Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 672
  1. #301
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERECWFAN1 View Post
    That quote in blue is an opinion. Its not some fact an actor is gonna check a safe gun on set. I'm sure if there was a poll of actors who were told "COLD GUN" half would check a gun possibly. The other half would take the word of the experts hired on set to actually....ya know...do their jobs here.

    The guy saying that the people driving race cars should learn to drive race cars etc. Given there has been a lot of high speed chase films and all...how much you want a bet so many were actually stunt men/women who drove those vehicles.

    In fact the guy claiming the whole Ford vs Ferrari ....well if he actually looked it up...it wasn't the actors who drove those cars comically. In fact it was these guys as this details one man who has handled driving stunts for years in films.

    https://autologicmagazine.com/2019/1...rd-vs-ferrari/

    So yeah ...the idea actors who are told guns are safe to use , a good many like Baldwin will believe those on set. And given that Baldwin has had films for 30 years and a number involved guns on set ...he likely took the word of those people who handed him guns before.
    The opinion of an actual professional.

    At some point?

    You get to enough things adding up that you have to be able to ask yourself "How has this not crossed over into negligence?..."

    - First off, it's seemingly not the actual armorer handing Baldwin the gun.
    - Knowing it was not the actual armorer, he sees no need to double check if the gun in question presents an issue.
    - With this gun that had not been checked by the actual armorer, he actually points it at someone.
    - With this gun that had seemingly not been checked by the actual armorer pointed at someone, someone must have pulled the trigger for it to actually fire.

    Now, even if you can attempt to talk yourself out of that the first three are most likely negligent?

    There is no version of pulling the trigger on a gun that is actually pointed at someone that is not negligent.

  2. #302
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    The opinion of an actual professional.

    At some point?

    You get to enough things adding up that you have to be able to ask yourself "How has this not crossed over into negligence?..."

    - First off, it's seemingly not the actual armorer handing Baldwin the gun.
    - Knowing it was not the actual armorer, he sees no need to double check if the gun in question presents an issue.
    - With this gun that had not been checked by the actual armorer, he actually points it at someone.
    - With this gun that had seemingly not been checked by the actual armorer pointed at someone, someone must have pulled the trigger for it to actually fire.

    Now, even if you can attempt to talk yourself out of that the first three are most likely negligent?

    There is no version of pulling the trigger on a gun that is actually pointed at someone that is not negligent.
    Despite what the one source in the Atlantic piece claims, other reports say that sometimes an assistant director has the authority to check and declare a gun cold.

    What I have not read anywhere is anyone claiming it is the responsibility of the actor. I’ve read some do it, but that it’s not standard, because most actors aren’t firearms experts.

    It is a fact that assistant directors run some sets.

    When the boss tells you to do something, and that it is safe and okay to do it for your job, then you do it.

    Baldwin wasn’t the prop master, the armorer, or an assistant director. No one has claimed Baldwin was the director or the line producer, either. He was an actor with a producer’s credit who was handed or told to pick up a loaded gun, which he would not have been able to check for live rounds without emptying the cylinder. This wasn’t a clip where a bullet might be visible. It was a revolver, with a cylinder, where he would have had to unload the gun to see what’s in there, which certainly wouldn’t have been standard procedure. Actors don’t unload and reload weapons on sets.

    Quite frankly, you’re making a better argument for why Baldwin is not guilty than any of us arguing in favor of the guy’s innocence are doing.

    Unless Baldwin can be shown to have brought the live ammo on the set, he’s not going to be convicted of any manslaughter beef.
    Last edited by Brian B; 02-06-2023 at 08:36 AM.

  3. #303
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,191

    Default

    Professor of law Peter Joy:
    To convict someone of involuntary manslaughter, a prosecutor has to prove that the defendant acted either recklessly or with criminal negligence.

    To prove someone acted recklessly, a prosecutor has to show that the defendant was aware of the risk they were creating with their actions – like a drunk driver crashing into a car and killing a baby and her parents. In contrast, the charge of criminal negligence is filed when a defendant is not aware of the risk, but a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have been aware of the risk. For example, if someone rents out an apartment without smoke detectors and there is a fire that kills the occupants, the owner of the apartment could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
    . . .
    To convict Baldwin of manslaughter – assuming the case goes to trial – the prosecutor will have to convince a jury of two things. First, that Baldwin could not reasonably rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job and ensure that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it. And second, that Baldwin acted recklessly, or at least with criminal negligence, by not checking the gun and the ammunition himself before pointing the gun at the person he killed.
    https://rb.gy/puf9v7

    Pros for prosecution: Prior gun mishaps (on October 16*) may indeed point toward "Baldwin could not reasonably rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job", "criminal negligence" (where actual awareness is not needed) can be easier to prove and could more easily be perceived to fit the facts, I suspect that Baldwin as a producer also might factor in for either of these pros

    Cons for prosecution: Actor checking the gun is a very disputed standard, may be difficult to fit Baldwin in the "reckless" box (How aware was he of what exactly?), couldn't Baldwin have reasonably relied on someone (if not Reed, then assistant director David Halls?) that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it?


    *
    https://deadline.com/2023/02/alec-ba...is-1235239588/
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 02-08-2023 at 12:00 PM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

  4. #304
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    I want to know, who brought live ammo onto the set or authorized it? That to me is a bigger, more important question than all the rest. So far, I don’t think anyone has claimed to know the answer to that. I am surprised the prosecution apparently is planning to charge people without knowing the answer to that question.

  5. #305
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Alec Baldwin wants 'Rust' prosecutor dismissed as she's a Republican lawmaker: 'Unconstitutional'

    Under Section 1 of Article III of the New Mexico Constitution, however, a sitting member of the Legislature may not 'exercise any powers properly belonging' to either the executive or judicial branch," the document reads. "As a special prosecutor, Representative Reeb is vested by statute with 'all the powers and duties' of a District Attorney, who is considered to be a member of either the judicial or executive branch of the New Mexico government... Representative Reeb is therefore exercising either the executive power or the judicial power, and her continued service as a special prosecutor is unconstitutional."
    He has a valid case here. I did not realize this was not a regular DA, but a GOP lawmaker.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  6. #306
    Astonishing Member krazijoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,617

    Default

    Should he be charged? Yes, he held the gun and it went off. Doesn't matter if he knew it was loaded with live ammo or not.
    Should he be acquitted? Absolutely.

  7. #307
    Ultimate Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    I want to know, who brought live ammo onto the set or authorized it? That to me is a bigger, more important question than all the rest. So far, I don’t think anyone has claimed to know the answer to that. I am surprised the prosecution apparently is planning to charge people without knowing the answer to that question.
    Why are you so obsessed with getting Baldwin off the hook?
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  8. #308
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Why are you so obsessed with getting Baldwin off the hook?
    It's a perfectly valid question. There's no reason why it should have been there in the first place.

  9. #309
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Why are you so obsessed with getting Baldwin off the hook?
    I think the whole case is fascinating, but nothing I say or do will help Baldwin. I can’t help him get off the hook.

  10. #310
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Why are you so obsessed with getting Baldwin off the hook?
    You mean when we can be arguing over dragons?
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  11. #311
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    9,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBatmanFan05 View Post
    Professor of law Peter Joy:

    https://rb.gy/puf9v7

    Pros for prosecution: Prior gun mishaps (on October 16*) may indeed point toward "Baldwin could not reasonably rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job", criminal negligence can be easier to prove and could more easily be perceived to fit the facts, I suspect that Baldwin as producer also might factor in for either of these pros

    Cons for prosecution: Actor checking the gun is a very disputed standard, may be difficult to fit Baldwin in the "reckless" box (How aware was he of what exactly?), couldn't Baldwin have reasonably relied on someone (if not Reed, then assistant director David Halls?) that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it?


    *
    https://deadline.com/2023/02/alec-ba...is-1235239588/
    Reasonable breakdown. The question becomes, for me, at what point does it cross the line to "obvious that Baldwin (or anyone else) could not rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job?" And, if this is proven, that of course opens up partial liability for Gutierrez-Reed as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
    I think the whole case is fascinating, but nothing I say or do will help Baldwin. I can’t help him get off the hook.
    It is definitely an interesting case, with lots of different directions it could go. Not as cut and dried as it might seem at first.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  12. #312
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,191

    Default

    Actor Michael Shannon offers interesting thoughts and comments: (excerpts)
    “I’m not condemning Alec. I feel horrible for the guy. It’s a nightmare,” Shannon told The Chicago Tribune. “I feel terrible for everyone on that production. But this is what happens when you lowball and cut corners and hire people that may not be qualified, and pay them next to nothing, and make the movie on the cheap. People get jobs in this business because they’re willing to work for a low enough fee. I see it all the time.”

    “Rust” had a reported budget of $7 million, with Baldwin as one of the producers.

    Shanoon added, “If it were up to the actor to determine whether a firearm is safe or not, you wouldn’t need an armorer in the first place. Being an armorer is a hard job, a demanding job, and I have nothing but respect for them. But in this instance, it was going into the ER and finding out your doctor isn’t a real doctor.”

    He continued, “But ‘Rust’ is an example of a problem I see in filmmaking more and more these days. On smaller productions, independent productions, the producers keep wanting more and more for less and less. They don’t want to give you enough money. They cut corners, ridiculously, every which way. And they get away with it. So every time someone makes a great movie for a million dollars, it sets a precedent.”

    “You shouldn’t have the actual weapon in your hand until immediately before doing the take,” he said. “Now, sometimes that doesn’t happen. Sometimes they’ll give you the actual gun to rehearse with a little closer to filming. But there’s a procedure for that. They open the barrel. They show you there’s nothing in there. They show you the chambers, they show the assistant director, and it’s a visual confirmation. The AD’s supposed to check it, the actor checks it and the armorer has checked it. All three of those people have to see there’s nothing in there. And then they hand it to you.”

    He added, “With ‘Rust,’ before that gun went into his hand, [Baldwin] should have seen with his own eyes there was nothing in it. The armorer should’ve brought the gun over to him and said: ‘Here is your firearm. It is empty.’ Or maybe [the gun] has decoy or dummy rounds in it; you pull the trigger, nothing happens. But you never settle for walking up to an actor and handing the gun over without showing them what’s inside of it. Ever. That was the cataclysmic event on ‘Rust.'”
    https://www.indiewire.com/2023/01/mi...ng-1234803938/
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 02-08-2023 at 11:51 AM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

  13. #313
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBatmanFan05 View Post
    Actor Michael Shannon offers interesting thoughts and comments: (excerpts)

    “I’m not condemning Alec. I feel horrible for the guy. It’s a nightmare,” Shannon told The Chicago Tribune. “I feel terrible for everyone on that production. But this is what happens when you lowball and cut corners and hire people that may not be qualified, and pay them next to nothing, and make the movie on the cheap. People get jobs in this business because they’re willing to work for a low enough fee. I see it all the time.”

    “Rust” had a reported budget of $7 million, with Baldwin as one of the producers.

    Shanoon added, “If it were up to the actor to determine whether a firearm is safe or not, you wouldn’t need an armorer in the first place. Being an armorer is a hard job, a demanding job, and I have nothing but respect for them. But in this instance, it was going into the ER and finding out your doctor isn’t a real doctor.”

    He continued, “But ‘Rust’ is an example of a problem I see in filmmaking more and more these days. On smaller productions, independent productions, the producers keep wanting more and more for less and less. They don’t want to give you enough money. They cut corners, ridiculously, every which way. And they get away with it. So every time someone makes a great movie for a million dollars, it sets a precedent.”

    “You shouldn’t have the actual weapon in your hand until immediately before doing the take,” he said. “Now, sometimes that doesn’t happen. Sometimes they’ll give you the actual gun to rehearse with a little closer to filming. But there’s a procedure for that. They open the barrel. They show you there’s nothing in there. They show you the chambers, they show the assistant director, and it’s a visual confirmation. The AD’s supposed to check it, the actor checks it and the armorer has checked it. All three of those people have to see there’s nothing in there. And then they hand it to you.”

    He added, “With ‘Rust,’ before that gun went into his hand, [Baldwin] should have seen with his own eyes there was nothing in it. The armorer should’ve brought the gun over to him and said: ‘Here is your firearm. It is empty.’ Or maybe [the gun] has decoy or dummy rounds in it; you pull the trigger, nothing happens. But you never settle for walking up to an actor and handing the gun over without showing them what’s inside of it. Ever. That was the cataclysmic event on ‘Rust.'”
    https://www.indiewire.com/2023/01/mi...ng-1234803938/


    Again...

    Exactly how many people are going to have to voice some variation on this exact theme before some folks second guess exactly what they believe they know about just what an actor's responsibility is in this situation?

  14. #314
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Never mind that he is saying pretty clearly that just taking the armorer out of the equation represents an exceptionally glaring issue.

    One that an actor should say "Yeah, this ain't gonna happen..." when they are faced with it.

    Never mind an actor who is also a producer.

  15. #315
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Again...

    Exactly how many people are going to have to voice some variation on this exact theme before some folks second guess exactly what they believe they know about just what an actor's responsibility is in this situation?
    The actor just said it is the armorer’s job to show it to the actor, not the actor’s job to open it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •