loading blanks. She should never have been any kind of armorer.

These are all excellent questions. If Baldwin had taken a firearms safety course he would have been taught to personally clear a weapon handed to him by someone else, even if that person was an expert, say a firearms safety instructor. Baldwin, however, doesn't take advice very well even if he had taken such a course.

A blank round looks different from a live one by the lack of a projectile on the business end. Baldwin, however, was told that the weapon was "cold," meaning there was no rounds in it, live or blank. The weapon was, apparently, a revolver, so all he had to do was open the cylinder and look to see if there were any rounds in it. That would have taken 5 sec.

The armorer was extremely inexperienced, having worked that position only one time before. She was brought in at the last moment when Baldwin fired the original crew, who complained about safety on the set. The investigation will determine how and when the live rounds made it onto the set, and how they were controlled (which, by any measure, was wholly inadequate if not negligent).

There were THREE misfires on this set before the fatal one. This should have been a strong wakeup call to Baldwin, one of the producers. But Alec Baldwin doesn't take criticism well, as has been extensively documented over the years. This, and the other issues mentioned above, is why he should by charged with negligent homicide.

Phil Allison snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No. The Executive Producer runs things. Baldwin is ONE OF the REGULAR producers of the film.

If there was a set of complaints and a walk off taking place, then I would not put it past one of those twerps having placed a live round in the gun or "in the mix" to get "mistakenly loaded" into the gun. Most likely a Trumpanzee Republican thing pulling a hate stunt on Baldwin's movie set.

DecadentLinux..

--------------------------

..... Phil

And Baldwin has the ultimate responsibility - he pulled the trigger.

Flyguy wrote: ============

..... Phil

LOL! Not to the police and the DA, fool.

I've yet to see a source that claims there was a bullet on the set. "Live rounds" includes blanks, so they were expecting a "bang", just not a bullet from what I've read.