Jump to content

Things Not Going Well for Alec Baldwin


ousuxndallas

Recommended Posts

What if we focused 5% of our movie-set firearm safety input into actual nationwide firearm safety?  I'm guessing just a modicum of this effort could translate into thousands of lives saved each year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I can't imagine how broken your brain has to be to come up with a deranged take like this. Like, fuck Alec Baldwin, he sucks and it's fun to dunk on him, but this isn't his fault. The armorer and whoever else may have handled/inspected the gun before the scene shooting bear the responsibility. It's really pathetic to try and pin this horrible tragedy on a dude just because you disagree with his political stance. I wouldn't wish accidentally killing someone on my worst enemy, it has to destroy you for life. For once in your life, have a little empathy and don't be a pathetic little worm.

How is it not Alec Baldwin's fault? He pulled the fucking trigger while aiming the gun in an unsafe direction where people were standing and while practicing his "quick draw" when they weren't even filming the scene. You must be dense. And furthermore he is the one who didn't hire the appropriate personnel because he is cheap and didn't want to spend the money on his low budget shitty movie. That is why proper safety protocols weren't used. It is his fucking fault and he will likely get the shit sued out of him. Hopefully he will face criminal charges for negligence as well. I don't care if you like my opinion or not. Fuck you and Alec Baldwin

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what alphabetic characters you're reading, but I see little to no one circling the wagons for AB. He's a celebrity and most could give a fuck what happens to him. You're reading what you want here. Of course he is as fault, assuming reports of lax safety protocols and cutting of corners are true. But we don't really know shit yet, so I'll wait and reserve judgement for when the dust settles. I certainly don't understand deriving any glee from the situation.

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

10 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't know what alphabetic characters you're reading, but I see little to no one circling the wagons for AB. He's a celebrity and most could give a fuck what happens to him. You're reading what you want here. Of course he is as fault, assuming reports of lax safety protocols and cutting of corners are true. But we don't really know shit yet, so I'll wait and reserve judgement for when the dust settles. I certainly don't understand deriving any glee from the situation.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Between the two threads you have about 30 posts in the last 24 hours about Alec Baldwin, with possibly one or two containing original thought where you aren't just repeating yourself.  Somebody's life tragically ended prematurely and you just can't contain your glee because it happened at the hands of somebody who votes differently than you. 

 

It's not the best look.

he's had a rough couple of days. i dunno what's going on, but i hope it gets better for him. 

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

Yes. Objecting to your lying about this incident for plainly political reasons is not the same as endorsing Baldwin. BTW, negged your latest lie above.

 Persisting in defamatory lying in the face of evidence pointing to the actual truth is more along the lines of whatever it is you think you're talking about regarding wagon circling. All future lies on this thread will be negged without comment.     

Quote

he's had a rough couple of days. i dunno what's going on, but i hope it gets better for him. 

 

 You're a better person than I.

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

3 hours ago, immortal13 said:

...

What did you post and then delete you chicken shit? I see you negged my posting of news that Don Jr was selling the tasteless t-shirts on his website. I didn't offer any commentary other than the link. (Well, I guess I called him DOTARD's "demon spawn" but that's simply a fact too.)

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what the easiest thing to do here is?   Understand that several adults fucked up and consequences will be dealt out.   I don't get the vitriol.   I'm no AB fan.  I think he's a decent actor but has proven time and again that he's a shitty person.  He fucked up.   The armorer fucked up.    People die every day in this country because gun safety rules aren't followed. 

But nothing is going change.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really tragic situation.  Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident.

I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.

Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets.  Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules.  However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety. 

Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not.

From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film.  If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace.  If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc.  There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including:

1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie)

2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie)

3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint)

4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors.

5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using.

6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire.

From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy.  The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed.  I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis.  Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability.  However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability.

From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2021 at 5:14 PM, RomaVicta said:

Ahem.

Junior with freshly removed elephant tail. He'd just killed it. Intentionally and with pride.

spacer.png

Forbes defended him as an upright guy who legally got the kill. I guess the last part is right. Forbes reported that the elephants were overpopulating this area of Zimbabwe. Instead of spending some money to find a way to preserve them, Junior indulges himself by killing one instead.

Anybody here wish they were in that picture?

Quote

When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick – one never does when a shot goes home – but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Gun Nuts when Alec Baldwin shoots someone accidentally: "ThIS IS whY GUns sHouLd Be ReGulated AnD treaTEd WItH ReSpECT! i can't beLiEvBe THIs hOllYWood LiBERAl WoULD uSe a gun What A dUMMy! ThErE sHOULD be a LAw"

Gun Nuts when a kid is shot in a school: "¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

or in a church. or a walmart. or a movie theater. or a night club. or a king sooper. or a temple. or a concert.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.

I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.

Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd. 

Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.

Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.

This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.

I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crim Pro was the only 'A' I got in law school.  /csb

Seriously the amount of manhours we've spent as a nation on this gun safety on set issue...it's interesting and all, but if we could dedicate just a portion of it to actual national gun safety.  Just imagine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Crim Pro was the only 'A' I got in law school.  /csb

Seriously the amount of manhours we've spent as a nation on this gun safety on set issue...it's interesting and all, but if we could dedicate just a portion of it to actual national gun safety.  Just imagine...

I drew two of the worst (from a potential of receiving a bad grade) as a 1L; "Dr. D" (for obvious reasons) for Contracts and "Captain Hook" for Crim Law.  He was known as "Captain Hook" because he gave so many students a "C".  There was a story floating around that one student went to visit him after receiving a C and asked why.  His response was to pull out and read from the grading classifications "C - Completely Acceptable".  /csb

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

Gun Nuts when Alec Baldwin shoots someone accidentally: "ThIS IS whY GUns sHouLd Be ReGulated AnD treaTEd WItH ReSpECT! i can't beLiEvBe THIs hOllYWood LiBERAl WoULD uSe a gun What A dUMMy! ThErE sHOULD be a LAw"

Gun Nuts when a kid is shot in a school: "¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

I haven't heard anyone mention regulations. What what have saved Alec from shooting people?

Shooters in school is there to shoot people, and no one else protect themselves. I'm still waiting for the blood in Texas colleges though from all those guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

I haven't heard anyone mention regulations. What what have saved Alec from shooting people?

Paying workers fairly and giving them decent working conditions so they didn't have to hire scabs which leads to improper safety procedures on set would have been a start.

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

18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Paying workers fairly and giving them decent working conditions so they didn't have to hire scabs which leads to improper safety procedures on set would have been a start.

Glad to hear you're so pro-union. 

I haven't read where the presence of scabs contributed to the accident.

I was using the term "line producer" earlier which is correct. The term I was actually looking for was Unit Production Manager. Here's an LA Time article about the things you mention:

LA Times

There is no excuse for lax safety in any area related to movie making. Most low budget films do have brutal schedules and are tight with money. They are often not signatories to guild and union agreements.

In this case, it looks like there was a desire to do the right thing by hiring union, but that desire faded in the face of rising costs likely due to poor/unrealistic planning. You can always exploit someone who is non-union, and that's the way it looks like the decision makers on Rust decided to go.

It is shocking that complaints had already been made about firearms safety with no remedy.

I will say that I don't see how Baldwin, who was both handling guns and likely having them pointed in his direction during filming, felt he or anyone could benefit from lax safety.

I'll also repeat for the last time that the creative team including actors are charged with the logistics or administration of non creative elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.

Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd. 

Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.

Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.

This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.

I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.

 

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?

Lovely.  Typical.  Somehow my comment of a realistic chance at civil liability and a "it is possible, he has some criminal liability." gets turned into:

  "The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd."  Never did I even suggest that criminal charges were likely.  This is especially comical and unwittingly ironic coming from the guy that seems to think he is the self appointed schoolmarm of the board and negs anyone he thinks is lying or stretching the truth.  

So I did a 5 minute google search and found 5 "legal experts" that are saying the exact same thing I am saying.  I suppose they might not have passed criminal law either (I certainly did not as I am not an attorney).

I fully admit I have no idea who these people are except that they appear to be fairly well known lawyers, including a former US Attorney.  They, exactly like me, say AB would very likely not get prosecuted criminally for the actual act of the shooting (although they say it is possible) but much more likely in his role as producer on a set where, again if the stories are found to be true, there was intentional cutting of safety corners and disregard for safety procedures.  As I did more research, there are stories that AB's stuntman accidentally discharged a gun twice in the days leading up to the deadly shooting and that members of the crew sent notices about it to production folks, including Baldwin (and the notion that AB's stuntman could have accidentally discharged a supposed "cold gun" and AB not know about it is preposterous.)

Neama Rahmani, from the personal injury firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, told USA Today that charges could be filed against Baldwin.

“Let’s say it was loaded with a blank, but Baldwin himself was criminally negligent and shot it from close range, even though it wasn’t a live round. Then he could be held liable,” Rahmani said.

“Assuming it was just incompetence or a colossal mistake, that rises to the level of criminal negligence, which would be sufficient for a manslaughter prosecution.”

Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman, said the issue goes beyond Baldwin.

“Proper compliance with safety issues on the set will be a large, general question that will be asked that may have a huge impact on any potential legal matters that may come from this case,” she said.

“And then on the worst side of the scale, you could have potential criminal issues that would range from criminal negligence to intentional acts that may have caused this tragedy.”

"There's certainly a chance that the authorities say this was such a dangerous operation that whoever's in charge, including the producer, are somehow criminally liable," Ring says, although he adds, "That's a much more difficult case to prove. We're talking about intent."

Albuquerque criminal-defense attorney Erlinda Johnson tells PEOPLE involuntary manslaughter charges could potentially be brought — including against Baldwin. "Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds," says Johnson. Beyond criminal liability, she adds, "there's a lot of civil liability here. It's going to be a nightmare for [people involved with the movie]."

US attorney Joseph Costa suggested this week that Baldwin himself could be charged because of his producer role in the film.

‘As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,’ he said.

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

Lovely.  Typical.  Somehow my comment of a realistic chance at civil liability and a "it is possible, he has some criminal liability." gets turned into:
  "The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd."  Never did I even suggest that criminal charges were likely.  This is especially comical and unwittingly ironic coming from the guy that seems to think he is the self appointed schoolmarm of the board and negs anyone he thinks is lying or stretching the truth.  
So I did a 5 minute google search and found 5 "legal experts" that are saying the exact same thing I am saying.  I suppose they might not have passed criminal law either (I certainly did not as I am not an attorney).
I fully admit I have no idea who these people are except that they appear to be fairly well known lawyers, including a former US Attorney.  They, exactly like me, say AB would very likely not get prosecuted criminally for the actual act of the shooting (although they say it is possible) but much more likely in his role as producer on a set where, again if the stories are found to be true, there was intentional cutting of safety corners and disregard for safety procedures.  As I did more research, there are stories that AB's stuntman accidentally discharged a gun twice in the days leading up to the deadly shooting and that members of the crew sent notices about it to production folks, including Baldwin (and the notion that AB's stuntman could have accidentally discharged a supposed "cold gun" and AB not know about it is preposterous.)

Neama Rahmani, from the personal injury firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, told USA Today that charges could be filed against Baldwin.

“Let’s say it was loaded with a blank, but Baldwin himself was criminally negligent and shot it from close range, even though it wasn’t a live round. Then he could be held liable,” Rahmani said.

“Assuming it was just incompetence or a colossal mistake, that rises to the level of criminal negligence, which would be sufficient for a manslaughter prosecution.”

Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman, said the issue goes beyond Baldwin.

“Proper compliance with safety issues on the set will be a large, general question that will be asked that may have a huge impact on any potential legal matters that may come from this case,” she said.

“And then on the worst side of the scale, you could have potential criminal issues that would range from criminal negligence to intentional acts that may have caused this tragedy.”

"There's certainly a chance that the authorities say this was such a dangerous operation that whoever's in charge, including the producer, are somehow criminally liable," Ring says, although he adds, "That's a much more difficult case to prove. We're talking about intent."
Albuquerque criminal-defense attorney Erlinda Johnson tells PEOPLE involuntary manslaughter charges could potentially be brought — including against Baldwin. "Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds," says Johnson. Beyond criminal liability, she adds, "there's a lot of civil liability here. It's going to be a nightmare for [people involved with the movie]."
US attorney Joseph Costa suggested this week that Baldwin himself could be charged because of his producer role in the film.
‘As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,’ he said.

You know how I know you didn’t pass criminal law?
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Glad to hear you're so pro-union. 

I haven't read where the presence of scabs contributed to the accident.

I was using the term "line producer" earlier which is correct. The term I was actually looking for was Unit Production Manager. Here's an LA Time article about the things you mention:

LA Times

There is no excuse for lax safety in any area related to movie making. Most low budget films do have brutal schedules and are tight with money. They are often not signatories to guild and union agreements.

In this case, it looks like there was a desire to do the right thing by hiring union, but that desire faded in the face of rising costs likely due to poor/unrealistic planning. You can always exploit someone who is non-union, and that's the way it looks like the decision makers on Rust decided to go.

It is shocking that complaints had already been made about firearms safety with no remedy.

I will say that I don't see how Baldwin, who was both handling guns and likely having them pointed in his direction during filming, felt he or anyone could benefit from lax safety.

I'll also repeat for the last time that the creative team including actors are charged with the logistics or administration of non creative elements.

I am very pro-union.

I don't actually know for sure if scabs were responsible. I'm just assuming based on the reports of how unprofessional/lackadaisical things were on the set amongst the crew, that having workers that maybe aren't as used to working on sets like this could have contributed to the lax attitude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

Lovely.  Typical.  Somehow my comment of a realistic chance at civil liability and a "it is possible, he has some criminal liability." gets turned into:

  "The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd."  Never did I even suggest that criminal charges were likely.  This is especially comical and unwittingly ironic coming from the guy that seems to think he is the self appointed schoolmarm of the board and negs anyone he thinks is lying or stretching the truth.  

 

 

Quote

From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

Lovely. Typical. The above quote from you is what you bring up about criminal charges.

Reconcile the bolded statements or call me a schoolmarm. Whichever is your intellectual speed.

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

32 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I am very pro-union.

I don't actually know for sure if scabs were responsible. I'm just assuming based on the reports of how unprofessional/lackadaisical things were on the set amongst the crew, that having workers that maybe aren't as used to working on sets like this could have contributed to the lax attitude.

Compliments for maintaining a better tone than I did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Lovely. Typical. The above quote from you is what you bring up about criminal charges.

Reconcile the bolded statements or call me a schoolmarm. Whichever is your intellectual speed.

Umm...I made a prediction?  Making predications about whether the sun will rise are not really any fun.  Making predictions about things that most people realize, and even I think, are unlikely but I  just have a feeling might happen are more fun.

And I stand by it.  How about a wager?  If AB is either charged with or pleads to a criminal charge in this case in the next 6 months you agree to a 30 day moratorium on posting on Surly.  If not, I will.

The reason for my prediction is I think there is going to be tremendous pressure on the DA in this case, especially as more news comes to light.  There will be tremendous pressure from the victim's family.  There will be political pressure from those opposed to AB's views.  There will be tremendous pressure from film safety advocacy groups to make an example out of AB for running a loose set and ignoring standard/required safety guidelines.  I think at the end of the day the DA will be faced with the following:

I think it will be clearly established that AB was an executive producer, co-writer, investor, leading actor and generally the one on set who was making all of the decisions.  It was supposedly his "passion" project and I think in depositions that virtually everyone on set will say that AB was in charge. Assuming that, there are just a lot of questions he is going to have to answer for.   

1) As the one in charge, did you cut corners in your armorer/prop team? There is already a guy who has publicly stated he turned down the role of the armorer for the project because they were cutting too many safety corners and trying to rely on a scaled down team, especially for a "western" that involved a lot of guns. That is not going to help.

2) Do you agree that live ammo should never be on a movie set?  Were you aware that people were using the prop guns for target practice with live ammo?  What action did you take to remove the live ammo from the set and what type of reprimands did you hand out to those that were shooting live ammo?  There are multiple reports of people using the prop guns for target practice.  The armorer has stated in an affidavit that no live ammo was allowed on the set.  The police have seized lots and lots of ammo.

3) Were you aware that your stuntman had possibly 2 instances of a "cold gun" firing accidentally on set days before the fatal accident?  What did you do to address those issues going forward?  Did you fire anyone?  Did you institute stricter rules for the guns?  Did you mandate any safety meetings about gun safety after the mishaps?

4) At the time of the actual shooting, knowing about all of the previous issues we addressed above (reports of target shooting and accidental discharges by your stuntman) did you put in place any additional safety protocols?  Why did you ignore industry safety and SAG rules about using live guns in a rehearsal?  Why didn't you personally check the gun in question yourself considering the problems that had already occurred?  Why did you point the gun directly at a human which is against every industry regulation? 

The more I think about this the more I think he will be charged with something.  Of course much of this is entirely speculation.  But, just for fun, how about we stipulate that what I wrote above is all true.  If so, do you still think he won't be charged and do you think he should be?

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

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

And I stand by it.  How about a wager?  If AB is either charged with or pleads to a criminal charge in this case in the next 6 months you agree to a 30 day moratorium on posting on Surly.  If not, I will.

Lol being a top 3 worst poster on this site is all he’s got. No way he’ll take that bet. 

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

On 10/27/2021 at 4:27 PM, sheeeit said:

‘As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,’ he said.

producer, not exec producer.  an executive producer would likely never step foot on set and most likely would have zero knowledge of anything happening on the set.

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

On 10/27/2021 at 9:43 PM, fattyflattie said:

Lol being a top 3 worst poster on this site is all he’s got. No way he’ll take that bet. 

I hadn't even noticed the silly wager offer.

As a "top 3 worst poster" (nice usage), I'll accept the label of beta from all but the two "top" worst posters below me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LW Goatman said:

Think of the scene from summer vacation where the mechanic tells Chevy “mr you must have shit for brains”. 
 

Who points a gun at anyone, doesn’t check to see if it’s loaded, then triples down and pulls the trigger. 

Actors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 2:45 PM, hobbes2702 said:

Actors

Which is a wtf moment. Most of them are liberal types who hate guns, unless it promotes their bottom line.

Then they don’t have the common sense to clear a firearm?

My daughter is 8 and would’ve avoided that accident.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...