SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Check your Bingo cards!
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1720830490

Message started by Graybeard on 07/12/24 at 17:28:10

Title: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Graybeard on 07/12/24 at 17:28:10

Who had
Alec Baldwin Walks?

Yeah, me too, but that was just silly,,a conspiracy theory..

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by MnSpring on 07/12/24 at 20:35:58

Knew all along Baldwin would walk.

All it cost him was MONEY !!!!

Pay people off, you get what you want !!!!!!!

(Sounds just like a UL, DFI, FDS, Socialist talking)

OH YEA, BALDWIN IS ONE. !!!!!!!!!

(Next one to walk is Hunter Biden on the gun charges. ANY ONE ELSE would be in the FREE HOUSING, for the next 10 years)

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Graybeard on 07/13/24 at 01:27:37

Gun charges,HACK,SPIT..
The pictures of him with a little girl,

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by WebsterMark on 07/13/24 at 04:32:29

I could not despise Alec Baldwin‘s politics any greater than I do and I think he’s a fantastic actor. But I never would’ve charged him. I don’t know how you charge an actor who’s been given a prop and told it is safe. Do we really want actors second guessing and double checking the safety of props?
No, that sounds like a terrible idea.

Most of this was his fault because he had to give an interview and insist the gun fired itself, which of course it didn’t do. Part of this was because he’s such a strong anti-Trumper and so very infected with TDS, he was such a loud and focal opponent of anything Trump did, he had to come out and proclaim his innocence so he could continue taking advantage of his celebrity status, and tell everybody how smart he is and how stupid they are.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by MnSpring on 07/13/24 at 07:48:17

"... I never would’ve charged him. ..."

The last person to handle/use a firearm,
is the person responsible,
for that gun.

Their are cases where their is a person/s that checks. Many Scenarios and competitions where that happens. And in most cases it is a time saving operation. As one person handles guns/ammunition, not many.
Yet that person is NOT the final check.

Many, cases, (movie/TV sets), a competent/skilled/knowledgeable person is hired to do that job. And the very vast majority of film/TV have no incidents.

In this case, Baldwin HIRED, a person who was NOT, Skilled, NOT competent, NOT knowledgeable, AND, very reckless.
(Probably cause her Dad was good, and she was real CHEEP to hire)

The final check is the person using the gun.

"Never Point A Firearm at anything you do not want to shoot"

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Graybeard on 07/13/24 at 08:39:49

He accepted the gun. Not From the armorer.
I read an article by an armorer who was offered the job. Negotiations before taking the job had him with five assistants, he was packing to go when he got an email saying they had cut two from his team. He called and turned the job down. Baldwin was a producer and director. He helped create the problem.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Eegore on 07/14/24 at 00:40:23

Nobody here called it a conspiracy to think Baldwin would not be found guilty. If anything the only complaint I saw along those lines was MnSpring addressing the dropping of initial charges without prejudice, which was interesting that the human on this forum that is most outspoken about Baldwin's guilt would complain about the Prosecution leaving the case open to re-charging Baldwin in the future.

So I originally went with the gun safety route on this but further research shows that movie sets simply do not, and should not, use typical range-control safety.

Firearms are pointed at other humans constantly during movie shoots. I know a human that worked in the movie 1917. He said it would be near impossible to film that movie convincingly and never aim a gun at someone.

If anything, they should only use guns that are permanently altered to not fire.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by MnSpring on 07/14/24 at 10:51:50

4464666E7364010 wrote:

"... movie sets simply do not,
and should not,
use typical range-control safety. ..."

"...In this case, Baldwin HIRED, a person who was NOT, Skilled, NOT competent, NOT knowledgeable, AND, very reckless.
(Probably cause her Dad was good, and she was real CHEEP to hire)..."

Baldwin was also a director who hired the person In Charge of the firearms/ammunition.
Baldwin OUT AND OUT LIED, (I did not pull the trigger)

Then, That mysterious box of ammunition, that 'appeared'.
Interesting that no check was made.
Was it the same box/ammo, Lot number the same, Rounds missing from box, Finger prints on box, Fingerprints on ammo in box, no comparison from case fired to the cases in the box.

Simply looks like Baldwin BOUGHT his way out of another one.

Let's see what the Civil Case does.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Eegore on 07/14/24 at 11:37:05

"...In this case, Baldwin HIRED, a person who was NOT, Skilled, NOT competent, NOT knowledgeable, AND, very reckless.
(Probably cause her Dad was good, and she was real CHEEP to hire)...

While this may be true, in US court, they would have to prove he had "prior" knowledge of her competency level in order to use that in a criminal charge.

I was sued for having an employee that lied on an application and was underqualified for a job. Since I had no "prior" knowledge or reason to believe this human was NOT, Skilled, NOT competent, NOT knowledgeable, AND, very reckless I was not able to be held liable for their actions.

Imagine that, the human that did things wrong was liable and the blame was not passed on to another human.

If the human doing things wrong is held responsible, AND the human that hired them where would it end? The agency contractor that hired me? The contracting department lead? The agency training Supervisor? The agency Director? Head of the Department of Defense? The POTUS?

Too bad the cameras weren't rolling in regard to that trigger pull. I can't imagine that gun just fired without some sort of stimulus.

Again, it's not feasible to expect every actor to use range rules. I can't even begin to calculate how many movies show guns pointed directly at another human.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Serowbot on 07/14/24 at 14:54:38

An armorer on a movie set has one job... that's to keep everybody safe from gun accidents
It's not an actors job, they act
They don't have to be munitions experts
They don't have to be able to fly a plane to play pilot
They don't need a law degree to play a lawyer
They don't need to be a gun expert to play a cowboy

If Baldwin as a producer knowingly hired an unqualified armorer then he may have liability there
but the producers already settled with the family

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by MnSpring on 07/14/24 at 15:44:01

7757555D4057320 wrote:

"... in US court, they would have to prove he had "prior" knowledge of her competency level in order to use that in a criminal charge. ..."

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Eegore on 07/14/24 at 16:49:04

So the fact that this was only her second time, a fact well known in the film industry, (especially known to a producer)

"...During a recent interview on the "Voices of the West" podcast, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said that "Rust" was only the second time she had worked as a lead armorer on a film set. She said her first experience was on the set of the film "The Old Way," which stars Nicolas Cage and recently wrapped shooting. Gutierrez-Reed also told the podcast that she almost didn't take the job because she hadn't been sure if she was ready for it...."

Again they have to prove Baldwin had "Prior" knowledge that she was NOT, Skilled, NOT competent, NOT knowledgeable, AND, very reckless. Again... AND very reckless. How would anyone know how reckless she is when she had no experience?

I get it, you don't like Baldwin so you will insist he was aware of her incompetence so he can be even more guilty than just lying about pulling the trigger.

A court however can't just say Baldwin knew hiring a new Armorer was dangerous, unless there is evidence he knew she would be dangerous. When I was sued, they said I "should" have known, but there was no evidence I knew the employee lied on his application, or could be a danger based exclusively off his minimal experience.

So instead of blaming the guy that hired a liar, they instead prosecuted the liar. Imagine that.

Also being a Producer does not mean you sit on every interview and research every employee on a job. Another challenge the court would have is proving that Baldwin had "duty" to personally witness the hiring process and approve the Armorer position specifically. If he has no "duty" to perform that task, being a Producer and having a negligent employee is not in itself a crime.

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by Serowbot on 07/15/24 at 06:36:42

It was every bodies second time at doing anything at sometime
It's the only way to get to the third time :-?

Title: Re: Check your Bingo cards!
Post by WebsterMark on 07/15/24 at 08:38:50

Just like throwing out the Trump classified document case, it was the right decision to throw out the Baldwin case.