|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Jul 12, 2024 17:46:27 GMT -5
Unbelievable. He pulled the trigger and we all know it. He broke just about every basic gun handling rule there is and gets off. What a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randominator on Jul 12, 2024 18:07:36 GMT -5
That’s why Lady Justice wears a blindfold, so she can’t see the money change hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Jul 12, 2024 18:14:59 GMT -5
New Mexicos law enforcement and legal system is completely incompetent. I have to hear about crap like this on a daily basis…
Keystone cops….
|
|
|
|
Post by bula on Jul 12, 2024 18:37:43 GMT -5
Baldwin, baldwin..hmmnnn..doesn't ring a bell. LOL.
|
|
balin
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 62 
|
Post by balin on Jul 12, 2024 22:41:49 GMT -5
From my reading the prosecution broke the rules. So it would seem they are to blame for any miscarriage of justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbore5 on Jul 13, 2024 5:24:00 GMT -5
All because of a bag of wadcutters some ex-cop dropped off at the Sheriff's office. These people are totally gun illiterate. Totally doesn't matter about the wadcutters. The bullet that killed the woman was a rnfp, so saying that the wadcutters looks nothing like a "regular" bullet is meaningless.
Yes the armorer should have checked the gun. No Baldwin shouldn't have his self-righteous head up his butt so far that he should have at least gotten some basic gun training and have checked the gun out himself. I think any one of us on here would have and would recognize a potential live round versus a blank.
|
|
|
|
Post by 45MAN on Jul 13, 2024 7:15:35 GMT -5
MOVIES ARE NOT REAL WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARMS, AND THIS GOES BACK EVEN INTO THE EARLY TO MID 1900's, REVOLVERS WITH SILENCERS, COLT SAA's AND WINCHESTER 1892's PRE- CIVIL WAR, GUNS THAT DON'T KICK, AND ON AND ON. 'twas NEWS TO ME THAT LIVE AMMO WAS USED AT ALL IN SUCH SITUATIONS AND I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHY LIVE AMMO WAS IN USE AT ALL OR WAS EVEN SUPPOSE TO BE IN USE OR NOT.
WHILE I DID DO SOME CRIMINAL WORK DURING MY 51 PLUS YEARS OF LAW PRACTICE I AM HARDLY A CRIMINAL LAW EXPERT, BUT "I THINK" ONCE A TRIAL STARTS "JEOPARDY" SETS IN, A JUDGE CAN CALL A MIS-TRIAL IF THE JURY IS HUNG AND THEN THERE CAN BE A SECOND TRIAL BUT ORDINARILY IF DURING THE TRIAL "PROSECUTORIAL MIS-CONDUCT" BECOMES AN ISSUE THE JUDGE CANNOT JUST CALL A MIS-TRIAL AND GIVE THE STATE A 2nd CHANCE TO GET THEIR S... TOGETHER, AND IF A DISMISSAL IS WARRANTED IT WOULD BE WITH PREJUDICE SINCE "JEOPARDY" HAD ATTACHED.
HARD TO MAKE JUDGMENTS FROM NEWS ACCOUNTS SINCE REPORTERS ARE REPORTING ON A MIX OF FACT AND LEGAL ISSUES THEY MAY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NOR UDERSTAND.
|
|
oldcat
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 19
|
Post by oldcat on Jul 13, 2024 7:39:29 GMT -5
JMHO. We already have a nobody to pin it on and take the blame, no need to bother the beautiful people  |
|
|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 13, 2024 10:24:40 GMT -5
If you're looking for a perfect scenario in which a gun is almost fated to hurt someone, it's in the theater/movies when, contrary to the rules of gun safety in the REAL WORLD, they are supposed to be pointed and someone you don't actually intend to shoot.
You can hate Alec Baldwin for whatever reasons you hate Alec Baldwin, but on a movie set, being handed a gun and told to point it at the camera (i.e., the camera man) or another actor, or off camera in a certain direction (that people happen to be standing in) is a recipe for disaster if live rounds have entered the set.
Unless you think Alec Baldwin purposefully murdered that young woman, you have to look at this as an accident and a tragedy. Every year on shooting ranges across the country, people get hurt by careless gun handlers - and these are people who KNOW they're using live ammunition and simply act carelessly out of ignorance, laziness, or just temporary lapse of judgement. The desire to see Alec Baldwin go to jail for shooting someone when the gun he was handed on a movie set was expressly not supposed to be loaded with REAL WORLD ammunition seems to me more about people's hatred of him than any fair application of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Jul 13, 2024 10:46:56 GMT -5
Eisenhower, your point is well made.
I don't hate Baldwin. He made a mistake just lime the armorer did and therefore I think he is just as liable as the armorer. Where Baldwin made his big mistake was to trust the armorer.
If anyone were to hand me a firearm and tell me it's ok to point it at someone because it's loaded with blanks, the first thing I would do is empty it and verify that all rounds are blanks.
That said, I think with modern technology and AI there has to be a better way.
|
|
|
|
Post by 45MAN on Jul 13, 2024 11:50:44 GMT -5
CANNOT ASSUME THAT NON-GUN PEOPLE, AND EVEN LOTS OF GUN PEOPLE, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL AMMO AND BLANKS.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevshell on Jul 13, 2024 12:54:26 GMT -5
With the amount of money spent to create realism, scenes, etc I'm confused as to why there would be a need for any live ammo on a movie set. They do all kinds of different movie set angles, stitching of scenes together, etc. If they need a Dirty Harry like seeing where the bad guy is staring at the wrong end of the barrel and you want to see what appears to be live rounds, I'm sure they can pay someone to load up some rounds that have no powder nor primers. In my mind there's really not much need for anything more than blanks. And if you take an apply this same kind of logic to other scenarios, if the actor is not qualified to shoot the scene because they don't have the ability to ride a horse, drive a formula car, etc they bring in a stunt double. As has already been pointed out, pin it on the person with the least amount of money and fame. To me the actor, the on set firearms expert and the production company should all be at fault. There's so many ways to eliminate the possibility of danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunny268 on Jul 13, 2024 12:59:04 GMT -5
FWIW...Even a 5-in-1 blank can kill you at close range. Brandon Lee, Jon Hexum, and a couple of others would agree if not already dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 13, 2024 13:15:29 GMT -5
Imagine this scenario. You're at a magic show of a big time famous magician, let's say Doug Henning or David Copperfield. He says he's now going to cut his assistant in half and calls upon someone from the audience to assist. You raise your hand and he calls you up.
The assistant climbs in to the box, and the magician (a trained professional) hands you a sword which you are supposed to insert into the box. You do so as the crowd gasps when suddenly you hear the assistant scream and you withdraw the sword to find it covered in blood.
Somehow, someone substituted a real, sharpened sword and the mechanism inside the box that is supposed to avert it from contact with the assistant failed.
She's now bled to death.
Did you check the sword for sharpness before you inserted it into the box? Should you have? Did you ask to inspect the box to see how the trick works before you inserted the sword? Should you have? Did you do your due diligence or were you participating in a performance and expecting the "magic" was supposed to work?
There's a big difference between the real world and the artifice of performance. That's why I say, this case is tragic, and while all of us might closely inspect a handgun before pointing it at someone, an actor with no real training in firearms might very well take the "prop" he's handed by a prop master and use it exactly as he/she is instructed. In this case, tragedy ensued.
DeWayne
|
|
|
|
Post by Randominator on Jul 13, 2024 13:33:09 GMT -5
Imagine this scenario. You're at a magic show of a big time famous magician, let's say Doug Henning or David Copperfield. He says he's now going to cut his assistant in half and calls upon someone from the audience to assist. You raise your hand and he calls you up. The assistant climbs in to the box, and the magician (a trained professional) hands you a sword which you are supposed to insert into the box. You do so as the crowd gasps when suddenly you hear the assistant scream and you withdraw the sword to find it covered in blood. Somehow, someone substituted a real, sharpened sword and the mechanism inside the box that is supposed to avert it from contact with the assistant failed. She's now bled to death. Did you check the sword for sharpness before you inserted it into the box? Should you have? Did you ask to inspect the box to see how the trick works before you inserted the sword? Should you have? Did you do your due diligence or were you participating in a performance and expecting the "magic" was supposed to work? There's a big difference between the real world and the artifice of performance. That's why I say, this case is tragic, and while all of us might closely inspect a handgun before pointing it at someone, an actor with no real training in firearms might very well take the "prop" he's handed by a prop master and use it exactly as he/she is instructed. In this case, tragedy ensued. DeWayne I understand completely what you are saying. I think what has a lot of people upset about this situation was the fact that Baldwin swears that he never pulled the trigger. "The gun just went off" |
|
