|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Baldwin FBI report /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1660561867 Message started by Eegore on 08/15/22 at 04:11:07 |
|
Title: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 08/15/22 at 04:11:07 I can't secure the link to the actual FBI report at this time so this article will have to do. https://consequence.net/2022/08/the-gun-fired-by-alec-baldwins-rust-set-couldnt-have-gone-off-without-pulling-the-trigger-fbi-says/ |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 08/15/22 at 04:36:04 In other news, investigation reveals an apple won’t fall on its own; you to let go of it. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/22 at 15:21:31 Yeah, shokkin ain't it? Gotta pull the trigger after ya pull the hammer back to make it go Boom. True of all guns, up to and including those FullySemiAuto scary rifles. If it was broken,, so it would fail to hold the hammer in the fully cocked position and when the thumb was allowed to slip off the tang when the hammer got to the end of its travel, then the hammer would fall from the fully cocked position and fire the round . Probably not The Moment when the gun is aimed. For such a highly touted law enforcement agency it Looks kinda shabby that it took something like seventeen Special, and I Do Mean Special Agents to figure out that Noose on the garage door pull down rope was just another innocuous loop to make grabbing it easier and now it takes How Long to figure out the obvious about the gun? It's either broken or it's Not. Ya empty it, ya thingy it, ya slap it around, ya pull the trigger and do it again. After, ohh,what? Six times? Twelve times? How many times does it have to work as designed before, unlike the lefty mantra,, it's Not the guns fault. It really was the person holding it. Which is what we conservatives have been saying about guns for a long time. Snot th GUN. It's the jakkass holding it. Now let's see if we get another At this point, what difference does it make? dismissal. It worked for her.. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/18/23 at 10:11:47 Summary of the OSHA investigation and report: https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/04/2022-04-19-NM-OSHA-Rust-Summary-of-Investigation.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/18/23 at 10:21:48 "The New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator has classified Hutchins’ death as an accident." “Based on all available information, including the absence of obvious intent to cause harm or death, the manner of death is best classified as accident.” Baldwin will walk !!!!!!! He has kissed the correct Azzes. Just hope the civil suits run him into the ground. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 01/18/23 at 10:30:07 Interesting to see what all goes on behind the scenes. I’m involved in promotional videos for work and the time and people required for a 4 minute is surprising. Here’s an interesting point though. There was a woman policeman who accidentally pulled her gun and shot a suspect when she meant to use a taser. She’s serving a significant prison sentence now.it was an unintentional accident. Ultimately, in these accidental shootings, there was one person most responsible, the last person to touch the weapon before it was fired. One is in jail. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/18/23 at 10:33:45 "...One is in jail..." And the other one will Walk. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/19/23 at 13:02:54 Halls the only smart one, took a plea deal. Guiterrez-Reed and Baldwin will face two counts. 4th degree felony and involuntary manslaughter, which in NM carries sentencing of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. From what I see, the involuntary manslaughter charge, when a firearm is involved, there is a 5 year minimum jail/prison sentence. These are dependent on no further plea deals and a guilty verdict of course. I see no reason for this to be exempt from a jury trial, so if they walk, blame the jury. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/19/23 at 13:13:18 Interesting to see what all goes on behind the scenes. I’m involved in promotional videos for work and the time and people required for a 4 minute is surprising. My cousin works in film, her first gig was keeping two hotel room bathrooms filled with ice and booze on the film "Dusk til Dawn" among other menial tasks. She stuck with it and worked on "Game of Thrones", and "Shameless" both of which I was able to visit the sets, and also see some post-production editing. I learned the general rule is an hour per-minute for the rough cut, another hour for the fine cut, and one hour for sound editing. And that's after filming. Pre production can take months. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 01/20/23 at 04:44:10 Yea, it’s a massive time-black hole. Back on topic, Baldwin is charged with manslaughter. Unlike leftist wackos who dump lifelong friends over political views, I loathe Baldwin’s politics and his habit of using his fame to cram his every thought into the airways, but will always acknowledge he’s a terrific actor and I’m a fan of his work. His character on 30-Rock was perhaps the best sitcom comedy character ever. Actors get involved in politics and these causes because deep inside they feel guilty for being multimillionaires strictly based on how they look and talk. It’s like winning the lottery or surviving an accident when the person next to you was killed. There’s lotta guilt and this is their way to overcome the guilt. But, I don’t think charging him with manslaughter is right. I try to be consistent with my views which is why because I’m against abortion I’m also against the death penalty. And I didn’t think it was right for that female police officer to go to jail because she accidentally pulled her gun out instead of her taser. Unfortunately for her, she shot a black guy so she had to be sacrificed on the altar of woke-ism. The Rust shooting was an accident and while Baldwin might’ve pulled the trigger it seemed the one more liable than other people was the one responsible for giving the actor a safe gun. Sure I get it that as the last person to hold the gun, he’s supposed to verify it was safe, but all of us in our jobs and daily lives do the same thing. We assume someone else has done their job and even though we’re supposed to take certain actions to verify, we know we don’t all the time. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 07:05:11 Right Wing gun "experts" seem to have forgotten the logic behind the "cowboy carry" SA guns without a transfer bar can go off without pulling the trigger Even I know that, so I know you do He'll be charged and tried because he was holding the weapon, but he won't be found guilty Actors can't be expected to be gun experts... that's why they have armorers. Are actors that play surgeons expected to have medical degrees? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/20/23 at 08:27:20 "Are actors that play surgeons expected to have medical degrees?" No but if they are using a prop scalpel to slice open a throat they are expected to verify its a prop and not a metal blade. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 09:31:01 527270786572170 wrote:
That would be easy, any layman can tell sharp from dull,... are they expected to test the defibrillator too? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/20/23 at 09:33:02 "...Right Wing gun "experts" seem to have forgotten the logic behind the "cowboy carry" ..." Does not apply in this case. "... Even I know that ..." So why even suggest the, '5 in 6', is remotely relevant ? "... He'll be charged and tried because he was holding the weapon, but he won't be found guilty..." I believe he will be found guilty of 'accidental manslaughter', be sentenced to 12 month's in jail, (a COUNTRY CLUB one), and serving only 3. "...Actors can't be expected to be gun experts..." Not if they use a non firing prop only. If it is a REAL gun that can fire. They NEED to KNOW !!! It is called 'being responsible', something the vast majority of UL DFI FDS WOKE Socialists know nothing about. "...Are actors that play surgeons expected to have medical degrees? ..." Such a typical, UL Socialistic statement. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 09:39:13 6C4F725153484F46210 wrote:
Why? Is an actor expected to be able to identify a transfer bar within the workings of a handgun? Did that particular gun have one? Was it functional? Why do you think they hire armorers? Should actors that play pilots have pilot licenses? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/20/23 at 09:44:06 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
"It is called 'being responsible', something the vast majority of UL DFI FDS WOKE Socialists know nothing about. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 09:56:17 UC ONG RGVY SJ YJY's don't know Shite!... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/20/23 at 10:48:04 "Should actors that play pilots have pilot licenses?" Actors that actually fly a real plane should. If it's a real gun, you check it for real ammunition, that is part of the industry-standard safety protocol identified in the report, multiple actors have stated this. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 10:51:37 Pretty sure Mick's a Pub... Mickey Rourke says there’s ‘no way in hell’ Alec Baldwin should be charged over Rust shooting death https://news.yahoo.com/mickey-rourke-says-no-way-133306233.html |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 01/20/23 at 10:52:51 You’re starting to sound desperate to clear a hard core, TDS infected lefty like yourself….. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by zevenenergie on 01/20/23 at 13:31:52 The contrast strike,s me. The whole world is literally littered with bullets fired to kill. And and there are people playing with powers that could kill half the planet. Vs bawin that would not have pulled the trigger if he knew there was a live bullet in it. I'd say anyone who's ever toyed with the idea of pulling the trigger is guilty. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/20/23 at 14:24:52 Many actors are from other countries... England, Canada, and Australia in particular and have no idea how guns work. They depend on the experts. Film insurers wouldn't allow actors to handle weapons without an responsible armorer in charge.. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by pg on 01/20/23 at 16:43:51 New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses Article 2 - Homicide Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being. B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/20/23 at 17:08:47 Many actors are from other countries... England, Canada, and Australia in particular and have no idea how guns work. They depend on the experts. This is why Baldwin AND others are charged. Those English, Canadian, and Australian actors that choose to point a loaded weapon on an expert's word alone, on a film set in New Mexico, would still be liable under US law. Ignorance doesn't absolve people from the charge in this case, it is specifically designed for involuntary damage. Baldwin is not exempt from US law because he is an actor. Any non-actor human that is uneducated to firearm usage that takes the word of another human, even an "expert" is still responsible for the outcome of their own actions. Movie sets don't change how the law works. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/20/23 at 19:00:30 'UL DFI FDS WOKE Socialists' UL = Ultra Liberal DFI = Dumb F ucken Idiot FDS = Fairy Dust Sprinkler WOKE = Apologize for everything, bend over backwards to right a, 'perceived', wrong, and practice racism. (hiring someone on the basis of, skin,sex,etc, instead of the ability to doing that job, IS RACIST) SOCIALIST = a person who does not believe in freedom. (Which 99.892% of the people reading this know) 5640574A52474A51250 wrote:
What does the above stand for ? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by zevenenergie on 01/21/23 at 01:55:59 554244484757250 wrote:
It is a bit strange that the film industry is allowed to provide us with our daily dose of fake violence. But if someone really dies then suddenly, the actor who thinks he is acting is guilty of killing someone. In this case, who is accountable? After all, we all watch movies. If balwin is convicted, everyone is responsible. So what's wrong? Our Christian conditioning that we'll shall not kill? Our penchant for violence? Our illusionary self, which we think we have to defend? The law? And Balwin, Is there somting verry wrong whit this guy? Was it mokking Trump for a long time stating how alful he was, not seeing is his own alfulness? Of is nuts just happening? I say nuts is just happening. But we're on the toilet. Maybe we should start eating healthier. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 01/21/23 at 04:26:50 Many actors are from other countries... England, Canada, and Australia in particular and have no idea how guns work Pu$$ys. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 01/21/23 at 06:23:12 6F4C7152504B4C45220 wrote:
Just so it isn't personally insulting :P |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 01/21/23 at 11:05:35 3B2D3A273F2A273C480 wrote:
I find this Insulting. 7462756870656873070 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/21/23 at 16:09:54 In this case, who is accountable? After all, we all watch movies. If balwin is convicted, everyone is responsible. I find it hard to believe some old lady in a nursing home that watches movies is somehow responsible for the Director's death. We all eat, does that mean everyone is responsible if abusive parents starve a kid to death? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by pg on 01/21/23 at 17:12:00 51724F6C6E75727B1C0 wrote:
I was trying to figure out the DFI............... :-? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 01/21/23 at 20:53:21 Its a battle to see who can add more letters. LGBQTIWXYZ UL DFI FDS WOKEXYZ |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by pg on 01/22/23 at 04:52:57 I suspect he will be found guilty and get the softest sentence possible........ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 02/09/23 at 08:26:05 I just realized the additional firearm charge didn't go into effect in NM until may of 2022. This is 7 months after the fatal shooting. I am not sure a judge can retroactively apply this charge to an event that happened before the law was enacted. No one on my legal contacts knows either. Also his legal motion to disqualify Andrea Reeb, appears to me, to have merit. The NM State Constitution states a sitting member of the Legislature may not exercise any powers properly belonging to either the executive or judicial branch in Section 1 of Article III. https://nmonesource.com/nmos/c/en/item/5916/index.do#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 02/11/23 at 14:44:07 " I suspect he will be found guilty and get the softest sentence possible " He probably will. Yet if he was, Joe Blow from Cocomo, The book would thrown, and he would spend most of his life in Prison. Let's see, two Cops kill someone. One is in absolute, 'RACIST', Cold Blood. One was doing what he was taught to do. One gets 22 years in Solitary. One gets less than 4 years in a Country Club Prison. Can you guess which one got what ? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 03/15/23 at 07:29:26 So the charges were downgraded since the law was not in effect when the crime happened. This makes sense to me. Also the special prosecutor stepped down. Her logic is to allow the focus to be on the crime and not her involvement being questioned. This also makes sense to me. I also agree with the conflict of interest assessment. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/15/23 at 17:48:54 IDK, I Think I saw something about the gun broke in testing and was Destroyed.. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 03/15/23 at 19:05:00 Baldwin's lawyer used the word "Destroyed" but the State said it was disabled, or something to that effect, in testing but still exists. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/19/23 at 07:05:33 Charges have been dropped against Baldwin "without prejudice" which is good at least. "Come now, the State of New Mexico, by and through special prosecutors Kari T. Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis, and enters a nolle prosequi in the above-numbered and styled cause, as new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis which cannot be completed before the May 3, 2023, preliminary hearing, the case is dismissed without prejudice and the investigation is active and on-going.” It looks like the pistol had been modified on the set. This opens the door for the potential that it could have fired without trigger compression. The words "potential" and "could have"... if Observed... will indicate that this assessment is NOT saying it "DID" happen, or any known words synonymous with the word "DID". This statements means in exclusivity that an event might have happened, and as such must be recognized by the US Judicial system in this particular case. The DA, and law enforcement forensics did not acknowledge the potential firearm modification. If Observed, the word "potential" means a percentage exists of the action happening, not a statement that it DID actually happen. This post is information about the actions of the New Mexico D.A, and reasoning for those actions at this time, and are in no way a "defense" or opinion of any kind as to what happened on a movie set I was nowhere near at the time. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 07:49:36 "... Charges have been dropped against Baldwin "without prejudice" which is good at least. ..." Who do you think he PAID off ? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 08:38:38 Who do you think he PAID off ? Nobody. I think the evidence provided is what happened. The gun was allegedly altered so they are postponing the charges to avoid a mistrial/unfavorable outcome due to knowledge of evidence change. It would be pretty stupid for the Prosecution to have documentation of evidence change and ignore it for the trial. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 10:57:52 0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:
That line sounds a LOT like DEFENSE ! "... which is good at least ..." |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 11:09:24 "... The gun was allegedly altered ..." Alteration of MOST things, do not change the function of that thing. Take a RED Car that came from the factory, then the dealer put a Blue stripe on it, It is 'Altered' !!!!!!!! A Firearm can have all sorts of, Alterations, that DO NOT AFFECT FUNCTION. "...This opens the door for the potential that it could have fired without trigger compression ..." So the FBI was incorrect when it tried it's hardest, and found that gun could not be fired, WITHOUT PULLING THE TRIGGER !!!! No need to explain what, "allegedly" means. (Oh Wait, BOT thinks it is a fact) |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/20/23 at 11:19:51 Without prejudice They can refile With prejudice Can't refile Charges |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 14:12:51 That line sounds a LOT like DEFENSE ! "... which is good at least ..." Your insistence to provide a false narrative about my comments supersedes your ability to have a productive and honest conversation, and you obviously don't have an understanding about what the words I posted mean, in context, to how the US Judicial system works. I think it is a 'good" thing they can press charges against Baldwin again. That's what "without prejudice" means. A Firearm can have all sorts of, Alterations, that DO NOT AFFECT FUNCTION. That's true. Given the zero evidence we have on this, your assessment that the alteration did not disrupt function is 50% accurate. Until we have evidence of the alterations, we can just imagine up scenarios out of thin air. "So the FBI was incorrect when it tried it's hardest, and found that gun could not be fired, WITHOUT PULLING THE TRIGGER !!!!" Oh so now the FBI are experts that should be trusted and are completely competent. I may be wrong but I will assume that the humans engaged in the actual trial, handling the actual evidence, that actually know what things like "without prejudice" means, know more about this trial than people reading about it on the internet. If the prosecution has NEW evidence that indicates, to them, they should further analyze and prepare that evidence for a successful trial, I say go for it. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 19:07:03 “…So the FBI was incorrect… … found that gun could not be fired, WITHOUT PULLING THE TRIGGER” Gotta ask the UL, DFI, FDS WOKE, Socialists They think the F ukin Bumbling Idiots could do NO HARM, whenever something would negatively affect Trump. Or Positively affect Bama, Clinton’S, and Mush for brains. So, who got paid, to toss the doubt, under the guise of, ""allegedly"". Remember, this is N.M. A very strong, 'WOKE", State that puts more resources to Illegals than Citizens, (and roads) |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 19:27:26 So, who got paid, to toss the doubt, under the guise of, ""allegedly"". You are the only one that has used that term here besides me. I was not paid, were you paid? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/20/23 at 21:35:00 You are the only one that has used that term here besides me. I was not paid, were you paid? What is that about? You don't answer just turn words around and attack? I saw the links, but what am I supposed to be looking for? YaKnow, you Could cut and paste an example.. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 22:01:57 What is that about? You don't answer just turn words around and attack? What "attack" could there possibly be? MnSpring is imagining up a scenario where a human was "paid" to use the word "allegedly" in some relation to this case. The only humans here that have used the word "allegedly" to describe the content within this topic has been MnSpring and I. I was not paid. "Alleged" is a normal and common legal term because rights granted to defendants in the US legal system are that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unless of course you are Balwin apparently, then it's a conspiracy of some sort. "YaKnow, you Could cut and paste an example.." I already did, in bold, posted the exact words. The being "paid" to say "allegedly" is MnSprings theory, he could clarify further. Refusing to answer questions and instead attacking a human that asked them... I wonder where I've seen that before. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/20/23 at 22:19:14 Touche' I still don't feel like I understand but ookay. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/20/23 at 22:33:20 I don't see the connection to what you were going on about earlier. Before it was If you accurately report on something bad that happened, then you support that it happened. How does that compare to Was someone paid to say allegedly? And I don't understand how that would ever happen. Maybe I should read the whole thing,, I'm pretty sure I've missed some of this. Just waiting to feel the eyelids droop, and it's probably not gonna play along. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/21/23 at 08:29:51 " don't see the connection to what you were going on about earlier." It is, Just Deflection and Spin. And 'insinuation' (very artfully indirect changing/implying) of things I did not say. Totally expected from a word salad crafting. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/21/23 at 15:42:41 I don't see the connection to what you were going on about earlier. Before it was If you accurately report on something bad that happened, then you support that it happened. Yes, the evidence I provided using MnSpring's own words, indicates to me, that if I post information about a topic, like Fauci for instance, I am "defending" Fauci. Or if I clarify the CDC did NOT say something a lying website told people they did, that can only mean I am "defending" the CDC. Somehow this is the only outcome some people here can come up with. The only reason I brought that up in this post is because MnSpring claimed I was "defending" the actions of the Prosecution when I said it was "good" they kept the case open to re-charging Baldwin by means of using the words "without prejudice". My belief is that his lack of understanding about how the US Judicial system works leads him to believe that Baldwin would not be re-charged, and that I "defended" that incorrect assessment. How does that compare to Was someone paid to say allegedly? I don't know. MnSpring asked that question. My assessment is only MnSpring and myself have used the term "allegedy" to describe this post topic. I was not paid to use that word, that is all I can speak to. MnSpring is implying someone is being paid to "toss the doubt" into the Baldwin case by means of using the word "allegedly", without any reference. I think that word is used in every criminal court case since it is part of US law. Bottom line is the charges against Baldwin were dropped and he can be charged again. The rest of this conversation is just nonsense arguing about things that never happened, like that I "defended" any action at all. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/22/23 at 12:41:53 7656545C4156330 wrote:
I would not call that, QUESTION, ‘imagining’, I would call it, REALITY ! Just like a person in charge of buying all the sports equipment for a school, FROM ONE COMPANY, then each year , they receive an all paid vacation to a desired place for the whole family. Just like a ‘official’, in charge of paying another company, decides he want’s a’ kick-back’ in cash. Just like a car dealer, when he did NOT, pay back his loans, giving free vacations in desirable locations, to the people demanding the loan payment. Just like two City workers, paving their own driveways with blacktop, charged to the City. (Oh wait, ‘Observed Reality’, is not, really real) Just about everybody, (that actually pays attention), has experience with people ‘paying’ for certain results. Don’t forget when a Airplane, the Airline, the Airport, all the workers, that had to do something completely different, and costly, all so 2 people could, ’talk about grand kids”. Then their is being at someones ranch, staying silent when someone uses a firearm in an inappropriate/dangerous way, because they might write a check to fund ‘research’ for something. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/22/23 at 13:56:02 (Oh wait, ‘Observed Reality’, is not, really real) Only the Observed part is "real" as a human using Observed reality can refuse to Observe something thus removing it from their reality. I would not call that, QUESTION, ‘imagining’, I would call it, REALITY ! I believe it is reality that people pay for things, including immoral or unethical actions. I never said this does not happen. I said you are imagining a scenario where this happened with the Baldwin case as I do not think you have Observed this action, or you would not have asked the question. Also you present no evidence. Bringing up any other scenario on the planet, people on planes, someone at a ranch, none of that is evidence about someone "paying" to use the word "alleged" in the Baldwin case. I have not been paid to use the word "allegedly" in context to this topic, that is all I can speak of with certainty. I beleive every US criminal case uses the word "alleged" since all US criminal cases assume the defendant innocent until proven guilty. If anything I would be surprised, and highly question the legitimacy, of any US criminal court case that did not use the term "alleged" and instead assumed guilt of the defendant - in writing. Again... in writing, so before anyone brings up the Jan 6th nonsense, all those humans have "alleged" terminology in their prosecution documentation that PG provided reference to. Bottom line is Baldwin is not currently being charged as new evidence has been presented that the Prosecution wants to further prepare for court, so they can possibly re-charge Baldwin. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/22/23 at 17:45:51 68484A425F482D0 wrote:
So according to your logic. A person, seeing a tree laying on the ground, yet not observing that tree falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? A person saw that tree upright, then later, (after it fell and was on the ground), did not observe it falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? A person seeing that the tree was about to fall, then closed their eyes, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? Got It. “… Bringing up any other scenario on the planet, people on planes, someone at a ranch, none of that is evidence about someone "paying" to use the word "alleged" in the Baldwin case …” A Master at deflection ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/22/23 at 18:45:36 So according to your logic. A person, seeing a tree laying on the ground, yet not observing that tree falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? No. A person refusing to Observe a tree laying on the ground can claim since they have not Observed it, it is not part of reality. My Observed Reality is I see standing trees, not fallen trees. A person saw that tree upright, then later, (after it fell and was on the ground), did not observe it falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? No. A person refusing to Observe a tree laying on the ground can claim since they have not Observed it, it is not part of reality. They haven't Observed trees laying on the ground. A person seeing that the tree was about to fall, then closed their eyes, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ? That's closer. Your questions show how poor an argument of Observed Reality is. It is blatantly selective. They can refuse to Observe something then claim it's not part of their Observed reality, even when everyone else has evidence of a fallen tree. Now lets say a person is told many trees are falling dead due to excessive climate change and is offered information showing millions of dead trees. That person refuses to look at the information, justifying they do not need to, because their "Observed Reality" is that they have not Observed many dead trees where they are. Since they did not Observe millions of dead trees, the claim that trees are dying/falling from climate change is false. As if their Observed Reality is a reflection of everything on the planet, and therefore information on the contrary is wrong. Everyone else knows climate change could or could not be causing dead trees, and that any one human's Observations are not enough information to know. None of this will change, whether a human observes it or not, that Baldwin is not being charged right now, but can be in the future. Evidence supports that. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/22/23 at 19:43:04 Funny thing about what you are saying. It's obviously incorrect. I Use what I have seen. I see what is going on. Because I've been watching since they killed JFK, I'm really good at seeing what is happening. I knew the covid thing was a game we would be victims of. It went from Ohh,No, it's NOT the governments Job to require vaccination.. To, you lowlife scum, take the jabs,you're killing people. Funny who is doing all that suddenly dying thing. You run your mouth about it all you want, but I've seen how accurate you were. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/23/23 at 05:38:23 I Use what I have seen. I see what is going on. And if you refuse to look at something, you don't "see" it. Like refusing to Observe the number of living vaccinated humans. You literally refuse to discuss it or acknowledge living vaccinated kids in any way, but if someone does that to you, you call them "gutless". Do you "see" many dead kids in your area? Are there actually more kid funerals than normal, or do you instead "see" websites on the internet that give you long lists of living humans lying to you about them being dead? You can find anything on the internet to support your pre-decided views, anything at all, hat is actually happening in your area? Are there more dead kids than normal, it should be very easy to tell if even 1/50th of the amount Your sources claim is true. Funny who is doing all that suddenly dying thing. You run your mouth about it all you want, but I've seen how accurate you were. No you don't because you refuse to actually look at anything I present. Instead you argue over information You provide, that I read for you. When I say there's no way 300000 kids died in TX in 2021, information You repeatedly provided and defended, You interpret that as me saying vaccines are safe. I never said that. But since you refuse to Observe that I never claimed vaccines to be safe, or effective, it is not part of your Observed Reality. So you can continue to make false statements about what I said, and to you it's real. To everyone else they can see I posted the vaccine batch numbers and age demographics shown to be most at risk, because they do not refuse to Observe that fact. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/23/23 at 09:28:55 Blah fukkin blah blah blah.. What I SEE I See. So far, the things that have slipped by me hasn't been a huge problem. Do you think you Don't overlook anything? Man, you've been on this for long enough. I OBSERVE and I USE those observations to guide my thinking. I'm WAAAY ahead of the CNN and fox news people. I didn't even begin to buy into the covid psy-op. So, I would appreciate it if you would knock it off, I am aware of your opinion. I have no idea what you are suggesting I do differently. I don't have a crew of people to read things and bring me up to speed. And whatever you do, I'm not exactly impressed. You seem unable to develop an opinion until there is no actual opinion, you seem to need ALL the information so it's not an opinion, it's a foregone conclusion. IOW, leave me the fukk alone about my observations of reality. Nobody SEES everything. What I SEE, I see, and I use it accordingly. You don't have to like it. You can say it's NOT a valid approach. It's been working Fiiine. I didn't get the jabs. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/24/23 at 06:30:29 Do you think you Don't overlook anything? I overlook plenty. What I do not do is assume what I Observe is fact. So, I would appreciate it if you would knock it off, I am aware of your opinion. You choose to post here, as such you open your posts up to other members to comment on. We know you position on abortion, would it make sense for a member to tell you to "knock it off" when you comment on an pro-abortion post because they are "aware of your opinion"? Is that how a discussion forum should work? "I have no idea what you are suggesting I do differently. I don't have a crew of people to read things and bring me up to speed." I've never suggested you do anything. I offer my opinion on the posts you choose to provide here. I know you do not have a crew of researchers, which is why I find it interesting you argue with somebody who does, and reads Your information for you, then tells you what's really in there. Don't you realize when you argue information is wrong it's almost always Your information? Look at the Graphene post. We went through all 600+ documents and on this forum people just argue about that, move the goalposts, or literally refuse to look at the post so they can say they "aren't sure" what it says. That's intentional, so they don't have to acknowledge or Observe information they do not want to be true. Everywhere else people just say thanks for looking at all the data and showing that that specific claim, and only that claim, was a lie. To those people Truth is more important than being right, or having evidence to support their opinion at any cost. "You seem unable to develop an opinion until there is no actual opinion, you seem to need ALL the information so it's not an opinion, it's a foregone conclusion." I don't hunt for evidence to support my opinion. With the internet any opinion can be supported because anyone can put anything on the internet as "fact". I create an opinion based off evidence, and the more evidence there is, the more accurate of an opinion one can make. "What I SEE, I see, and I use it accordingly. You don't have to like it. You can say it's NOT a valid approach." This approach leads to things like You claiming information is "lies" then giving that exact same, word for word, information back as truth. You only care where the source comes from, and what they tell you it says, not what it actually says. You can't find "truth" that way - it's impossible. IOW, leave me the fukk alone about my observations of reality. How about you just leave people alone about their opinions and information they find on Biden, Hillary, Russiagate, Climate Change or Abortion. If you think their Observations are false, don't say anything. Does that sound like a good way to have a discussion forum? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 05/24/23 at 08:51:09 7656545C4156330 wrote:
Yea anybody reading your posts can see, that you do not believe, Observed Reality” is real. Again. A person Observes, the Mississippi, flooding in the North Mpls area. They do not need, the statics that you say are correct, to know the river will also flood in south Mpls. (BTW, the Mississippi flows N to S, unlike the Red and Crow which floods Much More, because they flow S to N) Then again, the, knowledge, of a river flowing North, (and Frozen), while the South part is thawed and running heavy after a lot if rain, where water can not soak into the ground because the ground is still frozen, is only ‘knowledge’, that river will probably flood. Ii is never questioned. Yet, if Biden makes totally awful paintings, (which MANY experts say they are truly awful), and they sell for huge amounts on money, to buyers in foreign countries. Knowledge says, it is simply a “Pay-OFF”, for something. And all the UL, Woke, FDS, Socialists, get their Panties in a bunch. 6747454D5047220 wrote:
Really, if someone believes, ‘Observed Reality’, is not really real. They should; “… don't say anything …” ??????? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/24/23 at 09:51:36 It's Really funny to see someone act like what I call Observed Reality is not A valid approach to decision making. Wouldn't the label EXPERIENCE also apply? Looking at what we've Seen, what we watched happen, if Someone chooses to Ignore those things, what kinda moron would they be? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/24/23 at 10:30:32 Again. A person Observes, the Mississippi, flooding in the North Mpls area. They do not need, the statics that you say are correct, to know the river will also flood in south Mpls. Unless they refuse to Observe the flooding. Then it's not Observed Reality, and when someone makes up some environmental impact garbage saying climate change is causing the flooding the argument is my Observed Reality says that's not true. That's a weak argument. Environmental alarmism is incorrect for many many reasons, not due to the things one chooses to Observe. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 05/24/23 at 10:36:26 It's Really funny to see someone act like what I call Observed Reality is not A valid approach to decision making. Wouldn't the label EXPERIENCE also apply? Looking at what we've Seen, what we watched happen, if Someone chooses to Ignore those things, what kinda moron would they be? I already agreed EXPERIENCE is a more valid argument as one typically does not Observe events they Experience. If you get into a motorcycle wreck, it's very difficult to not Observe that event. But if someone offers information stating motorcycle wrecks are at an all-time high, one can choose to not Observe that data, provide contradictory information they found on the internet (because literally anything can be made up and posted online) that they refuse to read/Observe for themselves, and also claim they do not Observe more motorcycle wrecks when they are out driving around, so obviously the increase in wrecks is false. The logic being they haven't seen more motorcycle wrecks, and they won't look at anything that says different. They don't have to look because Observed reality, the tiny amount of life on the planet they "see" is enough to know any other information provided on the planet from any source is going to be wrong. That's a weak argument. What one human Observes is less accurate than lets say motorcycle insurance claims, hospital records, coroner reports, DoT road cleanup documents and tow records. Collective information cross-referenced across a spectrum will always be more accurate than one guy's Observations. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 08/11/23 at 07:20:36 4C6F527173686F66010 wrote:
Yep he paid off civil suits. Yep he paid off the correct Azzes. Yep he will WALK ! |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 08/16/23 at 05:18:32 They might charge Baldwin again: https://www.avclub.com/rust-charges-against-alec-baldwin-could-be-refiled-1850741550?utm_source=YPL "the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer" |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 08/16/23 at 08:00:40 6040424A5740250 wrote:
Wow, "Yesterday" is when this was listed as being posted. My Question is, " WHICH YESTERDAY " |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 08/16/23 at 11:04:30 The yesterday that it was posted on. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 08/16/23 at 11:28:30 Geez... back n' forth, back n' forth. Did the gun have a functioning transfer bar or didn't it? Either way, Baldwin was relying on the "professional" gun handler to keep the set safe. He wasn't negligent in hiring her...she came with a pedigree of her father's experience and should have been expected to do her job. The production will be responsible civilly, and the gun girl perhaps criminally. ...but,... has anyone heard definitively if the gun had a transfer bar? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 08/16/23 at 11:53:26 5147504D55404D56220 wrote:
Some do some don't. But anybody, That is ANYBODY that knows the slightest thing about a firearm knows that a 'transfer bar' is NOT the ultimate 'safety' device. The ULTIMATE 'safety device' is the person holding/using the gun. Which Baldwin was NOT !!!!!! And again, the last person to hold/point/shoot, IS the person responsible. Yet it is the way of the UL, FDS, WOKE Socialists, that responsibility is in SOMEONE ELSE'S HANDS. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 08/16/23 at 14:05:17 4B685576746F6861060 wrote:
F*ckin' brilliant ::) I'm not asking about "some"... I'm asking about this specific gun. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 08/16/23 at 16:36:24 1006110C14010C17630 wrote:
And for those that do not understand; The ULTIMATE 'safety device' is the person holding/using the gun. (NOT a transfer bar) Again: The last person to hold/point/shoot, IS the person responsible. (NOT a transfer bar) It is the way of the UL, FDS, WOKE, Socialists, that responsibility is in SOMEONE ELSE'S HANDS. (NOT a transfer bar) |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/23 at 16:42:17 796F78657D68657E0A0 wrote:
She Should have been expected to do her job. By following the story when it was being reported on it became clear there was reason to not be comfortable with her abilities. They were using That gun just off set for target practice. Because the trigger was messed up? Huhh? How does That add up? She was not diligent and there were people in her past that said she was not good at the job. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 08/16/23 at 16:42:20 I have worked on movie sets and guns will be pointed and triggers will be pulled. It's the nature of film making. You can't watch a thriller , western, or action film where you don't see it. Your "gun safety" rules don't apply. Just like children with plastic toys or cocked fingers on a playground. It's a known fact. Get over it. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 08/16/23 at 17:08:08 2137203D25303D26520 wrote:
You are so incredibly, Clueless ! |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 10/19/23 at 13:15:09 More evidence that from a prosecution standpoint they are not willing to let Baldwin walk without trial. New Mexico prosecutors intend to re-charge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the fatal 2021 “Rust” shooting, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News. One of the sources told NBC News that after further investigation, prosecutors no longer believe the gun had been modified and have found new evidence that they believe connects Baldwin to recklessness around safety standards on the set. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alec-baldwin-may-face-involuntary-manslaughter-charge-rust-shooting-pr-rcna104138 |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 10/19/23 at 18:48:51 1737353D2037520 wrote:
Let's see what happens !!!!!!! Baldwin will walk !!!!!!! He KISSED/s the correct Azzes. He paid off civil suits. He will WALK ! |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 10/19/23 at 20:20:01 The evidence is the Prosecution, and only the Prosecution with the exemption of all other known entities, the Prosecution in exclusivity and only the Prosecution are not willing to let Baldwin walk. This is in contrast to the claims otherwise. As for the civil suits, it requires both sides agree, so yeah he paid them off, and they accepted. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/23 at 04:59:13 I always go back to the case of a police woman who accidentally grabbed her gun instead of her taser. It was an accident. And they prosecuted her and she’s in jail. I see no difference with Baldwin. It was an accident. One was a political prosecution because there’s no way they should’ve put that woman in jail. But you killed a black man. The Baldwin situation is a political fight over prosecution. Honestly, I wouldn’t charge Baldwin, but I wouldn’t have charged the police woman either. Accidents happen. Should Baldwin have checked the gun himself personally? Sure, maybe. I don’t know, I’m not an actor who been in thousands movie and fired hundreds of fake guns. Does every actor check every single gun? I doubt it. For one thing, they act of checking the gun by inexperienced user, could likely damage it. In the movie, the Hunt for red October, when Baldwin shoots the traitorous cook on a submarine, did he check that gun? |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Eegore on 10/20/23 at 05:51:44 Should Baldwin have checked the gun himself personally? Sure, maybe. I don’t know, I’m not an actor who been in thousands movie and fired hundreds of fake guns. Does every actor check every single gun? I doubt it. They don't. I've done some research into this and it is not common for actors to check weapons. I was more on board with every human that uses a real/active/useable firearm should follow the basic safety rules, but after visiting a few film sets and discussing this with actual film armorers, this appears to be very implausible. Actors will point firearms at other humans all the time, and they not all go through shooter safety courses and receive training for every firearm type they will handle. The responsibility will fall on the expert in that field. It's like expecting all actors to also know set lighting, cinematography and set sound design. For that matter in many, many, as in hundreds, of the exercises I have ran over the years we unsafely handle firearms by universal standard of conduct since we use real/active/useable firearms in CCW and CQB drills. The standard we use is the elimination of all ammunition from the training area, and the isolated handling of firearms by dedicated armorers. For instance when a human arrives with a firearm they must have emptied and pre-cleared the weapon. It is handed off to an armorer who will distribute and collect the weapon for all exercises. They are responsible for making sure every weapon remains empty during drills. "But somebody could put live ammo in when you aren't looking!!" This is true. Someone looking to commit murder could do this at any time at any exercise we ever do. This I like saying a human could turn around and shoot people at a shooting range. The point is we point weapons at people and we use third party experts as the primary safety feature. Filming should have stopped as soon as some members of the crew went out shooting live ammo at the end of the day. That, in my mind, is the single largest contributing factor here. Live ammo allowed anywhere on set, and loose weapons. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by Serowbot on 10/20/23 at 06:45:19 734146575041566945564F240 wrote:
Ditto on both And I have been on several film sets using guns, and an actor checking a gun would be a no no. The armorer would have to recheck it. The armorer is the authority, you don't second guess him... or her If Baldwin has any responsibility it's in the hiring of the armorer... but she does have credential of being the daughter of an armorer and it might be assumed she's had the benefit of his training. Prosecution didn't get the result they wanted from their first expert, so they found another one. But that don't cancel out the first one. His testimony will still hold weight, and more weight because he clearly gave his unbiased by siding with defense against the hopes of the lawyers that hired him. |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by MnSpring on 10/23/23 at 09:01:14 4056415C44515C47330 wrote:
So if one's Father is a Brain Surgeon, A Rocket Scientist, or a Race Motorcycle Driver, one is to, ASSUME, the prodigy knows that thing. They, Don't, have to PROVE it ? Oh wait, PROOF, of something does NOT matter, when someone with a agenda, TELLS YOU, their is no Proof and/or Proof does NOT matter ! "...In a statement from his attorney, Matthew Hutchins also said he would be named an executive producer of the film, which would resume filming in January "with all the original principal players on board."..." Was Hutchins, originally the 'executive producer of the film', or was that part of the (unknown details), settlement ? Baldwin, will PAY off Morrissey and Lewis. And I believe he will WALK ! |
|
Title: Re: Baldwin FBI report Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/23 at 09:51:07 I think you’re right, he will walk. Celebrity has its privileges. But I think he will be sued repeatedly in civil court, and he’s gonna have to cough up some money because……. celebrity doesn’t always have its privileges. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |