"I didn't pull the trigger"

[bellisarius]

Alec should have exercised his right to remain silent.

"I didn't pull the trigger."

Really? The Colt SAA, like all other single action revolvers, has a 'half-cock' stage. Even if the sear was faulty, without the trigger being pulled the 'half-cock' notch would have caught the hammer and prevented the firearm from discharging. Further, without the half-cock stage being operational it would have been virtually impossible to have loaded the damn thing to begin with.

 

[Champakian]

He's delusional enough to think that he could charm his way out of this.

 

[bellisarius]

He's delusional enough to think that he could charm his way out of this.

I think you called it right earlier in the thread. His inflated opinion of his own intelligence has him thinking everyone else is stupid.

 

[Champakian]

He should have gone into politics, or journalism...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I was married to an actress.

Do not assume facts not in evidence and dial back the hate.

Then if you were, you would understand the roles of Prop Master and Armourer on a set. Since you don't seem to, I can only assume you are bullshitting, or the wife never worked on a set with "prop weapons".

And what is with the hate? Why do you Americans put emotion into every discussion when a person disagrees? I can think you are a lying bloated gas bag, and not hate you.

I have no clue about you, except what you post....

In my life I have close personal friends, who are just as dumb and stupid in certain area's of knowledge, and who's politics and religion do not align with my own views....but I don't "hate them".

 

[JohnnySavage]

He says as making a hateful post...

 

[Champakian]

Then if you were, you would understand the roles of Prop Master and Armourer on a set. Since you don't seem to, I can only assume you are bullshitting, or the wife never worked on a set with "prop weapons".

And what is with the hate? Why do you Americans put emotion into every discussion when a person disagrees? I can think you are a lying bloated gas bag, and not hate you.

I have no clue about you, except what you post....

In my life I have close personal friends, who are just as dumb and stupid in certain area's of knowledge, and who's politics and religion do not align with my own views....but I don't "hate them".

Gee, I'm sorry prop master F...

I did not mean to stray into your area of expertise.

Clearly you have eloquently argued that no actor should ever check a weapon.

I bow to your omniscience.

 

[Champakian]

He says as making a hateful post...

Yes, I am just an unreasonable bucket of hate.


What else should I be?
All apologies?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I doubt these posters really have the lack of self-awareness that seems apparent; Rather, I think they feel safe trolling and disrupting discussions because of anonymity.

I have most of the trolls on ignore, but there are still several that I've never seen post on the issue at hand; they always post at the poster.

 

[Champakian]

Yes.

In a way, it's a reflection.

Their personality is so important that others must be diminished...

 

[bellisarius]

I just think of it as them releasing the poison that is rotting their own soul.

 

[Champakian]

I like that train of thought...

 

[Rightguide]

.
RotGut is admitting to his HATE.

Excellent.

No, I just educated you.

 

[jomar]

I keep hearing that the movie set culture and safety rules mean no live rounds on set ever. So the expectation an actor has is that the armorer is preparing guns properly and ensuring safety. So when the actor is handed a cold gun they have no reason to think it poses an actual danger, so no need to check it because people are doing their jobs and no live rounds on the set, like always.

But let’s say the actor does check. How are they to tell the dummy rounds apart from a real bullet since they are identical in looks?

 

[Sean Renaud]

~snip~

People give actors way too much credit for brains
when all they are only adept mimics.

That has zero basis on their intelligence one way or the other however. I don't think people give actors enough credit tbh, but that's kind of beside the point. The reality is that you and I and many other posters have a lot of relevant information and given the kind of support government workers have access to could at least make logical decisions. The fact that I disagree with you more often than not doesn't mean I don't see the logic behind how you got there. I think you lack much of the historical data that simply says "Yo I know a Led Zeppllin (Lead blimp) can't fly. But hear me out if you make it REALLY BIG it will work."

 

[Comshaw]

To me it more like people fail to understand that a movie set, is a place of employment.....


How about this, you are a crane operator, you come on shift, get in your crane and do your hoisting. You don't spool out the cable to check it, you assume the mechanic who certified the crane has done his job.

Or this, you take your car to a mechanic, who fixes the brakes. You pay the bill an drive away. You don't throw the car back on the hoist, and check the brakes, do you?

In the examples above, people are relying on others, who are certified in what they do, to have done the correct repair.

This is the case on a movie set. ( I have been there and seen it, so I at least understand the process of how "prop weapons" are treated) So Baldwin was handed a "prop", he had the full expectation it would be as safe to use as a crane, or having his car's brakes fixed.

All the others who claim he should have checked the gun first, have no fucking clue. There are actors wouldn't know how to even take out the magazine, or clear the chamber from a gun. They would only know the moves choreographed for the scene take.



As I said before, he was an employee, following his bosses directions...



Producers are often gifts for people, to be shown some status on sets, and for some ego boosting from credits. Most of the time, they have a financial interest invested into the movie. I am not claiming Baldwin doesn't have some legal issues resulting from being a producer, but I have not seen anything that showed he had a direct hand in the safety end of the movie. He may well face charges over that, but that is a complete different aspect, than his employment as an actor in the movie.




^^^^^^^^

Maybe a bit of an under statement.....*chuckles*

A movie set is a place of employment. As such there are certain rules, regulations and guidelines that should or must be followed. The information so far points to the fact that multiple rules were violated by all levels of the management hierarchy. That said, when multiple safety rules are broken on a work site, who's responsible and who get's the shaft? The incidents I've seen (and after 40 years in a diverse company I've seen more than a few) it ranges from individual to company level. The more rules that were broken, the more severe the repercussions from those broken rules, the higher up the chain goes the shaft. In this instance it climbs to and stops with Baldwin.

Now let's look at your analogy. It's flawed because it is incomplete.

In the case of the construction crane, it's more like: The general contractor decides he doesn't like the way the mechanic and safety inspector are doing their job because they are doing so in compliance with the rules and holding up construction. After a bit of harassment, they quit and he replaces them with totally incompetent people. A month or so later he decides, even though he doesn't have an operator's license, to try his hand at crane operating. The prior operator left a load hanging but didn't set the brake properly. The safety guy is off having coffee, ignoring what he should be doing. The GC promptly drops the load on a worker and kills them. Now you can argue that the safety person and the operator are at fault, which they are, BUT the majority of the responsibility lays with and on the GC for his actions.

The same goes for the auto mechanic analogy. A truck mechanic refuses to rush a brake job because he is tired and afraid of missing something. The safety inspector won't pass it until it's complete. The shop owner harasses them both until they quit, replacing them with incompetent workers. Consequently, the truck rolls out the door with the air brakes out of adjustment. The shop owner, even though he doesn't have a CDL decides to deliver the truck to the customer. On the freeway he comes on a traffic jam, stomps the brakes (which don't stop the truck) slams into a car killing the occupant.

The mechanic and safety person were responsible to a degree. The driver (and in this case the shop owner) is more so because a truck driver is responsible to do a safety inspection of his vehicle EVERY TIME he gets in the cab. There is a case here in this state where just such an accident happened (the only différance was the truck driver was licensed). The mechanic and safety person were fined $3500.00. The truck driver went to jail. That said, it adds even more responsibility to the driver if he didn't have license and didn't know what the hell he was doing.

Both of the above are parallels of the Rust/Baldwin story.
1) His armorer and safety people quit because of unsafe acts on the set.

2) Baldwin replaced them with incompetent people, which led to the conditions of live ammo on the set and a loaded gun being handed to him.

3) Without any knowledge of how to safely use a gun, he aimed it and killed a person.

Now how in the fuck can anyone look at those facts and decide that he wasn't responsible for the death?

The ONLY way is to be so bias as to be blind to facts and the truth.

And before anyone goes off about the "deplorable" that I am, I'd advise you to go back save yourself embarrassment and read things I've previously have written.

'nuff said.


Comshaw.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

A movie set is a place of employment. As such there are certain rules, regulations and guidelines that should or must be followed. The information so far points to the fact that multiple rules were violated by all levels of the management hierarchy. That said, when multiple safety rules are broken on a work site, who's responsible and who get's the shaft? The incidents I've seen (and after 40 years in a diverse company I've seen more than a few) it ranges from individual to company level. The more rules that were broken, the more severe the repercussions from those broken rules, the higher up the chain goes the shaft. In this instance it climbs to and stops with Baldwin.

Now let's look at your analogy. It's flawed because it is incomplete.

In the case of the construction crane, it's more like: The general contractor decides he doesn't like the way the mechanic and safety inspector are doing their job because they are doing so in compliance with the rules and holding up construction. After a bit of harassment, they quit and he replaces them with totally incompetent people. A month or so later he decides, even though he doesn't have an operator's license, to try his hand at crane operating. The prior operator left a load hanging but didn't set the brake properly. The safety guy is off having coffee, ignoring what he should be doing. The GC promptly drops the load on a worker and kills them. Now you can argue that the safety person and the operator are at fault, which they are, BUT the majority of the responsibility lays with and on the GC for his actions.

The same goes for the auto mechanic analogy. A truck mechanic refuses to rush a brake job because he is tired and afraid of missing something. The safety inspector won't pass it until it's complete. The shop owner harasses them both until they quit, replacing them with incompetent workers. Consequently, the truck rolls out the door with the air brakes out of adjustment. The shop owner, even though he doesn't have a CDL decides to deliver the truck to the customer. On the freeway he comes on a traffic jam, stomps the brakes (which don't stop the truck) slams into a car killing the occupant.

The mechanic and safety person were responsible to a degree. The driver (and in this case the shop owner) is more so because a truck driver is responsible to do a safety inspection of his vehicle EVERY TIME he gets in the cab. There is a case here in this state where just such an accident happened (the only différance was the truck driver was licensed). The mechanic and safety person were fined $3500.00. The truck driver went to jail. That said, it adds even more responsibility to the driver if he didn't have license and didn't know what the hell he was doing.

Both of the above are parallels of the Rust/Baldwin story.
1) His armorer and safety people quit because of unsafe acts on the set.

2) Baldwin replaced them with incompetent people, which led to the conditions of live ammo on the set and a loaded gun being handed to him.

3) Without any knowledge of how to safely use a gun, he aimed it and killed a person.

Now how in the fuck can anyone look at those facts and decide that he wasn't responsible for the death?

The ONLY way is to be so bias as to be blind to facts and the truth.

And before anyone goes off about the "deplorable" that I am, I'd advise you to go back save yourself embarrassment and read things I've previously have written.

'nuff said.


Comshaw.

I have never argued, Baldwin the producer may not have liability, only that as the Actor, he was not obligated to do anything but follow the scene as directed.

As the actor he was under no obligation to check the "prop gun", anymore than he would be under obligations to check if the car he was driving on set for a scene is mechanically fit.

 

[Comshaw]

I have never argued, Baldwin the producer may not have liability, only that as the Actor, he was not obligated to do anything but follow the scene as directed.

As the actor he was under no obligation to check the "prop gun", anymore than he would be under obligations to check if the car he was driving on set for a scene is mechanically fit.

He wasn't on set, in a scene when he shot her. He was acting as producer and fucking around with something he shouldn't have been.

As I pointed out before he has two levels of liability here, as the one who shot the woman and as the one, through a series of bad (some might argue illegal) decisions who set up the circumstances for the killing to happen.

Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

We know he's lying, guns do not go off by themselves.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I doubt these posters really have the lack of self-awareness that seems apparent; Rather, I think they feel safe trolling and disrupting discussions because of anonymity.

I have most of the trolls on ignore, but there are still several that I've never seen post on the issue at hand; they always post at the poster.

We know he's lying, guns do not go off by themselves.

Actually we have no reason to believe he's lying. His story pretty much checks out. ITs not that the gun went off by itself, its that he released the hammer and didn't understand how the firearm worked, nor did he think there was live ammo on set, which there shouldn't have been.

He'd still be screwed as the producer. This seems like an odd thing to fixate on.

 

[jomar]

Actually we have no reason to believe he's lying. His story pretty much checks out. ITs not that the gun went off by itself, its that he released the hammer and didn't understand how the firearm worked, nor did he think there was live ammo on set, which there shouldn't have been.

He'd still be screwed as the producer. This seems like an odd thing to fixate on.

At this point in his career if he doesn’t know how firearms work or the relationship between a revolvers trigger and hammer he shouldn’t be allowed near one.

But I do agree the assumption on a set is that a gun has no live rounds due to safety protocols being properly followed, so even if he did have the trigger pulled when he let go of the hammer there would be no expectation anything would happen with a cold gun.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I think the trigger-pull story will come down to a mater of gun mechanics. Old single-action revolvers could fire a round by simply dropping the hammer withno trigger pull, as Baldwin says happened. Modern versions of the same gun require that the trigger be pulled to remove a blocker bar in front of the hammer to allow it to strike the round's primer.

if Baldwin's gun is atrue antique, it's possible. I not, he's not telling the truth.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I doubt these posters really have the lack of self-awareness that seems apparent; Rather, I think they feel safe trolling and disrupting discussions because of anonymity.

I have most of the trolls on ignore, but there are still several that I've never seen post on the issue at hand; they always post at the poster.

Yes.

In a way, it's a reflection.

Their personality is so important that others must be diminished...

I just think of it as them releasing the poison that is rotting their own soul.

mmmm.

https://i.imgur.com/XNKNyhe.png

https://i.imgur.com/pCHjjmq.png

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oKIP8kNuTJJL3zT0I/giphy.gif?cid=e3b0c44208a013406bd7f2b4df8a90ab150ed2df70ee0d6c&rid=giphy.gif

https://c.tenor.com/i4dcC7zrEQsAAAAC/tea-good-tea.gif

https://c.tenor.com/dTZp44vMCQEAAAAd/tea-very-delicious.gif

mmmmmmmm.

 

[Lazaran]

mmmm.

https://i.imgur.com/XNKNyhe.png

https://i.imgur.com/pCHjjmq.png

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oKIP8kNuTJJL3zT0I/giphy.gif?cid=e3b0c44208a013406bd7f2b4df8a90ab150ed2df70ee0d6c&rid=giphy.gif

https://c.tenor.com/i4dcC7zrEQsAAAAC/tea-good-tea.gif

https://c.tenor.com/dTZp44vMCQEAAAAd/tea-very-delicious.gif

mmmmmmmm.

Does destroying a clueless hypocrite count as a win???

I'm gonna give you a W anyway.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Pud got out over his skis and is now preparing ANOTHER insincere mea culpa to atone for his premature evaluation.

SAD!!!