Alec Baldwin giving an interview tonight on ABC

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,636
4,637
113
Criminal law / negligence law is state jurisdiction under the US Constitution, Phil.
Given the legal advice you've given on Terb over the years, this must be true
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Cantaro

fictionfactor

Active member
Feb 18, 2013
265
107
43
What exactly did he do wrong? What protocols did he breech? I'm asking because I haven't seen anything to date. Please provide some evidence, other than you feel he should do some time because he killed someone.
he aimed a gun and pulled the trigger, case closed
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mandrill

Mr.Know-It-All

Giver of truth
Jul 26, 2020
2,072
1,397
113
I don't have to agree. And I don't. It's absolutely insane that someone can take a gun into public and shoot people, and get away with it. And anyone who thinks otherwise needs serious fucking mental help.
Fortunately the law disagrees with your distorted view.

There is nothing insane about shooting people who attempt to kill or injure you. No different than putting down a rabid dog that's attacking an innocent person. Shoot it to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg

Jasmina

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2013
2,185
1,519
113
Toronto
*eye roll* this guy had a gun and shot it off. This wasn't some dude walking his dog.

Fortunately the law disagrees with your distorted view.

There is nothing insane about shooting people who attempt to kill or injure you. No different than putting down a rabid dog that's attacking an innocent person. Shoot it to death.
 

Jake2525

Member
Jan 25, 2011
247
14
18
Even if he didn’t pull the trigger, a woman is dead because Baldwin failed to do a simple safety check.

Anyone who has ever handled a weapon knows that it is your responsibility to check regardless of what anyone else told you. If you don’t know how then you don’t pick up the weapon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,600
84,272
113
Even if he didn’t pull the trigger, a woman is dead because Baldwin failed to do a simple safety check.

Anyone who has ever handled a weapon knows that it is your responsibility to check regardless of what anyone else told you. If you don’t know how then you don’t pick up the weapon.
Except that's NOT how it's ever been done in the film business.

Sure, when you pick up Uncle Joe's old .22, you check it thoroughly and you never, ever point it at someone. But the film business has its own protocols and they're very different. You don't have an on site gun expert whose job it is to do that check for you and handle the gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasmina

Czar

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2004
1,315
221
63
Didn't read all of the thread but:

I still haven't figured out why he was pointing the gun at those people anyways. Was it a practice scene, was he joking around. Does anybody know the reason the gun was pointed at the person that got killed?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,600
84,272
113
Didn't read all of the thread but:

I still haven't figured out why he was pointing the gun at those people anyways. Was it a practice scene, was he joking around. Does anybody know the reason the gun was pointed at the person that got killed?
I'm guessing practice / rehearsing camera angles, etc.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,552
60,096
113
OJ was "not proven guilty" by the Stare therefore he was acquitted.
Kyle Rittenhouse however was found not guilty by a trial of his peers. Why? KYLE RITTENHOUSE DID NOTHING WRONG.
Please explain the difference.
 

Mr.Know-It-All

Giver of truth
Jul 26, 2020
2,072
1,397
113
Uppity
Please explain the difference.
There State didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty, however KR was found not guilty (i.e. proven innocent) based on the readily available preponderance of crystal clear evidence put forward.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,552
60,096
113
Uppity

There State didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty, however KR was found not guilty (i.e. proven innocent) based on the readily available preponderance of crystal clear evidence put forward.
So OJ Simpson wasn't found not guilty in a court of law according to you?
 

mikeeman

Active member
Dec 25, 2002
126
34
28
In the interview, Baldwin says "he didn't pull the trigger but cocked the hammer and released it" Essentially what he's saying is he manually fired the gun. If you don't have your finger on the trigger then the hammer doesn't spring forward when released. If you cock the hammer and your finger is on the trigger it relieves tension on the trigger and you don't need any pressure on the trigger to fire the gun. He doesn't know anything about guns....what he was doing was erasing any safeties the gun naturally had built-in. Protocol on the set with any firearm is that all people are supposed to be standing behind the shooter when any gun is being handled and if the gun is to be aimed at the camera in a scene then the camera is run remotely. This was a rehearsal. His finger would have done just as good until they figured out what look they wanted.
 

Bbw hunter

Well-known member
Dec 17, 2018
1,271
802
113
Does anyone else here think that by altering his original statement he now seems more dubious?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,600
84,272
113
In the interview, Baldwin says "he didn't pull the trigger but cocked the hammer and released it" Essentially what he's saying is he manually fired the gun. If you don't have your finger on the trigger then the hammer doesn't spring forward when released. If you cock the hammer and your finger is on the trigger it relieves tension on the trigger and you don't need any pressure on the trigger to fire the gun. He doesn't know anything about guns....what he was doing was erasing any safeties the gun naturally had built-in. Protocol on the set with any firearm is that all people are supposed to be standing behind the shooter when any gun is being handled and if the gun is to be aimed at the camera in a scene then the camera is run remotely. This was a rehearsal. His finger would have done just as good until they figured out what look they wanted.
Unless he didn't pull the hammer back to where it caught. If he pulled it half back and released it, then it would hit the round anyway. The gun had misfired a couple of times and might have been in shit shape.

It also sounds a chaotic, poorly run set. And yes, AB bears some responsibility being the producer.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,258
5,532
113
OJ was acquitted too. Means nothing.
I think OJ did it too, obviously...that trial was all about the "Dream Team" overmatching a bad performance by Marcia Clark and her team...the prosecution couldn't beat down the race issue, did the disastrous "try on the glove" theatrics, had their own witnesses caught lying on the stand...they didn't do a good job.
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,506
5,196
113
Except that's NOT how it's ever been done in the film business.

Sure, when you pick up Uncle Joe's old .22, you check it thoroughly and you never, ever point it at someone. But the film business has its own protocols and they're very different. You don't have an on site gun expert whose job it is to do that check for you and handle the gun.
based on film history (Brandon Lee)...Alec Baldwin should know better. Never trust anyone no matter what business you're in. That gun ended up in his hand, he had the final responsibility to inspect it. are at least make sure it's not pointed towards someone. It is a real gun, not a plastic toy gun. Protect yourself at all times.
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,506
5,196
113
I don't have to agree. And I don't. It's absolutely insane that someone can take a gun into public and shoot people, and get away with it. And anyone who thinks otherwise needs serious fucking mental help.
he shot assailants going after him, he didn't randomly went there and start firing...self defense according to the jury of his peers...
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,600
84,272
113
I think OJ did it too, obviously...that trial was all about the "Dream Team" overmatching a bad performance by Marcia Clark and her team...the prosecution couldn't beat down the race issue, did the disastrous "try on the glove" theatrics, had their own witnesses caught lying on the stand...they didn't do a good job.
The glove was a miscalculation. The racist cop was a disaster, but probably a surprise to the DA. Cop probably lied when interviewed by the DA's office.

The fact that the OJ trial was held shortly after the cops were acquitted in the Rodney King beating made for an angry jury who were reluctant to convict a Black celebrity who had killed 2 white people. Again, trials are usually not "performative" like tennis matches with the more talented team winning. They're about information-crunching. The issue with the OJ trial is that the jury was probably very unfriendly to the DA.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,636
4,637
113
Toronto Escorts