Home

Fatal Movie Set Shooting

292 views

22 posts

Last post yesterday

Posted by The_Fool

      Pages

      Original post

      Couldn't find a thread on this.  Terrible what happened on New Mexico "Rust" set last week, when Alec Baldwin fatally shot the cinematographer, and wounded the director.  Somebody really messed up big time here.  With CGI do they really  need a real gun onset anymore?  I don't think so. And before anyone says CGI is expensive, (I heard it both ways), a human life is worth more.  Baldwin will be living with this the rest of his life, no matter whose fault it is, poor guy.

        LITTLE LAURA wrote:

        Couldn't find a thread on this.  Terrible what happened on New Mexico "Rust" set last week, when Alec Baldwin fatally shot the cinematographer, and wounded the director.  Somebody really messed up big time here.  With CGI do they really  need a real gun onset anymore?  I don't think so. And before anyone says CGI is expensive, (I heard it both ways), a human life is worth more.  Baldwin will be living with this the rest of his life, no matter whose fault it is, poor guy.

        There are so many unanswered questions but from what I have read so far, most lawyers thing Alec Baldwin as producer of this movie has criminal and or civil liablity.

          Yankeefan2 wrote:

          LITTLE LAURA wrote:

          Couldn't find a thread on this.  Terrible what happened on New Mexico "Rust" set last week, when Alec Baldwin fatally shot the cinematographer, and wounded the director.  Somebody really messed up big time here.  With CGI do they really  need a real gun onset anymore?  I don't think so. And before anyone says CGI is expensive, (I heard it both ways), a human life is worth more.  Baldwin will be living with this the rest of his life, no matter whose fault it is, poor guy.

          There are so many unanswered questions but from what I have read so far, most lawyers thing Alec Baldwin as producer of this movie has criminal and or civil liablity.

          Yes, but I hope the First Assistant Director who handed him the gun and said "cold gun" and the Armorer who loaded the gun are found culpable in some way. 

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-tuesday/index.html

            Nancy R wrote:

            Yes, but I hope the First Assistant Director who handed him the gun and said "cold gun" and the Armorer who loaded the gun are found culpable in some way. 

            On the BBC news this evening they said the armourer was a 24 year old former model......personally that wouldn't fill me with a great deal of confidence if I had been on set !!  

              Kestrel wrote:

              Nancy R wrote:

              Yes, but I hope the First Assistant Director who handed him the gun and said "cold gun" and the Armorer who loaded the gun are found culpable in some way. 

              On the BBC news this evening they said the armourer was a 24 year old former model......personally that wouldn't fill me with a great deal of confidence if I had been on set !!  

              This was only her 2nd movie as an armorer. Did you hear the interview she gave after her first movie where she said she almost didn't take the job because she didn't feel experienced enough?! Why the hell that gun was loaded with at least one real bullet is beyond me! Here's an article I came across:

              https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/what-s-a-prop-gun-and-why-are-real-guns-used-on-movie-sets-20211025-p592x3.html

                Nancy R wrote:

                This was only her 2nd movie as an armorer. Did you hear the interview she gave after her first movie where she said she almost didn't take the job because she didn't feel experienced enough?! Why the hell that gun was loaded with at least one real bullet is beyond me! Here's an article I came across:

                I do feel sorry for her and hopefully this kind of tragedy won't be allowed to happen again. Thanks for the link,its very informative and shows just how dangerous even firing blanks is. 

                  It's a good thing Alec didn't bring the prop gun to Paul's party or if he did, he didn't use it.

                    Something is very wrong with this scenario. The blanks were left outside of the building on a cart. There were a couple of other similar issues previously in this same movie and people had quit because of it. I'm wondering if someone had it out for Baldwin? The poor guy was wrecked over this.  More to come out for sure. 

                      Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                        LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                        Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                        Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                        https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                          Yankeefan2 wrote:

                          LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                          Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                          Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                          https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                          Yep! Why the heck did he even pull the trigger when the scene did not call for that?! It was a cascading effect of mistakes starting with live ammo loaded in the gun and then the Assistant Director handing him the gun instead of either the armorer or prop master and telling him it was a "cold gun." 

                            Nancy R wrote:

                            Yankeefan2 wrote:
                            LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                            Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                            Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                            https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                            Yep! Why the heck did he even pull the trigger when the scene did not call for that?! It was a cascading effect of mistakes starting with live ammo loaded in the gun and then the Assistant Director handing him the gun instead of either the armorer or prop master and telling him it was a "cold gun." 

                            Would love to hear Mr. Baldwin's answer to your question and bet the police/attorneys will ask it. BTW - did you see that idiot prosecutator in the Rittenhouse case point the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger. I was like OMG are you kidding me.  Lucky for him nobody in the jury freaked out !!

                              Yankeefan2 wrote:

                              Nancy R wrote:
                              Yankeefan2 wrote:
                              LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                              Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                              Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                              https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                              Yep! Why the heck did he even pull the trigger when the scene did not call for that?! It was a cascading effect of mistakes starting with live ammo loaded in the gun and then the Assistant Director handing him the gun instead of either the armorer or prop master and telling him it was a "cold gun." 

                              Would love to hear Mr. Baldwin's answer to your question and bet the police/attorneys will ask it. BTW - did you see that idiot prosecutator in the Rittenhouse case point the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger. I was like OMG are you kidding me.  Lucky for him nobody in the jury freaked out !!

                              No, I missed that! What an idiot! The rule is, even if you think a gun isn't loaded and it's "safe," never point a gun at anybody unless you plan to shoot them! 

                                Nancy R wrote:

                                Yankeefan2 wrote:
                                Nancy R wrote:
                                Yankeefan2 wrote:
                                LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                                Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                                Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                                https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                                Yep! Why the heck did he even pull the trigger when the scene did not call for that?! It was a cascading effect of mistakes starting with live ammo loaded in the gun and then the Assistant Director handing him the gun instead of either the armorer or prop master and telling him it was a "cold gun." 

                                Would love to hear Mr. Baldwin's answer to your question and bet the police/attorneys will ask it. BTW - did you see that idiot prosecutator in the Rittenhouse case point the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger. I was like OMG are you kidding me.  Lucky for him nobody in the jury freaked out !!

                                No, I missed that! What an idiot! The rule is, even if you think a gun isn't loaded and it's "safe," never point a gun at anybody unless you plan to shoot them! 

                                See link below. Just imagine being in that jury, freaking wow !!

                                https://thesource.com/2021/11/16/prosecutor-points-ar-15-rifle-at-jury-during-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial/

                                  Yankeefan2 wrote:

                                  Nancy R wrote:
                                  Yankeefan2 wrote:
                                  Nancy R wrote:
                                  Yankeefan2 wrote:
                                  LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                                  Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                                  Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                                  https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                                  Yep! Why the heck did he even pull the trigger when the scene did not call for that?! It was a cascading effect of mistakes starting with live ammo loaded in the gun and then the Assistant Director handing him the gun instead of either the armorer or prop master and telling him it was a "cold gun." 

                                  Would love to hear Mr. Baldwin's answer to your question and bet the police/attorneys will ask it. BTW - did you see that idiot prosecutator in the Rittenhouse case point the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger. I was like OMG are you kidding me.  Lucky for him nobody in the jury freaked out !!

                                  No, I missed that! What an idiot! The rule is, even if you think a gun isn't loaded and it's "safe," never point a gun at anybody unless you plan to shoot them! 

                                  See link below. Just imagine being in that jury, freaking wow !!

                                  https://thesource.com/2021/11/16/prosecutor-points-ar-15-rifle-at-jury-during-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial/

                                  Well, that didn't seem to affect the jury - not guilty on all counts! smh (were they not allowed to vote for manslaughter?) 

                                  How did this 17-year-old get the gun in the first place? And I heard tonight on Bill Maher's show that it was not illegal for him to take it across state lines! 

                                    "How did this 17-year-old get the gun in the first place? And I heard tonight on Bill Maher's show that it was not illegal for him to take it across state lines! "

                                    As much as I get some laughs from Bill Maher, he needs to know better. See below.

                                    "Perhaps the most persistent myth surrounding the case is the idea that Rittenhouse, then 17, brought an AR-15 across state lines. Rittenhouse lived about 20 minutes outside of Kenosha, in Antioch, Illinois. His Illinois residence helped spur rumors that the teenager traveled to Wisconsin with his rifle illegally in tow.

                                    But during his trial, Rittenhouse testified in court that he drove himself from his home in Illinois to Kenosha on August 24, 2020, the day before he fatally shot two men. The gun was already being stored at a friend's house in Kenosha, according to police records and court testimony." - Yahoo News.

                                    "Well, that didn't seem to affect the jury - not guilty on all counts! smh (were they not allowed to vote for manslaughter?)"

                                    Manslaughter was not one of the charges, see ABC link below.

                                    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-face-81141083

                                    Prosecutions own witnesses made the case for self defense, see below.

                                    "McGinniss described taking Joseph Rosenbaum to the hospital and his efforts to comfort him on the drive there even though the man was unresponsive. He promised to get a beer together once it was all over.

                                    His testimony served two objectives for the prosecution: shining a light on the violence wreaked by Rittenhouse’s weapon and the humanity of Rosenbaum, whose erratic behavior that night had become a major focal point for the defense.

                                    But under cross-examination by Rittenhouse’s defense counsel, the narrative began to shift.

                                    McGinniss, a video director for the Daily Caller, a conservative media outlet, told defense attorney Mark Richards that Rosenbaum appeared “very angry” as he screamed an expletive and lunged for the barrel of the teen’s gun.

                                    Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger then began to question his own witness aggressively, suggesting McGinniss had engaged in “complete guesswork” in speculating as to Rosenbaum’s intent.

                                    The question hit a nerve.

                                    “Well, he (Rosenbaum) said ‘Fuck you,’ and then he reached for the weapon,” McGinniss responded before bristling again at a question implying that he had offered a view on why Rosenbaum had lunged for the teenager’s gun."

                                    Another example below.

                                    "Using still images of the seconds before Rittenhouse fired a bullet into Grosskreutz’s arm, Chirafisi pressed the witness twice on what triggered the shot.

                                    “When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Chirafisi asked.

                                    “Correct,” Grosskreutz responded.

                                    “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?” Chirafisi continued.

                                    “Correct,” Grosskreutz said."

                                    IMO if somebody has a gun pointed at me I am not going to wonder what their intent is with the gun, I am worried about my life and will defend it. If somebody was cursing at me and reached to take a gun out of my hands, I am going to assume that not only do they not want me to have the gun but they may use it on me.  In other words, I am going to defend myself.  Now we can all question why a 17 year old boy is allowed out with gun during a riot and all I would say is it would not have happened if he was my child.

                                      It wasn't Bill Maher who said that, it was one of his guests. So who bought the gun? The kid should never have gone there in the first place and armed himself. It was a clusterf#$k waiting to happen! A guy named Larry Knight posted this on FB which I thought was interesting:

                                      From a military legal worker:

                                      I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

                                      Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

                                      That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

                                      Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

                                      First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. 

                                      This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

                                      However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

                                      While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

                                      If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

                                      He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country. 

                                      And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

                                      The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department. 

                                      I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

                                      First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings. 

                                      Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

                                      Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

                                      This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.

                                      May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

                                      This has been my Ted Talk.

                                       

                                      I didn't know that the guy he shot in the arm also had a gun. I agree with you, that was self-defense. 

                                      P.S. Why was he found not guilty of this?

                                      COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

                                        P.S. Why was he found not guilty of this?

                                        COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

                                          I remember this from a couple of years ago when Alex was worried about the "retaliation" to himself and his family. Retaliation worry a couple of years ago

                                            Yankeefan2 wrote:

                                            LITTLE LAURA wrote:

                                            Interesting idea.  I may raise hackles here, but the Trump camp were no fans of Baldwin.  Who knows, stranger things have happened:  like an actor (John Wilkes Boothe), shooting a President (Lincoln), in a theater.  Maybe a supporter of a certain President meant to shoot an actor (Baldwin) on a movie set?  In other words the bullet was meant for Baldwin?  But by a strange quirk of fate Baldwin ended up shooting the cinemaphotographer?  Like I said, stranger things have  happened.

                                            Really. See below.  I think Mr. Baldwin is going to have whole bunch of legal problems in the near future if any of this can be verified.

                                            https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-deadly-shot-on-rust-film-set-suit/

                                            Hmmmm...Alec appeared on TV interview last week, claiming he never even touched the trigger, but did admit to cocking the hammer of the gun. .And  that he wasn't pointing it at Hutchins, even thou in previous statements, he clearly said he was pointing the gun.  Which is it?  What precisely, is he trying to say?  That the gun fired by itself?  Another question I have is why was he in such a hurry to talk to Hutchin's husband?  If I had just accidently shot & killed somebody, the last person I'd want to see would be their spouse.  Not because I'm a coward, but because I'd be too ashamed.

                                              Pages