"I didn't pull the trigger."
Dec 3, 2021 08:54:57 #
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
It still goes back to the question of how and who brought LIVE ammunition onto the Rust movie set?
Without that LIVE ammunition, there likely wouldn't have been a death.
Who loaded the gun which discharged the LIVE ammunition?
Who FAILED to diligently check the gun which was handed to Alec Baldwin?
There were multiple safety precaution failures which occurred BEFORE Alec Baldwin was handed that gun.
Without that LIVE ammunition, there likely wouldn't have been a death.
Who loaded the gun which discharged the LIVE ammunition?
Who FAILED to diligently check the gun which was handed to Alec Baldwin?
There were multiple safety precaution failures which occurred BEFORE Alec Baldwin was handed that gun.
Others bear responsibility as well, but the gun fired in his hands.
Dec 3, 2021 09:14:04 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
He does bear responsibility. He should not giving public interviews at this juncture of the investigation. Dumb.
He has had adequate time to get his lawyers to give him the best answers and he is an actor remember poor Jussie Smolette?
Dec 3, 2021 09:19:00 #
JohnFrim wrote:
Alec Baldwin claims he only pulled the hammer back... and then let it go.
What say you gun experts... did he shoot the lady? Did he discharge the gun? We all know it was not intentional on his part, but does he bear responsibility? Or is this a good defence?
What say you gun experts... did he shoot the lady? Did he discharge the gun? We all know it was not intentional on his part, but does he bear responsibility? Or is this a good defence?
YOU have NO idea what was on his mind. He has never uttered an original thought so why trust him now? He had a gun in his hand that discharged and killed a human being. What is his "defenCe"? Ignorance is NOT a legal defense. The man killed a woman.
Dec 3, 2021 09:22:18 #
Curtis_Lowe wrote:
He has had adequate time to get his lawyers to give him the best answers and he is an actor remember poor Jussie Smolette?
The interview was premature period. If his lawyers approved of it—they were wrong.
Dec 3, 2021 09:28:24 #
davidrb wrote:
YOU have NO idea what was on his mind. He has never uttered an original thought so why trust him now? He had a gun in his hand that discharged and killed a human being. What is his "defenCe"? Ignorance is NOT a legal defense. The man killed a woman.
(Why would you question MY "correct" spelling of 'defence' ?" https://www.grammarly*.com/blog/defence-defense/)
Note: remove the '*' to go to the website; it is auto-blocked by UHH for some reason.
Dec 3, 2021 09:38:14 #
Shutterbug1697
Loc: Northeast
davidrb wrote:
... He had a gun in his hand that discharged and killed a human being. ...
A gun which supposedly had gone through several safety checks.
How did live ammunition end up in a stunt gun on a movie set where no live ammunition was supposed to be?
Dec 3, 2021 09:44:32 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
A gun which supposedly had gone through several safety checks.
How did live ammunition end up in a stunt gun on a movie set where no live ammunition was supposed to be?
How did live ammunition end up in a stunt gun on a movie set where no live ammunition was supposed to be?
It had been used earlier for plinking.
Dec 3, 2021 10:23:05 #
Baldwin, like a lot of folks, can't wait to "get his story into the public". Humans are that way, we like to communicate with others. The difference is that his Milky-Way-sized ego just won't allow for discretion.
On YouTube, there's a video made by a law professor (James Duane) at Regent Law School in Virginia. He explains very thoroughly why one should never talk to the police. And the top reason is not a person's guilt. I was also taught by a criminal lawyer when taking my Concealed Carry permit classes. He, too, advised the same. One of the reasons was that your words will be parsed by a prosecutor to the state's advantage. Never mind that your attorney will rebut, but the first words into your mind will make the biggest impression.
Baldwin will be hoisted on his own petard. And in civil court, he will likely be bankrupted. The complainants' attorneys will have a field day. His previous bad public behavior will also be admitted.
With due deference to Bugs Bunny - "What a maroon!"
On YouTube, there's a video made by a law professor (James Duane) at Regent Law School in Virginia. He explains very thoroughly why one should never talk to the police. And the top reason is not a person's guilt. I was also taught by a criminal lawyer when taking my Concealed Carry permit classes. He, too, advised the same. One of the reasons was that your words will be parsed by a prosecutor to the state's advantage. Never mind that your attorney will rebut, but the first words into your mind will make the biggest impression.
Baldwin will be hoisted on his own petard. And in civil court, he will likely be bankrupted. The complainants' attorneys will have a field day. His previous bad public behavior will also be admitted.
With due deference to Bugs Bunny - "What a maroon!"
Dec 3, 2021 10:24:39 #
thom w wrote:
It had been used earlier for plinking.
One more nail in the coffin. Sound judgement means never use props for real shooting. At some point someone's going to screw the pooch.
Dec 3, 2021 10:34:46 #
JohnFrim wrote:
Alec Baldwin claims he only pulled the hammer back... and then let it go.
What say you gun experts... did he shoot the lady? Did he discharge the gun? We all know it was not intentional on his part, but does he bear responsibility? Or is this a good defence?
What say you gun experts... did he shoot the lady? Did he discharge the gun? We all know it was not intentional on his part, but does he bear responsibility? Or is this a good defence?
Alec Baldwin is a liberal and too dumb to be holding a firearm. And true to form, when he did something stupid, he blames everyone else.
Dec 3, 2021 10:36:14 #
I think he is a typical scumbag Liberal who won't take responsibility for his actions and expects lying to get him out of it.
Dec 3, 2021 10:45:15 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
To late. He has locked himself into what he said at the interviews, which will be played at his trial.
It's not testimony given under oath....yet.
He is still the responsible party as he was holding the gun (sole person doing that) when the bullet left the chamber and killed someone.
As for his defense, he'd have to demonstrate that this type of gun is capable of firing without pulling the trigger. Good luck with that.
Of course one of his more popular films, Hunt for Red October, has him shooting a firearm. He can't really claim this lost babe in the woods innocence about firearms as used in the movies.
Dec 3, 2021 11:34:50 #
hondo812 wrote:
It's not testimony given under oath....yet. br br... (show quote)
If you want to see Baldwin at his "natural best", "The Hunt..." is not a good choice; he was really acting in it. For the "real" Baldwin, watch "Glengarry, Glen Ross" and "Miami Blues". He didn't have to do much acting in either one. Baldwin nears megalomania.
And yes, the armorer would have to be a moron to allow any firearm on set which could fire sans trigger pull.
Dec 3, 2021 11:46:56 #
Kraken wrote:
You didn't watch the interview.
No I didn't. What does that have to do with whether or not he pulled the hammer back and pointed a gun at someone. You don't even point guns that you know are not loaded at anyone.
Dec 3, 2021 12:18:28 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
Baldwin is a liar. The specific lies depend on, among other factors, mechanical details of the murder weapon Baldwin used.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.