Alec Baldwin

Head Linesman

Well-known member
prop is short for property, sense 3,

1674558336014.png

an article or object used in a play or motion picture.

says nothing about non functioning. the helicopter in twilight zone that decapitated Vic Morrow was a prop. a great big one.
 

JackEd

Well-known member
Has anyone asked, how many times had they run through this scene where Baldwin was to fire the weapon? Was this the first time? While I think most Hollywood "Elites" are clueless D-Bags, I cannot believe anyone would intentionally kill someone on set, using only one real bullet out of how any fake bullets. Maybe Baldwin is so egotistical that he doesn't believe he can do any wrong, therefore not checking the weapon handed to him, but as everyone else has said, always check the gun before you use it. The movie John Wick comes to mind for fire arm safety. Those movies, while awesome, use so many fake bullets and nothing of consequence on those sets. Is there a "Baldwin was set up" conspiracy? If so, wouldn't the set up person put more than one real bullet in the gun?
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
lol, you got that from a book of rules somewhere? That's true no more than a prop car is a plastic bag. It's a gun, real, fake, squirt, finger pointed out, used as a prop.
I'll let this go as you won't let go of the idea that placing the adjective "prop" in front of the word "gun" somehow absolves Baldwin of blame. For a final time, a basic set of facts are:

  • There is a set of cardinal rules of gun safety.
  • While not codified in any jurisdiction to my knowledge, those rules are used in gun cases in courts in this country every single day.
  • Among those rules are "Always treat any gun as if it is loaded, unless you yourself have verified that it is not". IOW, "I didn't know the gun was loaded" is not an excuse, no matter how many "experts" are on the scene. There are no exemptions to this rule.
Whether he was charged with the correct crime, should have been charged with something less, or not at all is a matter of opinion, but calling a gun something else and/or trying to pin all of the blame for this tragedy on persons "upstream" are simply nonsense.

Have a great day.
 
Last edited:

winbypin

Well-known member
One question that seems to be hanging out there is why was there a live bullet on the set? Is there ever a reason for having live bullets on the set of a TV show or movie?

While this was a tragic situation, I don't believe it was an "accident" that can just be swept away with a monetary award. Someone did something wrong that resulted in the death of a person. The tricky part is finding out who ultimately did the wrong thing.
For a close up shot of someone loading the weapon maybe?
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I'll let this go as you won't let go of the idea that placing the adjective "prop" in front of the word "gun" somehow absolves Baldwin of blame. For a final time, a basic set of facts are:

  • There is a set of cardinal rules of gun safety.

It wasn't a gun. It was a prop. You need to find the cardinal rules of prop safety. Glad I could help.
 

chs1971

Well-known member
I'll let this go as you won't let go of the idea that placing the adjective "prop" in front of the word "gun" somehow absolves Baldwin of blame. For a final time, a basic set of facts are:

  • There is a set of cardinal rules of gun safety.
  • While not codified in any jurisdiction to my knowledge, those rules are used in gun cases in courts in this country every single day.
  • Among those rules are "Always treat any gun as if it is loaded, unless you yourself have verified that it is not". IOW, "I didn't know the gun was loaded" is not an excuse, no matter how many "experts" are on the scene. There are no exemptions to this rule.
Whether he was charged with the correct crime, should have been charged with something less, or not at all is a matter of opinion, but calling a gun something else and/or trying to pin all of the blame for this tragedy on persons "upstream" are simply nonsense.

Have a great day.

In a court of law defendants are judged to as to whether they broke the codified law, or not.

"Rules" like measure twice, cut once,

the 5 second rule,

keep your hands, feet, and objects to yourself,

a watched pot never boils,

look left, then right, then left again,

haste makes waste,

raise you hand and wait to be recognized,

and treat every gun like it is loaded,

do not apply.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
In a court of law defendants are judged to as to whether they broke the codified law, or not.

"Rules" like measure twice, cut once,

the 5 second rule,

keep your hands, feet, and objects to yourself,

a watched pot never boils,

look left, then right, then left again,

haste makes waste,

raise you hand and wait to be recognized,

and treat every gun like it is loaded,

do not apply.
They widely accepted rules of firearms handling actually DO apply as evidence of the crime as written in the code. Shooting someone "accidentally" without checking that the gun was not loaded is not a crime, but is evidence of a crime. These rules, not platitudes as you're trying to compare them with ARE evidence of various crimes.
 

chs1971

Well-known member

They widely accepted rules of firearms handling actually DO apply as evidence of the crime as written in the code. Shooting someone "accidentally" without checking that the gun was not loaded is not a crime, but is evidence of a crime. These rules, not platitudes as you're trying to compare them with ARE evidence of various crimes.
Only prop crimes, not real crimes.

Note: I believe Baldwin is guilty of a criminal act, but I do not know the specifics of New Mexico law. I am positive he will not be convicted in a court of law of violating "widely accepted rules of firearms handling."
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Only prop crimes, not real crimes. I am positive he will not be convicted in a court of law of violating "widely accepted rules of firearms handling."
Which is exactly what I said. However, people ARE convicted of crimes where one of the main pieces of evidence is not following these rules.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
They widely accepted rules of firearms handling actually DO apply as evidence of the crime as written in the code. Shooting someone "accidentally" without checking that the gun was not loaded is not a crime, but is evidence of a crime. These rules, not platitudes as you're trying to compare them with ARE evidence of various crimes.
Aren’t you actually demanding that the user determine the gun to be properly loaded with a blank AND placing upon the user the responsibility of knowing how a blank “looks”? Put another way, even if I know something about guns, do I know whether or not a blank looks different from a live round? And how it looks different?

By your standard, much of all human activity would come to a screeching halt.

Now, if you wanted to maintain your harangue on Baldwin’s guilt, might I suggest:

- he shouldn’t point guns at people OR
- he ran an unsafe movie set (producer)
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Aren’t you actually demanding that the user determine the gun to be properly loaded with a blank AND placing upon the user the responsibility of knowing how a blank “looks”? Put another way, even if I know something about guns, do I know whether or not a blank looks different from a live round? And how it looks different?
If they were using blanks, it's obvious visually as a blank round has no bullet (the thing that leaves the gun and flies downrange). Blanks make noise and flame like a real round but that's all that exits the gun.

If they were using dummy rounds, one can tell the difference by giving them a shake. The gunpowder normally in the cartridge is replaced by BBs. Dummy rounds rattle when you shake them.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
If they were using blanks, it's obvious visually as a blank round has no bullet (the thing that leaves the gun and flies downrange). Blanks make noise and flame like a real round but that's all that exits the gun.

If they were using dummy rounds, one can tell the difference by giving them a shake. The gunpowder normally in the cartridge is replaced by BBs. Dummy rounds rattle when you shake them.
Why do you assume everyone should know that?
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Why do you assume everyone should know that?
I assume that if one knows a gun can fire a projectile at high speeds and cause major damage or death to living things, that one has the responsibility to ensure to the degree possible that they aren't going to do so by accident.

If they were supposedly using blanks that day, the only reason Baldwin didn't know there was a live round in the gun was because he didn't look. If they were using dummy rounds, more of the blame (but not all) should go to the armorer as she didn't do her job properly. This is something that everyone who was handling a gun on that set needed to know.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I assume that if one knows a gun can fire a projectile at high speeds and cause major damage or death to living things, that one has the responsibility to ensure to the degree possible that they aren't going to do so by accident.

If they were supposedly using blanks that day, the only reason Baldwin didn't know there was a live round in the gun was because he didn't look. If they were using dummy rounds, more of the blame (but not all) should go to the armorer as she didn't do her job properly. This is something that everyone who was handling a gun on that set needed to know.
"needed" is not "required." Are you arguing what should be or what is?
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Negligence of what?
Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.
 
.
Top