Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

More to the Investigation..

Comments

36 comments

  • US Military Guy

    "This is similar to what assistant director Dave Halls told Baldwin on the day of the shooting, not realizing that a live round was in the gun he handed the actor before declaring it "cold.""


    So . . . he said it was empty "cold", but he didn't really know - or look - before saying so?

    0
  • Mr. Perfect

    Irrelevant.

    Baldwin took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them and killed them.

    24
  • Alpine

    Just because five people before Baldwin screwed up, he was the last one in a string of failures and the one that pulled the trigger.

    18
  • select-fire
    Mr. Perfect: 30631994113179/comments/30631973283099

    Irrelevant.

    Baldwin took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them and killed them.

    Hilarious. She shot herself in the foot and it isn't relevant to the investigation.

    0
  • select-fire

    Goes to show cause. They are all guilty.

    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    select-fire: 30631994113179/comments/30631985644315

    https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11303111#Comment_11303111

    Hilarious. She shot herself in the foot and it isn't relevant to the investigation.

    Yes. Unless it ricocheted and ended up being the bullet that killed the director, it's pretty irrelevant. In the same way it's irrelevant to you shooting your glove box.

    15
  • select-fire

    Nonsense again. Oh the old glove box response. For the hundredth Time.. I GOT A SETTLEMENT WITH THAT...

    0
  • select-fire

    Still waiting in Politics...on the thread you posted....Just what kind of Plan does the Govt. Have?

    0
  • select-fire

    are you some sort of insider that knows something about our Govt. what they plan on doing?

    0
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    Mr. Perfect: 30631994113179/comments/30631973283099

    Irrelevant.

    Baldwin took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them and killed them.

    Yep, bottom line. He who pulls the trigger up tight has taken all responsibility for the gun's hot or cold status. No different that driving a commercial truck. It doesn't matter who worked on that truck, or who loaded it. When you climb into the driver'd seat, and push the starter button, you are signing off that the truck and it's load are fit for operation upon public roadways.

    9
  • Mr. Perfect
    select-fire: 30631994113179/comments/30631995553435

    are you some sort of insider that knows something about our Govt. what they plan on doing?

    Nope. I just read what they tell us they are doing.

    0
  • allen griggs

    The gal who shot herself in the foot did so with a blank round. the reporter was unsure if she was injured. At a distance of 36 inches, could you get injured being shot with a blank?

    0
  • fatcat458
    Mr. Perfect: 30631994113179/comments/30631973283099

    Irrelevant.

    Baldwin took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them and killed them.

    That's RIGHT Mr. P.

    Baldwin pointed the gun. Pulled the trigger. Not the Armorer. Not the camera man. Not the sound man.

    Not Baldi's mama, sister, brother, OR the horse he rode in on. lt was Baldwin, only Baldwin. NOBODY ELSE

    6
  • jimdeere

    Look up “ the hand of one is the hand of all” legal premise.

    0
  • allen griggs

    massive civil suit. the lawyer i know says in excess of $16 million. he says no criminal charges against baldwin, but felony charges against the assistant director.


    we shall see, but the civil case will be settled out of court. baldwins attorneys dont want this going before a jury.

    0
  • Merlinnv12

    On the other hand, in the aircraft world, the inspector who authorized my airplane is responsible if something goes wrong and I end up hurting someone/something. Unless it is proven that I was totally negligent in the damage caused, the eyes turn toward anyone who worked on or certified the airplane as “safe to operate “.

    Therefore, the armorer and the assistant director who authorized Baldwin to operation the said firearm could be more liable than Baldwin himself. He relied on the experts as I would rely on the aircraft mechanics, (providing I knew zilch about airplanes) who said “good to go”.

    As far as aiming goes, he probably didn’t give a rip about where the firearm was pointed as long as the camera got the shot somewhat straight ahead into the camera, give or take a few degrees left or right. She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time..

    3
  • select-fire

    Merlin12, I learned that as an Aerospace Inspector real quick. When you " Sign off " on a part and certify it is correct you could be the one responsible for lives if the aircraft were to crash. And as you well know... every part has a marking on it from where it came from. They can be traced back to the operator who made the part and the samples of the material in which they were made.

    0
  • Mobuck

    I still don't understand why or how ANY gun loaded with 'live ammo' could/would be allowed on a movie set for ANY reason.

    Blanks? Yeah, that's understandable but actual live ammo loaded in a gun on the set?? Someone needs to answer this question.

    I've been the 'range officer' on several occasions when inexperienced people were handling firearms so I know procedures and safeguards but this whole scenario is suspicious.

    6
  • allen griggs

    Yes, there is no reason for a live cartridge to be on a movie set.

    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    jimdeere: 30631994113179/comments/30631987068827

    Look up “ the hand of one is the hand of all” legal premise.

    It wouldn't seem to apply unless the prop gal had an inkling that Baldwin was going to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. It applies to scenarios like holding the driver of a getaway car guilty of a bank robbery if they were a party to the planning, and, for example, not to a taxi driver that's clueless he's driving a bank robber.

    0
  • Ruger4me

    Oh come on folks, we all know it was the guns fault!

    6
  • cbxjeff

    Right Riger4me . How long before I read that the firearm mfgr is being sued too?

    3
  • select-fire
    Mr. Perfect: 30631994113179/comments/30632017552795

    https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11303197#Comment_11303197

    It wouldn't seem to apply unless the prop gal had an inkling that Baldwin was going to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. It applies to scenarios like holding the driver of a getaway car guilty of a bank robbery if they were a party to the planning, and, for example, not to a taxi driver that's clueless he's driving a bank robber.

    Not your theory.... In fact I would not be surprised if Baldwin Sues the armorer for giving him a gun that was not as described... Cold Gun.

    0
  • Mr. Perfect

    Of course it's not my theory. I never claimed it was. If Baldwin sues based on that he will lose. That's ludicrous.

    0
  • hillbille
    select-fire: 30631994113179/comments/

    https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11303303#Comment_11303303

    Not your theory.... In fact I would not be surprised if Baldwin Sues the armorer for giving him a gun that was not as described... Cold Gun.

    I thought the director gave him the pistol and said it was cold??????

    0
  • select-fire
    Mr. Perfect: 30631994113179/comments/

    Of course it's not my theory. I never claimed it was. If Baldwin sues based on that he will lose. That's ludicrous.

    That is funny. However he was the actor and given the gun to perform his action to practice. Whomever loaded that gun for him is responsible and caused him mental anguish the rest of his life. That lawsuit would include him possibly not ever being able to perform acting which would include his income the rest of his lifetime.

    0
  • mogley98
    fatcat458: 30631994113179/comments/30631974880539

    https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11303111#Comment_11303111

    That's RIGHT Mr. P.

    Baldwin pointed the gun. Pulled the trigger. Not the Armorer. Not the camera man. Not the sound man.

    Not Baldi's mama, sister, brother, OR the horse he rode in on. lt was Baldwin, only Baldwin. NOBODY ELSE

    I have to disagree, actors I would guess almost all of them have limited to NO knowledge of firearms, the reason an armorer is on the set is to be the responsible party. If an actor is given a prop knife to stab someone with and it turns out it either didn't work correctly or wasn't the correct prop is that the actors fault? Lets go a step farther is the Doctor who gave you an injection of a rushed vaccine guilty if it turns out to be bad stuff?

    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    mogley98: 30631994113179/comments/

    https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11303186#Comment_11303186

    I have to disagree, actors I would guess almost all of them have limited to NO knowledge of firearms, the reason an armorer is on the set is to be the responsible party. If an actor is given a prop knife to stab someone with and it turns out it either didn't work correctly or wasn't the correct prop is that the actors fault? Lets go a step farther is the Doctor who gave you an injection of a rushed vaccine guilty if it turns out to be bad stuff?

    To answer your questions:

    1) yes

    2) yes

    12
  • mogley98

    Having worked on an actual film set as an armorer (All for Liberty) I can tell you when an actor is handed a firearm and told it is cold he fully assumes it is. Sort of like a kid in boot camp being handed a grenade and told it is cold to toss it. We will just have to disagree on this, but I find regardless of personal preferences for Baldwin he isn't guilty of anything. The armorer is fully responsible and the assistant director who handled the gun with or without the Armorers OK is also guilty.

    My .02 won't change.

    0
  • allen griggs

    i am with you Mogley, the fault is with the Bimbo armorer, and with the assistant director. And it is those two who will get criminal indictment.

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity