Jump to content

Things Not Going Well for Alec Baldwin


ousuxndallas

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

Well, goodness.

It appears law enforcement has concluded that it was impossible for the gun to have gone off on its own, which means Alec Baldwin's story about the gun accidentally going off was, well, a lie, and that he may be charged again.  I have contended that he was/is fully culpable. However, I was not aware that charges can be added after they are dropped. How common is that?   

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, goodness.

It appears law enforcement has concluded that it was impossible for the gun to have gone off on its own, which means Alec Baldwin's story about the gun accidentally going off was, well, a lie, and that he may be charged again.  I have contended that he was/is fully culpable. However, I was not aware that charges can be added after they are dropped. How common is that?   

 

  

bruh, he's not going to face any accountability with this deal.  He appears to feel bad about it, appears to be an accident, it's done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admittedly haven't followed this story closely  but isn't a charge of manslaughter kind of harsh when the accused had basically every reason in the world to believe that the fucking gun that someone handed to him ON A FUCKING MOVIE SET FOR PURPOSES OF SHOOTING A FUCKING MOVIE SCENE would not be loaded with real ammo? If I'm on that jury I'd have a hard time finding that degree of guilt regardless if he pulled the trigger or not.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, goodness.

It appears law enforcement has concluded that it was impossible for the gun to have gone off on its own, which means Alec Baldwin's story about the gun accidentally going off was, well, a lie, and that he may be charged again.  I have contended that he was/is fully culpable. However, I was not aware that charges can be added after they are dropped. How common is that?   

 

  

Law enforcement said the same thing about the Remington 700 trigger accidents.  Quite a few people served time before it was revealed that the trigger was faulty and the company issued a recall.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Law enforcement said the same thing about the Remington 700 trigger accidents.  Quite a few people served time before it was revealed that the trigger was faulty and the company issued a recall.  

this is why you never never never never shake a baby.

oh shit wait

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, goodness.

It appears law enforcement has concluded that it was impossible for the gun to have gone off on its own, which means Alec Baldwin's story about the gun accidentally going off was, well, a lie, and that he may be charged again.  I have contended that he was/is fully culpable. However, I was not aware that charges can be added after they are dropped. How common is that?   

 

  

IMG_6161.gif.7fcee3731bd9fb29d5050af278a5b30f.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go read the fbi report. The gun did go off without pulling the trigger during their testing however their conclusion was that was due to the ware from the testing and wouldn’t have happened otherwise. At least to me, that’s not a very satisfying “don’t count that” when the gun did the thing you’re leading the report with it didn’t do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

I admittedly haven't followed this story closely  but isn't a charge of manslaughter kind of harsh when the accused had basically every reason in the world to believe that the fucking gun that someone handed to him ON A FUCKING MOVIE SET FOR PURPOSES OF SHOOTING A FUCKING MOVIE SCENE would not be loaded with real ammo? If I'm on that jury I'd have a hard time finding that degree of guilt regardless if he pulled the trigger or not.

 

 

Yeah, I havent been able to wrap my head around that since I first heard he might be charged. If you want to assign some financial liability in civil court to Baldwin whose production company hired the dipshit armorer, fine. But manslaughter charges seemed like bullshit to me. and I dislike the guy. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, goodness.

It appears law enforcement has concluded that it was impossible for the gun to have gone off on its own, which means Alec Baldwin's story about the gun accidentally going off was, well, a lie, and that he may be charged again.  I have contended that he was/is fully culpable. However, I was not aware that charges can be added after they are dropped. How common is that?   

 

  

weirdest victory lap ever?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

weirdest victory lap ever?

We shall see.

6 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Baldwin made fun of 45 for 4 years on SNL.  That’s all this is.

Points and fires the gun that kills the woman. Says in police interview that assistant invited him to check firearm it but he declined. (You can watch him say so on YouTube). Lies to law enforcement that he never pulled the trigger. Sues undertrained, overworked Gen Z armorer. Currently may be re-charged now that lie has been exposed.   

P.S. I hate Trump, too. 

Trump-Roman-Crop-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

We shall see.

Points and fires the gun that kills the woman. Says in police interview that assistant invited him to check firearm it but he declined. (You can watch him say so on YouTube). Lies to law enforcement that he never pulled the trigger. Sues undertrained, overworked Gen Z armorer. Currently may be re-charged now that lie has been exposed.   

P.S. I hate Trump, too. 

Trump-Roman-Crop-1.jpg

Did the Baldwin brothers fuck your wife or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

We shall see.

Points and fires the gun that kills the woman. Says in police interview that assistant invited him to check firearm it but he declined. (You can watch him say so on YouTube). Lies to law enforcement that he never pulled the trigger. Sues undertrained, overworked Gen Z armorer. Currently may be re-charged now that lie has been exposed.   

 

 

Reread my post about the Remington 700.   Law enforcement claimed it was impossible for a gun to discharge without a trigger pull and yet after many incarcerations, it turned out..... law enforcement was lying, not the victims of the faulty trigger.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Reread my post about the Remington 700.   Law enforcement claimed it was impossible for a gun to discharge without a trigger pull and yet after many incarcerations, it turned out..... law enforcement was lying, not the victims of the faulty trigger.  

I'll read up on it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Points and fires the gun that kills the woman. Says in police interview that assistant invited him to check firearm it but he declined. (You can watch him say so on YouTube). Lies to law enforcement that he never pulled the trigger. Sues undertrained, overworked Gen Z armorer. Currently may be re-charged now that lie has been exposed.  

i refuse to do this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

maybe read this thread and the other thread so you can learn all about your wrongness.

So to be clear, don't share potential problem updates for Alec Baldwin in the "Things Aren't Going Well for Alec Baldwin" thread. Makes sense.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

So to be clear, don't share potential problem updates for Alec Baldwin in the "Things Aren't Going Well for Alec Baldwin" thread. Makes sense.    

you posted the article.  you did your duty.  the thread police will rest easy tonight.

then you shared your thoughts:

8 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Points and fires the gun that kills the woman.

it was a movie set.  you could've just stopped there. 

nobody cares that he lied, and it's impossible to prove that he did.  when he was asked if he wanted to check the gun himself, the correct answer is always "no".  it's not his job to check the gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, henrygandorf said:

you posted the article.  you did your duty.  the thread police will rest easy tonight.

then you shared your thoughts:

it was a movie set.  you could've just stopped there. 

nobody cares that he lied, and it's impossible to prove that he did.  when he was asked if he wanted to check the gun himself, the correct answer is always "no".  it's not his job to check the gun. 

I've also never understood how this is some sort of "gotcha." You have professional armorists on set because they are the subject matter experts. I'm sure as hell not going to "check" or mess with it in any way, it's their job to make sure it's safe. If he told police he didn't pull the trigger and actually did, that could be an issue, but seems like a very strange thing to lie about, considering the circumstances. "Of course I pulled the trigger, it's in the script, and the armorist was responsible for making sure it was safe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I've also never understood how this is some sort of "gotcha." You have professional armorists on set because they are the subject matter experts. I'm sure as hell not going to "check" or mess with it in any way, it's their job to make sure it's safe.

that's the crazy thing.  they're acting like he wasn't supposed to check it, but thought he was an expert and checked it anyway, and then accidentally killed somebody.  that would make this a much bigger deal, and all the people who hate him because reasons could at least have a decent case to blame him.  but the opposite happened.

my actor buddies all said if they were handed a gun and then starting checking it, they wouldn't be holding it for very much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually looked up what actual armorers have said in news interviews immediately after the incident, and pretty much all of them said the opposite of what's been said here as far as the actor's duty to check the weapon and where to point it, etc. That said, I don't see the purpose of charging him. Our criminal justice system should be about rehabilitation and not retaliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ranks about 900th on my list of shit I give a shit about.  How is this even in CR anyway?

1. The right has always loved to hate on entertainment figures. Except St. Reagan, Kid Rock, tfg, etc. You know, the ones that agree with them.

2. Their grasping at “what about” straws has been ratcheted up to 11 by their lead entertainment figure’s multiple indicatements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2023 at 7:32 AM, TreatyOak said:

P.S. I hate Trump, too. 

Trump-Roman-Crop-1.jpg

You hate Trump?  Yet voted for him, donated to him, and happen to have semi-nudes of him at the ready?  Sickie.  ;)  

On 8/17/2023 at 7:48 AM, TreatyOak said:

Well, yes. 

Was it all four?  At the same time?  I enjoy Alec's work, and Daniel Baldwin is actually a really nice guy IRL.  But if twas Stephen and Billy spit-roasting, that's just a bridge too far IMO.  

43 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

3. He did a pretty good job making fun of the Orange God.

it was funny for the first handful of appearances but it got way too comic-book silly too quickly.  Maybe that was the point.  It got really overplayed, but they at least wisely pivoted to funnier side-characters and cameos (like the NATO cafeteria scene with Rudd).  I liked laughing at Trump more than anyone, but Baldwin's thing got really trite really quick.  I still can't put my finger on where they were trying to go with it other than just pissing off Trump supporters IRL, despite them probably not watching SNL to begin with so what was the point?  If nothing else though, it did tee up James Austin Johnson the ability to go with a completely different parody angle and it is absolutely gold.  It will take a few years to settle in, but his impression of Trump will be the gold standard for political impressions for decades...up there with Phil Hartman as Clinton and Carvey as Bush41.  And I just realized on a rewatch that James Austin Johnson is the money wiring place manager who Lalo Salamanca almost kills in "Better Call Saul."  But you know how you can tell how lethal James Austin Johnson's Trump is?  Not one single Trump taint-licker has an issue with it because it's so fucking spot-on and he saliently nails the Trump secret sauce of "Say the dumbest fucking shit in a certain way and people will hang on every word, even if you're saying it in costume on a sketch variety show."  James Austin Johnson could shoot 5 people tomorrow on a movie set, on purpose, and Trumpers would think, "Well, he was just exercising his 2A rights in the name of self-defense.  I see no crime here."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I liked laughing at Trump more than anyone, but Baldwin's thing got really trite really quick.  I still can't put my finger on where they were trying to go with it other than just pissing off Trump supporters IRL, despite them probably not watching SNL to begin with so what was the point?

Dude, SNL making fun of presidents and politicians is like half of what they do.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

it was funny for the first handful of appearances but it got way too comic-book silly too quickly.

Uh, how the fuck are you supposed to mock Trump from a grounded, subtle perspective? He's a fucking cartoon character. The new guy they have basically just impersonates him to the letter, which is impressive, but I wouldn't call it funny ha ha. More funny in a "holy shit, we elected someone who actually talks like this the President."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Uh, how the fuck are you supposed to mock Trump from a grounded, subtle perspective? He's a fucking cartoon character. The new guy they have basically just impersonates him to the letter, which is impressive, but I wouldn't call it funny ha ha. More funny in a "holy shit, we elected someone who actually talks like this the President."

I heard Baldwin say on a podcast that Trump is a two-dimensional person so that's how he portrayed him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From the NY Times today ,Tuesday, Oct 17:
Grand Jury Will Consider New Manslaughter Case Against Alec Baldwin

Prosecutors will convene a grand jury to consider whether to refile an involuntary manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer who was killed on the set of the film “Rust” in 2021, New Mexico prosecutors said on Tuesday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the NYT:
 

Quote

The decision to convene a grand jury was another reversal of fortune for Mr. Baldwin, who had an earlier manslaughter charge dropped after prosecutors received new evidence suggesting that the gun might have been modified in a way that made it easier to inadvertently fire. Prosecutors decided to reopen the case after submitting the gun for further analysis, which they said contradicted Mr. Baldwin’s assertion that he had not pulled the trigger.

“The forensic testing of the gun concluded with certainty that the trigger of the gun had to have been pulled for the gun to go off,” Ms. Morrissey said in the interview. She said the prosecutors intend to begin presenting the case to a grand jury on Nov. 16. The decision to convene the grand jury was first reported by NBC News.

...

“Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver,” Mr. Haag wrote in the report, which was released through a public records request. He also included photos of Mr. Baldwin handling a revolver on set earlier in filming, highlighting the actor’s finger on or near the trigger as he was cocking the gun.

Before Mr. Haag tested the gun, it had been examined by the F.B.I., which broke parts of it during testing, a complication that is certain to be raised by Mr. Baldwin’s defense. In order to test the gun, Mr. Haag replaced the damaged parts with new ones from the same type of gun.

In making their case before the grand jury, the prosecutors will have to contend with the fact that there was not supposed to be any live ammunition on the film set, and that both the film’s armorer and first assistant director had checked the gun before handing it to Mr. Baldwin. Ms. Morrissey said that her team believes a grand jury should make the decision “about the level of culpability of the person holding the gun in their hand.”

This is so fucking absurd.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the NYT:
 
The decision to convene a grand jury was another reversal of fortune for Mr. Baldwin, who had an earlier manslaughter charge dropped after prosecutors received new evidence suggesting that the gun might have been modified in a way that made it easier to inadvertently fire. Prosecutors decided to reopen the case after submitting the gun for further analysis, which they said contradicted Mr. Baldwin’s assertion that he had not pulled the trigger.
“The forensic testing of the gun concluded with certainty that the trigger of the gun had to have been pulled for the gun to go off,” Ms. Morrissey said in the interview. She said the prosecutors intend to begin presenting the case to a grand jury on Nov. 16. The decision to convene the grand jury was first reported by NBC News.
...
“Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver,” Mr. Haag wrote in the report, which was released through a public records request. He also included photos of Mr. Baldwin handling a revolver on set earlier in filming, highlighting the actor’s finger on or near the trigger as he was cocking the gun.
Before Mr. Haag tested the gun, it had been examined by the F.B.I., which broke parts of it during testing, a complication that is certain to be raised by Mr. Baldwin’s defense. In order to test the gun, Mr. Haag replaced the damaged parts with new ones from the same type of gun.
In making their case before the grand jury, the prosecutors will have to contend with the fact that there was not supposed to be any live ammunition on the film set, and that both the film’s armorer and first assistant director had checked the gun before handing it to Mr. Baldwin. Ms. Morrissey said that her team believes a grand jury should make the decision “about the level of culpability of the person holding the gun in their hand.”
This is so fucking absurd.


An absolute waste of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...