Re: Alec Baldwin comits murder

[The Starmaker]

In a movie, ain't you suppose to shoot...actors????


I mean, I can understand he may have wanted to kill the director
instead...

with a hot gun...

even a water gun...


he could have fired the director, he didn't have to try and kill him.


Okay, give him three days in jail, killed the wrong person.


What difference does it make if it was just an accident? Lots of
people are in jail for ...accidents...even High Class people.


Okay, he's High Class people...give him 12 hours in jail.


You are guilty un till proven innocent, right?








On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:00:38 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:30:19 -0700, The Starmaker
>><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:43:58 -0700, The Starmaker
>>><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT), "Brainless Turd Joe B."
>>>><jth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lock him up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>he's got a High Class problem...
>>>>
>>>>(his lawyers are going to charge him double now)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A Perfect Murder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>check the bullet for finger prints....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't point a gun at somebody unless you intend to kill them...
>>>
>>>this is MURDER!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>give him 5-10 years negligent homicide.
>>>
>>>
>>>AT LEAST ONE FUCKING DAY IN JAIL FOR CHRIST SAKE!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>These things happen for a reason...
>>>
>>>even if you don't understand the reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>ever point a water gun at a kids face? you intended to kill him,
>>didn't you, didn't you, didn't you, didn't you, ?
>>
>>sure you did.
>>
>>
>>I say check the bullet for Alec Baldwin's fingerprints.
>>
>>
>>If it has his fingerprints on it...charge with ...MURDER One!
>>
>>
>>let him hang himself in jail...
>>
>>
>>you are guilty until proven innocent, right? Isn't that how it works?
>>Ask her parents.
>
>Go after the producer of the movie also....wats his name? Alec
>Baldwin.
>
>Oh, he's fucked!
>
>
>Give him two days in jail.
>
>
>Her parents are going to clean him out!!!!
>
>
>They hit the lottery!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

I mean, Alec Baldwin could be mentally screwed up you
knowwhatimean...like Biden..not know where he's at or sayin?


There are a lot of mentally screwed up people in this world...even
among these newsgroups.


Alec Baldwin could have lost touch with reality like Biden, ...might
have been drunk on the set...on pills.


Fuck him, hang him.


Guilty!




Her parents are probably thinking..."Guess What, we're buying a new
house! (if the lawyers don't rob us)


Their lawyer is probably thinking ...."Guess What, I'm buying a new
house!



They should finish the movie...The Show Must Go On.



"Here's the gun Alec, you better check it first if I was you."


"Don't point dat at me!"


"I wanna see if it works."


"Don't point dat at me!"
"Don't point dat at me!"
"Don't point dat at me!"


POW!

"Somebody gave me a hot gun!!!!"















On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:15:00 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

You think Hollywood people are sayin "Oh my gawd, this is terrible, this is a terrible accident."

Nawwwwhh, THEY ARE LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF!!!

Who will be the first to make a joke about it on TVEEE?


Trump is probably laughing right now!


It's sooooo funny.




In Hollywood they are sayin...

"OH HE'S FUCKED!"
"NO, HE'S TOTALLY FUCKED!"
"NO, HE'S FUCKED LEFT AND RIGHT!"
"NO, FUCKED UPSIDEDOWN!"

and Baldwin is saying "I'M FUCKED!!!!"

His brother calls him up..."YOU'RE FUCKED MAN!"

Baldwin lawyers are saying..."OH, WE ARE GING TO FUCK HIM BAD!!!!"

Baldwin calls up his lawyer..."How much is this going to cost?"




Lawyers: "You may have to pay a fine, but don't worry you won't do any time."


aLEC: "How much is this going to cost?"


Lawyers: "YOU'RE FUCKED!"

to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

Okay, do you know what the part Alec Badlwin was playing in the movie
about? It's about...accidental MURDER. Coincidence??



On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:31:04 -0700, The Starmaker

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 10/23/21 1:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> You think Hollywood people are sayin "Oh my gawd, this is terrible, this is a terrible accident."
>
> Nawwwwhh, THEY ARE LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF!!!
>
> Who will be the first to make a joke about it on TVEEE?
>
>
> Trump is probably laughing right now!
>
>
> It's sooooo funny.
>
>
>
>
> In Hollywood they are sayin...
>
> "OH HE'S FUCKED!"
> "NO, HE'S TOTALLY FUCKED!"
> "NO, HE'S FUCKED LEFT AND RIGHT!"
> "NO, FUCKED UPSIDEDOWN!"
>
> and Baldwin is saying "I'M FUCKED!!!!"
>
> His brother calls him up..."YOU'RE FUCKED MAN!"
>
> Baldwin lawyers are saying..."OH, WE ARE GING TO FUCK HIM BAD!!!!"
>
> Baldwin calls up his lawyer..."How much is this going to cost?"
>
>
>
>
> Lawyers: "You may have to pay a fine, but don't worry you won't do any time."
>
>
> aLEC: "How much is this going to cost?"
>
>
> Lawyers: "YOU'RE FUCKED!"
>

Just like real life, no one should trust a Democrat enough to hand them
a gun....

They should use things that are FAKE GUNS the same way they use FAKE
BOMBS and FAKE NEWS and FAKE HISTORY and FAKE SEX and FAKE RATINGS.

TRUSTING DEMOCRATS WITH REAL STUFF is just insane.

That's karma,

Democrats attempt at mandated assimilation is futile, a successful
resistance is inevitable.


*We don't need to test for the WUHAN virus we need to test for a*
*suppressed immune system* and the people with immune system problems
need the VIRUS PASSPORTS, NOT the rest of us who are healthy. And it's
not only the elderly who have low functioning immune systems, also
people with HIV/AIDS and others, which may be why those groups have the
most issues with the virus and/or the vaccine.
https://www.brighteon.com/1a421368-d95b-4aa9-9c42-01a8c91ed41e

[The Starmaker]

Forget about the fingerprints on the bullets, she took the bullets out
of the gun before giving the gun to the police.

[The Starmaker]

So, Alec Baldwin shoots cameras doesn't he?


This is going to be bigger than...OJ.


It's like charging the queen of England with...Murder.



On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:33:37 -0700, The Starmaker

to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

The Truth is...
people rather focus on
less complex stories
like Movie Stars than
criminal complex organizations
like The Biden Administration.


On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:36:48 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Alec Baldwin mistake was...he impersonated Donald Trump on TV.

God will get him for that.



God did.


God watches TV too..







On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:52:32 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

But, there is no mention from anyone what was the particle that
entered her stomach...was it a real bullet? You know, the one with a
sort of round metal tip over the shell...

no mentioned of the bullet which should have been removed by now and
examined even in cowboy movies.


They are hiding that information, ain't they?


Is the shell missing???


Who is doing the investigation, the FBI?? Forget it then, they hide
everything!

Guilty until proven innocent.


If Spike Lee was the actor and producer he'd be in the electric chair
by now.












On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:33:15 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

of course if I'm going to put a real bullet in a real gun and have it
handed to Baldwin, I make sure I have gloves on.

I don't want my fingerprints on the bullet or shell.

I learn from watching Columbo on tveee





On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:32:01 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

So, in court they will ask Alec Baldwin...

"Did you check the gun to make sure it was safe?"

He'll say..."I'm High Class, I'm Royalty, I don't have to do that. I
pay people to do that!

"Did you check the gun to make sure it was safe?" "Yes or No?"

"Say hello to my little friend!"







On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:32:01 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Of course, If I was Alec Baldwin...I would be hiring a "Fixer" to fix
the problem.

You know, somebody to bribe the New Mexico judge, DA and the
prosecutor.

Pay a little fine, but no time.

Fixed.

A Fixer is somebody who knows how to bribe a judge, make sure the
money gets into the judges hands...

I'm sure the assigned judge to the case is waiting anxiously for his
money.

The judge is thinking, "I'm going to my mistress a new car!"


The DA in New Mexico is screaming..."WHERE IS MY FUCKING MONEY!!!!"


everybody got's their hands out...


I'm sure Hunter Biden is calling Alec, "I can fix this for you. MY
FATHER IS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!"


Come to the art show...








On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:32:01 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Alec Baldwin needs a scapegoat...who is it going to be????


On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:11:17 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

If you can shoot two people with one bullet that's considered ...good
shooting!


Seems everybody held the gun except for...alec baldwin.


That means alec bladwin will just pay a fine...no jail time.


all the little people are going to prison.


the low class people.


fuck'em, right?


How does one get a get out of jail free card???

u gotta pay the judge, the DA...who else?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFac_6_Ek2w





On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:57:33 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

The only person that I see that will do some time is the assistant
director, Hall.

The guy that said "cold gun", and handed the gun to Alec.




On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:57:33 -0700, The Starmaker

[%]

and a partridge in a pair tree

[The Starmaker]

Now everybody wants a piece of the pie!

everybody wants to sue Baldwin..

but, wat about dat rapper at the crush concert, nine dead!

Easy hundred million dollar suit, including others who want a piece of
the pie....


will he sing again????







On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:00:58 -0700, The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

What does Alec Baldwin mean when he said he didn't pull the
trigger????

Sounds like he means "I got a smart lawyer".


The gun did it. Arrest the gun!

arrest the bullet..


it went ...off!

The gun went off by itself!


dat sounds like a good defense.


Put that gun in solitary confinement!

The gun sez..."NO, NO, NO, IT WASN'T ME!" "HE FUCKIN PULLED THE
TRIGGER!!!"

i seen gun talk in cartoons...


On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 19:50:34 -0700, The Starmaker

[Ubiquitous]

star...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>What does Alec Baldwin mean when he said he didn't pull the
>trigger????
>
>Sounds like he means "I got a smart lawyer".
>
>
>The gun did it. Arrest the gun!
>
>arrest the bullet..
>
>
>it went ...off!
>
>The gun went off by itself!
>
>
>dat sounds like a good defense.
>
>
>Put that gun in solitary confinement!
>
>The gun sez..."NO, NO, NO, IT WASN'T ME!" "HE FUCKIN PULLED THE
>TRIGGER!!!"
>
>i seen gun talk in cartoons...

Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented us this
"I didn’t pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled. The gun was in
his hands. Do the math.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Siri Cruise]

In article <sobbr6$lnn$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented us this
> "I didn’t pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled. The gun was in
> his hands. Do the math.

It was self-defence.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Ubiquitous]

chine...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented us
>> this "I didn’t pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled. The
>> gun was in his hands. Do the math.
>
>It was self-defence.

Nonresponse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
Trump won.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:55:02 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:

>Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented us this
>"I didn’t pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled. The gun was in
>his hands. Do the math.

That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...

[suzeeq]

There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.

[Your Name]

On 2021-12-03 06:00:12 +0000, suzeeq said:
> On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:55:02 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented
>>> us this "I didn't pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled.
>>> The gun was in his hands. Do the math.

A remote-controlled trigger that someone else caused to be pulled. ;-)

>> That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
>> it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
>
> There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
> enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.

Dropped guns go off all the time ... in the movies. ;-)
Same with car crashes (nearly) always exploding in flames.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Even if that were possible, in this case, Baldwin aimed, then fired. His
lawyer damn well better instruct him not to tell such a bald-faced lie in
sworn testimony in front of a jury.

[Dimensional Traveler]

It is all mechanical so it is possible. How likely and how much force
would be required will depend on the individual weapon (design, age,
condition of individual parts, etc.). For revolvers such as I believe
is involved here the common safety rule is to NEVER have a loaded
chamber under the hammer because of this possibility.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <soccog$1or8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your...@YourISP.com wrote:
> On 2021-12-03 06:00:12 +0000, suzeeq said:
>> On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented
>>>> us this "I didn't pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled.
>>>> The gun was in his hands. Do the math.
>>>

>>> That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
>>> it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
>>
>> There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>> enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.
>
>Dropped guns go off all the time ... in the movies. ;-)

Are you sure? I remember hearing news stories about a dropped gun
discharging.

ObTV:
Last night, I noticed ABC dedicated an hour to that Stephenopolis hack
"interviewing" Alex Baldwin. I was slightly surpised because I thought
they played his interview as a segment on Meet The Press. I guess he's
trying to taint the jury now so he doesn't get sentenced?

[EGK]

I could see that happening as well. If one of the jarring movements included
someone pulling the trigger. :D

[Adam H. Kerman]

. . . after aiming the gun at a person.

Did anyone watch the ABC News special last night, 12/2/2021? Did Baldwin
tell any other bald-faced lies? Did Stephanopolis even bother to
confront him?

I think it's unethical for a serious news program to air something like
that, in which the newsmaker is clearly lying in his own self interest
in order to influence the public in a possible criminal trial, but then,
tv news and entertainment gave the world Donald Trump, Bill and Hillary
on Sixty Minutes, and best of all, the false justification for George W.
Bush's invastion of Iraq, so that line was crossed a very long time ago.

[moviePig]

If Baldwin was handling the gun -- say, taking it from its holster -- it
seems entirely possible he could've pulled the trigger without realizing
it ...or remembering it. Unless the bullet came from the gun while it
was lying on a table, I don't see how he discounts that.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <sodd19$asf$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
> EGK <memy...@null.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 22:00:12 -0800, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>>Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented
>>>>>us this "I didn't pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was
>>>>>pulled. The gun was in his hands. Do the math.
>>>>
>>>>That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
>>>>it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
>>>
>>>There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>>>enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.
>>
>> I could see that happening as well. If one of the jarring movements
>> included someone pulling the trigger. :D
>
>. . . after aiming the gun at a person.
>
>Did anyone watch the ABC News special last night, 12/2/2021? Did Baldwin
>tell any other bald-faced lies? Did Stephanopolis even bother to
>confront him?

Actor Alec Baldwin said during an ABC News interview on Thursday night that
he does not feel guilt over the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins, claiming
that someone else is responsible for what happened.

“Do you feel guilt?” ABC News host George Stephanopoulos asked Baldwin during
an exclusive interview.

“No. No,” Baldwin said. “I feel that there is, I feel that someone is
responsible for what happened and I can’t say who that is, but I know it’s
not me.”

“I might have killed myself if I thought I was responsible, and I don’t say
that lightly,” he added.

WATCH:

.@GStephanopoulos: "Do you feel guilt?"

Alec Baldwin: “No. Someone is responsible for what happened and I
can’t say who that is, but I know it’s not me.”

READ MORE: https://t.co/zYugqKhIVW #BaldwinABC
pic.twitter.com/97F9wOYYTT

— ABC News (@ABC) December 3, 2021

ABC News reports:

On Oct. 21, Baldwin was holding an antique revolver during a dress
rehearsal for the Western at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe,
New Mexico, when it discharged, killing the film’s cinematographer,
Halyna Hutchins, and wounding its director, Joel Souza.

Halyna Hutchins “was someone who was loved by everyone who worked with and
liked by everyone who worked with and admired,” Baldwin said. “And even now,
I find it hard to believe that, it just doesn’t seem, it doesn’t seem real to
me.”

When pressed by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos about how “it wasn’t in the
script for the trigger to be pulled,” Baldwin responded by claiming, “Well,
the trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger.”

“I cock the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see
that?’” Baldwin said. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the
gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”

“So you never pulled the trigger?” Stephanopoulos pressed.

“No, no, no, no,” Baldwin claimed. “I would never point a gun at anyone and
pull the trigger at them. Never.”

WATCH:

EXCLUSIVE: "The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger,"
Alec Baldwin tells @GStephanopoulos in first interview since fatal
shooting on set of "Rust."

Watch TOMORROW at 8pm ET on @ABC and stream later on @Hulu.
https://t.co/u7L88vylra pic.twitter.com/bJsssJoAJq

— ABC News (@ABC) December 1, 2021

The Reload, a Second Amendment publication, analyzed Baldwin’s claims:

At first glance, this sounds far-fetched. It is exceedingly rare for a gun to
fire without the trigger being depressed. Modern firearms, even replicas of
antique guns, have safeties specifically designed to prevent them from firing
without the trigger being pulled. It only really happens when the gun’s
firing mechanism is damaged, or there is a significant design flaw. That’s
why most gun owners and firearms safety trainers are highly skeptical of any
claim a gun just “went off” absent user error.

In Baldwin’s case, though, the claim is at least somewhat more believable.
That’s because the gun involved is more prone to firing without the trigger
being pulled. And, even though it’s a modern replica of an antique design,
it’s possible it did not include modern safety devices.

Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza identified the gun used in the shooting
as a modern Pietta replica of a single-action army revolver. Those guns can
be bought either with a transfer bar that makes it impossible for the firing
pin to strike the primer unless the trigger is pulled or without one. Often,
enthusiasts and collectors prefer the models without modern safety devices
because it’s more authentic and perfectly safe when handled properly.

A single-action revolver usually requires the hammer to be manually cocked,
and the trigger be pulled for a shot to be fired. That’s why it’s referred to
as a single-action: because the trigger performs just one action. It drops
the hammer. In a double-action revolver, on the other hand, the trigger can
both cock and release the hammer.

However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can
fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When
the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if
a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can
cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

[anim8rfsk]

All together now:
YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE!!!

>
> WATCH:
>
> .@GStephanopoulos: "Do you feel guilt?"
>
> Alec Baldwin: “No. Someone is responsible for what happened and I
> can’t say who that is, but I know it’s not me.”
>
> READ MORE: https://t.co/zYugqKhIVW #BaldwinABC
> pic.twitter.com/97F9wOYYTT
>
> — ABC News (@ABC) December 3, 2021
>
> ABC News reports:
>
> On Oct. 21, Baldwin was holding an antique revolver during a dress
> rehearsal for the Western at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe,
> New Mexico, when it discharged, killing the film’s cinematographer,
> Halyna Hutchins, and wounding its director, Joel Souza.
>
> Halyna Hutchins “was someone who was loved by everyone who worked with and
> liked by everyone who worked with and admired,” Baldwin said. “And even now,
> I find it hard to believe that, it just doesn’t seem, it doesn’t seem real to
> me.”
>
> When pressed by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos about how “it wasn’t in the
> script for the trigger to be pulled,” Baldwin responded by claiming, “Well,
> the trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger.”
>
> “I cock the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see
> that?’” Baldwin said. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the
> gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”
>

So he did it.

> “So you never pulled the trigger?” Stephanopoulos pressed.
>
> “No, no, no, no,” Baldwin claimed. “I would never point a gun at anyone and
> pull the trigger at them. Never.”

But you’d drop the hammer at them firing the gun.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>All together now:
>YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!

Yeah. Now that he's appearing on television as the subject of an
hour-long prime time news interview just for the sake of publicity, I
hope this is enough to push the prosecutor into filing criminal charges,
and I hope that major personal injury liability for the tort falls upon
him in the lawsuit.

He pays an expensive lawyer to keep him out of any more legal hot water
and he pulls a stunt like this... unbelievable.

[Your Name]

On 2021-12-03 12:33:34 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
> In article <soccog$1or8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your...@YourISP.com wrote:
>> On 2021-12-03 06:00:12 +0000, suzeeq said:
>>> On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented
>>>>> us this "I didn't pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled.
>>>>> The gun was in his hands. Do the math.
>>>>
>>>> That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
>>>> it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
>>>
>>> There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>>> enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.
>>
>> Dropped guns go off all the time ... in the movies. ;-)
>
> Are you sure? I remember hearing news stories about a dropped gun
> discharging.

I didn't mean that it doesn't happen in real life, simply that in the
movies a dropped gun often fires a bullet ... usuallly with the bullet
hitting something (like the overhead fire sprinklers or the bad guys
gun-hand) that helps save the good guys.

[anim8rfsk]

It would be nice if other people he’s been blaming like the armorer sue him
as well.

[The Horny Goat]

Agreed. In my world this is called "asking for it"!

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>All together now:
>>>YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!

>>Yeah. Now that he's appearing on television as the subject of an
>>hour-long prime time news interview just for the sake of publicity, I
>>hope this is enough to push the prosecutor into filing criminal charges,
>>and I hope that major personal injury liability for the tort falls upon
>>him in the lawsuit.

>>He pays an expensive lawyer to keep him out of any more legal hot water
>>and he pulls a stunt like this... unbelievable.

>It would be nice if other people he's been blaming like the armorer sue him
>as well.

Where do you get that she's not at fault? Of course she is. She didn't
give a shit about her job. She allowed bored idiots on the crew to just
shoot the working guns during breaks. She mixed up the bullets and the
blanks. She failed to keep the weapons secure when she wasn't there to
attend the weapons table.

The propmaster, her boss, is also responsible for allowing her to get
away with her shit.

The assistant director who declared "cold gun", ignoring the obvious
that one must NEVER unknowingly make any such declaration is at fault.

Baldwin as one of the producers is at fault for allowing such
lackadasical procedures during production. So are the other producers.

Bring criminal charges. Suddenly, people will take workplace safety
seriously.

[anim8rfsk]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> All together now:
>>>> YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!
>
>>> Yeah. Now that he's appearing on television as the subject of an
>>> hour-long prime time news interview just for the sake of publicity, I
>>> hope this is enough to push the prosecutor into filing criminal charges,
>>> and I hope that major personal injury liability for the tort falls upon
>>> him in the lawsuit.
>
>>> He pays an expensive lawyer to keep him out of any more legal hot water
>>> and he pulls a stunt like this... unbelievable.
>
>> It would be nice if other people he's been blaming like the armorer sue him
>> as well.
>
> Where do you get that she's not at fault? Of course she is. She didn't
> give a shit about her job. She allowed bored idiots on the crew to just
> shoot the working guns during breaks.

I have not read that version. I have read that the crew were allowed to
shoot the guns on the weekend. Also that only the prop master had the
combination to the safe. So the use of the weapons and the use of live
rounds were out of the armorer’s hands.

She mixed up the bullets and the
> blanks.

There shouldn’t have been any bullets anywhere. There may not of been
except on the weekends and we don’t know who was there on the weekends. I
am mystified as to why they keep the guns in the prop safe but not the
ammunition.

She failed to keep the weapons secure when she wasn't there to
> attend the weapons table.

That one is a big mystery, yes.

>
> The propmaster, her boss, is also responsible for allowing her to get
> away with her shit.

I think the prop master is majorly at fault if it’s true that she was the
only one that could open the safe.

>
> The assistant director who declared "cold gun", ignoring the obvious
> that one must NEVER unknowingly make any such declaration is at fault.

Absolutely that guy is at fault. And has a history of the same problems.

>
> Baldwin as one of the producers is at fault for allowing such
> lackadasical procedures during production. So are the other producers.
>

We can’t know what their duties as producers were. There are probably guys
in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.

> Bring criminal charges. Suddenly, people will take workplace safety
> seriously.

Agreed, and start with Baldwin.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>>All together now:
>>>>>YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!

>>>>Yeah. Now that he's appearing on television as the subject of an
>>>>hour-long prime time news interview just for the sake of publicity, I
>>>>hope this is enough to push the prosecutor into filing criminal charges,
>>>>and I hope that major personal injury liability for the tort falls upon
>>>>him in the lawsuit.

>>>>He pays an expensive lawyer to keep him out of any more legal hot water
>>>>and he pulls a stunt like this... unbelievable.

>>>It would be nice if other people he's been blaming like the armorer sue him
>>>as well.

>>Where do you get that she's not at fault? Of course she is. She didn't
>>give a shit about her job. She allowed bored idiots on the crew to just
>>shoot the working guns during breaks.

>I have not read that version. I have read that the crew were allowed to
>shoot the guns on the weekend.

The guns were being shot with that morning. That's how everything got
mixed up.

>Also that only the prop master had the combination to the safe. So
>the use of the weapons and the use of live rounds were out of the
>armorer's hands.

That doesn't make any sense. The armorer has final authority. The
propmaster can fire the armorer if he's not doing his job but while it's
is job, he's in charge of the weapons and the bullets and the blanks,
and absolutely should be in charge of making absolutely certain that
live amunition is never kept on set.

If the propmaster is preventing the armorer from doing his job, like not
giving him access to the gun safe, then fire the propmaster.

>>She mixed up the bullets and the blanks.

>There shouldn't have been any bullets anywhere. There may not of been
>except on the weekends and we don't know who was there on the weekends. I
>am mystified as to why they keep the guns in the prop safe but not the
>ammunition.

The ammunition should have been kept the hell off site, and the
propmaster and the armorer should have made sure of that.

>>She failed to keep the weapons secure when she wasn't there to
>>attend the weapons table.

>That one is a big mystery, yes.

What mystery? If she had maintained full control of the guns that
morning, there would have been no deaths or injuries.

>>The propmaster, her boss, is also responsible for allowing her to get
>>away with her shit.

>I think the prop master is majorly at fault if it’s true that she was the
>only one that could open the safe.

. . . to the extent that she interferred with the armorer doing her job,
yes. There should have been a specific gun safe that the armorer and
only the armorer had access to.

>>The assistant director who declared "cold gun", ignoring the obvious
>>that one must NEVER unknowingly make any such declaration is at fault.

>Absolutely that guy is at fault. And has a history of the same problems.

>>Baldwin as one of the producers is at fault for allowing such
>>lackadasical procedures during production. So are the other producers.

>We can’t know what their duties as producers were. There are probably guys
>in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.

They want the "producer" title for the additional compensation. Fuck
them. If they take the title and the money, then they get the
responsibility. If they want to be cast, then they can't pretend to be
management as well if they have no actual management duties.

>>Bring criminal charges. Suddenly, people will take workplace safety
>>seriously.

>Agreed, and start with Baldwin.

It has to be all three of them, and maybe the propmaster.

[anim8rfsk]

I agree with you but that’s apparently not the way they were doing it. If
they were just shooting for fun on the weekend the prop master had to know
about it since she’s the only one with access to the safe. It’s all
together possible the armorer never knew about the live rounds. Seriously
we just don’t know enough.

>
> If the propmaster is preventing the armorer from doing his job, like not
> giving him access to the gun safe, then fire the propmaster.
>
>>> She mixed up the bullets and the blanks.
>
>> There shouldn't have been any bullets anywhere. There may not of been
>> except on the weekends and we don't know who was there on the weekends. I
>> am mystified as to why they keep the guns in the prop safe but not the
>> ammunition.
>
> The ammunition should have been kept the hell off site, and the
> propmaster and the armorer should have made sure of that.
>
>>> She failed to keep the weapons secure when she wasn't there to
>>> attend the weapons table.
>
>> That one is a big mystery, yes.
>
> What mystery? If she had maintained full control of the guns that
> morning, there would have been no deaths or injuries.

Sure, but who even knows if she knew the guns were out of the safe? I don’t
even know if she was on set at the time.

>
>>> The propmaster, her boss, is also responsible for allowing her to get
>>> away with her shit.
>
>> I think the prop master is majorly at fault if it’s true that she was the
>> only one that could open the safe.
>
> . . . to the extent that she interferred with the armorer doing her job,
> yes. There should have been a specific gun safe that the armorer and
> only the armorer had access to.

Yes, I don’t like this whole business of there being a prop safe that they
also kept the guns in.

>
>>> The assistant director who declared "cold gun", ignoring the obvious
>>> that one must NEVER unknowingly make any such declaration is at fault.
>
>> Absolutely that guy is at fault. And has a history of the same problems.
>
>>> Baldwin as one of the producers is at fault for allowing such
>>> lackadasical procedures during production. So are the other producers.
>
>> We can’t know what their duties as producers were. There are probably guys
>> in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.
>
> They want the "producer" title for the additional compensation. Fuck
> them. If they take the title and the money, then they get the
> responsibility. If they want to be cast, then they can't pretend to be
> management as well if they have no actual management duties.
>
>>> Bring criminal charges. Suddenly, people will take workplace safety
>>> seriously.
>
>> Agreed, and start with Baldwin.
>
> It has to be all three of them, and maybe the propmaster.
>

I don’t see any way it’s not at least partially the prop master. But right
now Baldwin is the one lying his head off. That’s a real good starting
point.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <soe0ge$1nsa$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your...@YourISP.com wrote:
> On 2021-12-03 12:33:34 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>> In article <soccog$1or8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your...@YourISP.com wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-03 06:00:12 +0000, suzeeq said:
>>>> On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has
>>>>>> presented us this "I didn't pull the trigger" bullshit. The
>>>>>> trigger was pulled.
>>>>>> The gun was in his hands. Do the math.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
>>>>> it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
>>>>
>>>> There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>>>> enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.
>>>
>>> Dropped guns go off all the time ... in the movies. ;-)
>>
>> Are you sure? I remember hearing news stories about a dropped gun
>> discharging.
>
>I didn't mean that it doesn't happen in real life, simply that in the
>movies a dropped gun often fires a bullet ... usuallly with the bullet
>hitting something (like the overhead fire sprinklers or the bad guys
>gun-hand) that helps save the good guys.

Thanks for the clarification!

ObTV:
Adam Baldwin had some interesting things to say about this last night.

[Ubiquitous]

>> responsible for what happened and I can' say who that is, but I know it's

>> not me.”
>>
>> “I might have killed myself if I thought I was responsible, and I don't
>> say that lightly,” he added.
>
>All together now:
>YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!

Alex Baldwin is a striaght-up sociopath.

[Ubiquitous]

According to Adam Baldwin, Alec is a liar because the actor's guild always
has mandatory training/safety courses when firearms are involved in a
production, so he has no idea what Alec was blubbering about in that
interview.

[Adam H. Kerman]

According to news reports, everyone on set knew that the guns were being
used for fun. That's why bullets were brought to the set. She was one of
the people with access to the bullets; apparently anyone who wanted to
shoot a gun during his break had access to both the guns and bullets.

One of the news reports was quite specific that she had mixed up the
blanks and bullets. This isn't even a question, anim.

>>If the propmaster is preventing the armorer from doing his job, like not
>>giving him access to the gun safe, then fire the propmaster.

>>>>She mixed up the bullets and the blanks.

>>>There shouldn't have been any bullets anywhere. There may not of been
>>>except on the weekends and we don't know who was there on the weekends. I
>>>am mystified as to why they keep the guns in the prop safe but not the
>>>ammunition.

>>The ammunition should have been kept the hell off site, and the
>>propmaster and the armorer should have made sure of that.

>>>>She failed to keep the weapons secure when she wasn't there to
>>>>attend the weapons table.

>>>That one is a big mystery, yes.

>>What mystery? If she had maintained full control of the guns that
>>morning, there would have been no deaths or injuries.

>Sure, but who even knows if she knew the guns were out of the safe? I don't
>even know if she was on set at the time.

Why are you defending her? How can she be off set given that they were
setting up for a scene in which guns were to be used? I have no idea
where she was but she wasn't at her post, which was outrageous. There
was no last-minute shooting schedule change.

Given that this was a western, nearly every scene would have guns or
prop guns in it, so the armorer had to be there, same as the camera
crew and the sound crew, etc.

>>>>The propmaster, her boss, is also responsible for allowing her to get
>>>>away with her shit.

>>>I think the prop master is majorly at fault if it's true that she was the
>>>only one that could open the safe.

>>. . . to the extent that she interferred with the armorer doing her job,
>>yes. There should have been a specific gun safe that the armorer and
>>only the armorer had access to.

>Yes, I don't like this whole business of there being a prop safe that they
>also kept the guns in.

Till you said that the other day, I didn't even know that a safe on set
that was used for gun storage that the armorer didn't have the combination
to was a thing. I figured she had a pickup truck or trailer which locked,
in which she kept guns when she had to do something else, and that she'd
place guns on the gun table to be used in the next scene.

>>>>The assistant director who declared "cold gun", ignoring the obvious
>>>>that one must NEVER unknowingly make any such declaration is at fault.

>>>Absolutely that guy is at fault. And has a history of the same problems.

>>>>Baldwin as one of the producers is at fault for allowing such
>>>>lackadasical procedures during production. So are the other producers.

>>>We can't know what their duties as producers were. There are probably guys
>>>in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.

>>They want the "producer" title for the additional compensation. Fuck
>>them. If they take the title and the money, then they get the
>>responsibility. If they want to be cast, then they can't pretend to be
>>management as well if they have no actual management duties.

>>>>Bring criminal charges. Suddenly, people will take workplace safety
>>>>seriously.

>>>Agreed, and start with Baldwin.

>>It has to be all three of them, and maybe the propmaster.

>I don't see any way it's not at least partially the prop master. But right
>now Baldwin is the one lying his head off. That's a real good starting
>point.

They were lying right from the start. I agree that Baldwin going on
broadcast television to introduce all new lies is of course worse. But
the moment they each lied to the police, each should have been arrested.

This investigation isn't complicated and at this point, the police
should have reached their conclusions. It's time to start indictments.

[Adam H. Kerman]

super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>We can't know what their duties as producers were. There are probably
>>guys in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.

>People who contribute to the financing are called "executive producers,"
>for the record.

Well, that's not true at all. That means "executive in charge of
production". Whether that's true in actual fact in unknowable to the
general public. In olden days, it used to be a specific movie studio
executive.

The guys who get vanity cards on screen before the movie title are the
ones who put up money. Maybe.

>It's a completely different thing from a "producer."

There had been a credit "line producer" which was a working supervisor
who didn't have a financial stake, but that's not what "producer"
implies.

>Of course it's not unheard of for the same person to have both titles, I
>don't know if this applies to Baldwin on this movie.

All we know is Baldwin wanted extra money, so that makes it perfectly
legitimate to hold him financially accountable.

[trotsky]

On 12/5/2021 3:54 AM, super70s wrote:
> In article <soghrc$mva$1...@dont-email.me>,

> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>

>> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> We can't know what their duties as producers were. There are probably
>>>> guys in China that sent them a box of money to get their name on the film.
>>
>>> People who contribute to the financing are called "executive producers,"
>>> for the record.
>>
>> Well, that's not true at all. That means "executive in charge of
>> production". Whether that's true in actual fact in unknowable to the
>> general public. In olden days, it used to be a specific movie studio
>> executive.
>

> You have no idea what you're talking about. "Executive producer" does
> not mean "excutive in charge of production," those are two different job
> titles.
>
> Google it if you don't believe me.


In fact, the executive in charge of production is the producer. As
stated previously the Executive Producer bankrolls the project.

Verman has some problems.

[David Johnston]

My bet is he did pull on the trigger a bit without realizing it and the
gun was some kind of piece of crap that would go off easily.

[suzeeq]

I think I heard that it was the type of gun that if the hammer was
cocked, which he did, then it would fire when released.

[anim8rfsk]

As long as you have your finger on the trigger

[moviePig]

...and a live round that wasn't supposed to be within light-years of the
place was sitting casually in the firing chamber waiting on a call.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Haven't we seen that trick in movie westerns, rapid fire using the
hammer itself? No, it's never accidental as Baldwin falsely claimed, and
the shooter's finger has to be on the trigger.

[Adam H. Kerman]

He still aimed it. You can't handwaive that away, Johnston, as product
liability.

[anim8rfsk]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Yes. As a kid I had a toy pistol that was meant for Fanning. Hurt the hell
out of your hand and you couldn’t hit the literal broadside of a barn that
way. Still have to have the trigger squeezed. Of course it’s almost
impossible not to hold an old west pistol without your finger on the
trigger.

[suzeeq]

No just the cocking and release of the hammer would impact the bullet
and fire it.

[David Johnston]

I can imagine why the gun was cocked.

[David Johnston]

Actors have been pointing guns at the camera (and consequently the
people behind the camera) since the making of the The Great Train Robbery.

[BTR1701]

In article <soj8sn$m1p$4...@dont-email.me>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

[moviePig]

I know very little about handguns, but... I'd figure that even a slight
cock of the hammer would lock it from release by other than the trigger.
(It it *doesn't* work that way, here's my patent application...)

[BTR1701]

In article <sojcci$ovk$3...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Most of the time there are no people behind the camera when the gun is
pointed and discharged. Don't know if you realize it or not, but this
isn't the 1940s anymore and you can control devices like that remotely.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ah. Johnston deludes himself into believeling that he's won with that
stupid lie.

This discussion is limited to anyone behind the camera getting shot or
killed because the actor fired a working gun that no one with
responsibility for the weapon had checked to verify that the gun wasn't
loaded with bullets.

Baldwin was aware it was a working gun. It was his responsibility to
check that there were no bullets in it. It was the responsibility of the
assistant director to verify that there were no bullets in it before
declaring to Baldwin and the people behind the camera "cold gun". It was
the armorer's responsibility to verify that there were no bullets in the
gun and to maintain absolute control of the gun prior to its use on set.

How any of this isn't clear to Johnston is a mystery.

[moviePig]

Don't know where you get "most of the time" from, but I do know that
it's quite common nowadays for, e.g., the camera to be *worn*...

[anim8rfsk]

The reload is pretty impressive.

So your point is that with a little practice Baldwin could’ve accidentally
killed the entire crew?

[anim8rfsk]

[Adam H. Kerman]

Right. You've cited that video of Miculek's record-setting fast target
shooting. I don't see what he's doing with the hammer, though. Looks
like the hammer just stays cocked.

I was thinking of trick shooting in the movies in which the shooter fast
shoots by repeatedly releases the hammer by hitting it with the side of
his hand while the trigger is being pulled. In that trick, the shooter
is shooting a lot more quickly by not waiting till the cocked hammer
snaps into place. That appeared to be what suzeeq was thinking of.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>I think I heard that it was the type of gun that if the hammer was
>>>>>cocked, which he did, then it would fire when released.

>>>>As long as you have your finger on the trigger

>>>Haven't we seen that trick in movie westerns, rapid fire using the
>>>hammer itself? No, it's never accidental as Baldwin falsely claimed,
>>>and the shooter's finger has to be on the trigger.

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

>The reload is pretty impressive.

>So your point is that with a little practice Baldwin could've accidentally
>killed the entire crew?

Well yeah. We've seen fast effective shooting like that in old Westerns.

BTR1701 cited that video before to point out the futility of making bump
stocks illegal, that with enough practice, one can learn fast shooting
without accessories, and that revolvers can be just as deadly as pistols.

[anim8rfsk]

If the hammer just stayed cocked the weapon wouldn’t fire

>
> I was thinking of trick shooting in the movies in which the shooter fast
> shoots by repeatedly releases the hammer by hitting it with the side of
> his hand while the trigger is being pulled. In that trick, the shooter
> is shooting a lot more quickly by not waiting till the cocked hammer
> snaps into place. That appeared to be what suzeeq was thinking of.
>

That’s called Fanning. That’s what I had the toy gun that dead. Still have
to have your finger on the trigger.

It’s a way to fire a single action revolver quickly.

[The Horny Goat]

I've said previously our local police keep several large (e.g. 50+
lbs) bags of sand on their range specifically for that reason. They're
more worried about ricochets - and want to have something conveniently
close by that they know WON'T cause ricochets - rather than any
Mountie doing anything Baldwin-esque dumb like pointing at a human
being and you can expect the RCMP to have a clue on firearms safety
which Baldwin clearly demonstrated in the worst way possible that he
doesn't.

[Adam H. Kerman]

suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 12/5/2021 12:10 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>I think I heard that it was the type of gun that if the hammer was
>>>cocked, which he did, then it would fire when released.

>>As long as you have your finger on the trigger

>No just the cocking and release of the hammer would impact the bullet
>and fire it.

I had to look it up.

The ancient trigger action is single-action, which means that the single
action performed by the trigger is to release the hammer. In a revolver,
cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder to line up the bullet in the
next chamber; the hammer is locked in place until the trigger is pulled
or the hammer is decocked.

The word for the rapid-fire trick shooting I was describing before,
which I thought you were referring to, is "fanning". The shooter holds
the gun and pulls the trigger with one hand and cocks the hammer back
with the other.

I was wrong. The hammer still locks. I guess the gun is designed so that
the chamber hasn't rotated into position till the hammer has locked.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>Haven't we seen that trick in movie westerns, rapid fire using the
>>>>hammer itself? No, it's never accidental as Baldwin falsely claimed,
>>>>and the shooter's finger has to be on the trigger.

>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

>>Right. You've cited that video of Miculek's record-setting fast target
>>shooting. I don't see what he's doing with the hammer, though. Looks
>>like the hammer just stays cocked.

>If the hammer just stayed cocked the weapon wouldn't fire

I shouldn't have said "cocked".

I think with a double-action trigger, there is a hammer unlock so the
gun functions. Pulling the trigger cocks then releases the hammer.

I'm assuming Miculek was shooting a revolver with a double-action trigger.
I'm just not seeing any fanning action that trick shooters did with
single action. This is a different kind of revolver versus what Baldwin
was shooting.

>>I was thinking of trick shooting in the movies in which the shooter fast
>>shoots by repeatedly releases the hammer by hitting it with the side of
>>his hand while the trigger is being pulled. In that trick, the shooter
>>is shooting a lot more quickly by not waiting till the cocked hammer
>>snaps into place. That appeared to be what suzeeq was thinking of.

>That's called Fanning.

Sort of. I didn't describe it correctly. The hammer does have to be
locked into place to rotate the cylinder into position.

>That's what I had the toy gun that dead. Still have
>to have your finger on the trigger.

>It's a way to fire a single action revolver quickly.

If you load it with toy bullets, can you kill a doll with it?

[BTR1701]

In article
<805914466.660434962.42...@news.easynews.com>,

LOL! If he thought they were Republicans, the spirit would have filled
him with the power.

[suzeeq]

No, I didn't even think of it. What I heard was a short interview with
some kind of gun professional who mentioned it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ignore what I wrote there. It's wrong.

[anim8rfsk]

Who the hell do you think you are, Ian?

[RichA]

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 05:54:40 UTC-5, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 12/2/2021 10:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> > On 12/2/2021 6:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:55:02 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Any sympathy I had for Alec Baldwin is gone now that he has presented
> >>> us this
> >>> "I didn’t pull the trigger" bullshit. The trigger was pulled. The gun
> >>> was in
> >>> his hands. Do the math.
> >>
> >> That is pretty conclusive though one wonders what math has to do with
> >> it unless they're saying Baldwin was trying to count to 21...
> >
> >
> > There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
> > enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.

> It is all mechanical so it is possible. How likely and how much force
> would be required will depend on the individual weapon (design, age,
> condition of individual parts, etc.). For revolvers such as I believe
> is involved here the common safety rule is to NEVER have a loaded
> chamber under the hammer because of this possibility.
>

He's lying and the apologists and liberal excusers are out in force spinning fantasy stories

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>On 12/5/2021 2:26 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

>>>>Right. You've cited that video of Miculek's record-setting fast target
>>>>shooting. I don't see what he's doing with the hammer, though. Looks
>>>>like the hammer just stays cocked.

>>>>I was thinking of trick shooting in the movies in which the shooter fast
>>>>shoots by repeatedly releases the hammer by hitting it with the side of
>>>>his hand while the trigger is being pulled. In that trick, the shooter
>>>>is shooting a lot more quickly by not waiting till the cocked hammer
>>>>snaps into place. That appeared to be what suzeeq was thinking of.

>>>No, I didn't even think of it. What I heard was a short interview with
>>>some kind of gun professional who mentioned it.

>>Ignore what I wrote there. It's wrong.

>Who the hell do you think you are, Ian?

Oh! That's mean.

[David Johnston]

On 2021-12-05 3:12 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-05 2:18 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-02 11:00 p.m., suzeeq wrote:
>
>>>>> There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>>>>> enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.
>
>>>> My bet is he did pull on the trigger a bit without realizing it and the
>>>> gun was some kind of piece of crap that would go off easily.
>
>>> He still aimed it. You can't handwaive that away, Johnston, as product
>>> liability.
>
>> Actors have been pointing guns at the camera (and consequently the
>> people behind the camera) since the making of the The Great Train Robbery.
>
> Ah. Johnston deludes himself into believeling that he's won with that
> stupid lie.

Nothing more than facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-msJB4ZEcP4&ab_channel=OwainCai

That was in 1903. Actors have been pointing guns at cameras ever since.

>
> This discussion is limited to anyone behind the camera getting shot or
> killed because the actor fired a working gun that no one with
> responsibility for the weapon had checked to verify that the gun wasn't
> loaded with bullets.
>
> Baldwin was aware it was a working gun. It was his responsibility to
> check that there were no bullets in it.

As I understand it, the visual difference between blanks and live rounds
in the cylinder is not obvious and Baldwin was unlikely to be competent
to tell the difference, which is why other people are supposed to do it
for the actors.

It was the responsibility of the
> assistant director to verify that there were no bullets in it before
> declaring to Baldwin and the people behind the camera "cold gun". It was
> the armorer's responsibility to verify that there were no bullets in the
> gun and to maintain absolute control of the gun prior to its use on set.

That is perfectly clear.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2021-12-05 3:12 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 2021-12-05 2:18 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2021-12-02 11:00 p.m., suzeeq wrote:

>>>>>>There was an armorer who said it's possible for a gun to go off with
>>>>>>enough jarring movement, but he's never seen or heard of it.

>>>>>My bet is he did pull on the trigger a bit without realizing it and the
>>>>>gun was some kind of piece of crap that would go off easily.

>>>>He still aimed it. You can't handwaive that away, Johnston, as product
>>>>liability.

>>>Actors have been pointing guns at the camera (and consequently the
>>>people behind the camera) since the making of the The Great Train Robbery.

>>Ah. Johnston deludes himself into believeling that he's won with that
>>stupid lie.

>Nothing more than facts. . . .

The stupid lie would be that it has anything to do with what's being
discussed, a discussion you would refuse to contribute to.

>>This discussion is limited to anyone behind the camera getting shot or
>>killed because the actor fired a working gun that no one with
>>responsibility for the weapon had checked to verify that the gun wasn't
>>loaded with bullets.

>>Baldwin was aware it was a working gun. It was his responsibility to
>>check that there were no bullets in it.

>As I understand it, the visual difference between blanks and live rounds
>in the cylinder is not obvious and Baldwin was unlikely to be competent
>to tell the difference, which is why other people are supposed to do it
>for the actors.

No, they're not. The armorer is supposed to demonstrate to the actor
that there's no live ammunition in the working gun. Baldwin, an
experienced actor, was damn well aware of the required procedure. If it
requires an expert to tell the difference, then he's not allowed to
receive the gun from the assistant director without the armorer's
supervision.

>>It was the responsibility of the
>>assistant director to verify that there were no bullets in it before
>>declaring to Baldwin and the people behind the camera "cold gun". It was
>>the armorer's responsibility to verify that there were no bullets in the
>>gun and to maintain absolute control of the gun prior to its use on set.

>That is perfectly clear.

Then why is it not clear to you that Baldwin isn't also required to
follow proper protocol if the other two were? Safety at the workplace
is everyone's responsibility.

[trotsky]

The power of bullshit? I've never heard it put like that before.

[trotsky]

On 12/5/2021 7:01 PM, super70s wrote:
> In article
> <1596800445.660436708.4...@news.easynews.com>,

> Famously used by Alan Ladd at the end of Shane.


Or on r.a.t., right wing assholes seeking shame.

[A Friend]

In article <sok77g$bla$1...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Then why is it not clear to you that Baldwin isn't also required to
> follow proper protocol if the other two were? Safety at the workplace
> is everyone's responsibility.

I'm gathering that you think the story is that Baldwin playfully pulled
the trigger of what he thought was an unloaded gun he'd aimed at the
victim. If so, I think that's appalling. I don't care if you're an
actor or a grip or the rat going through the location garbage; pointing
a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is Just. Not. Done. If that's
indeed what happened, I think Baldwin should be held liable, but I'm
not convinced yet that that's what happened.

[moviePig]

Unfortunately, this may've been a traumatic enough event that there'll
*never* be an accurate account -- or even recall -- of what happened.

[Adam H. Kerman]

He claimed he was rehearsing the moves he was going to use on camera. If
he's aiming at the camera, then he's aiming at the camera operator and
anyone else behind the camera.

From earliest reports, yeah, it sounded like Baldwin was screwing around
but I no longer believe that.

[anim8rfsk]

So what do you think he was doing?

[anim8rfsk]

Agreed. Even if somebody came up with an accurate account we’d never know.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>Then why is it not clear to you that Baldwin isn't also required to
>>>>follow proper protocol if the other two were? Safety at the workplace
>>>>is everyone's responsibility.

>>>I'm gathering that you think the story is that Baldwin playfully pulled
>>>the trigger of what he thought was an unloaded gun he'd aimed at the
>>>victim. If so, I think that's appalling. I don't care if you're an
>>>actor or a grip or the rat going through the location garbage; pointing
>>>a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is Just. Not. Done. If that's
>>>indeed what happened, I think Baldwin should be held liable, but I'm
>>>not convinced yet that that's what happened.

>>He claimed he was rehearsing the moves he was going to use on camera. If
>>he's aiming at the camera, then he's aiming at the camera operator and
>>anyone else behind the camera.

>>From earliest reports, yeah, it sounded like Baldwin was screwing around
>>but I no longer believe that.

>So what do you think he was doing?

Telling himself he was practicing his tough-guy moves so, on screen,
he could look like the ultimate tough guy in a modern Western.

[The Horny Goat]

I don't know - anybody who thinks of Baldwin playing Dirty Harry
Callahan in a remake of Eastwood's character is deeply delusional.

Even before the incident much less now.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Not "anybody". Baldwin himself.

[anim8rfsk]

Makes sense. I’ve always assumed it was a legitimate rehearsal just because
the camerawoman and Director were behind the camera.

[trotsky]

I'm surprised you would say this. Pointing a gun at someone for fun is
a dick move, but a veteran actor on a movie set expecting a gun to be
filled with blanks is the only reasoning that makes sense. I think it's
because of the streams of verbal vomit coming from the right that people
have lost their minds over this thing. It's almost as they're trying to
use him as a substitute for Rittenhouse's acts of murder.

[A Friend]

In article <16be431ec1f24005$1$3588101$6d5...@news.newsdemon.com>,

There may be something in that. However, my main point remains that
you always treat a gun as if it was loaded. Accidents will happen, of
course, but some people appear to think Baldwin actually aimed what he
thought was an unloaded weapon at the armorer and pulled the trigger.
Tell you the truth, I don't know why he (or any other experienced
actor) would do something like that. There's just no reason for it.

I think I mentioned seeing an Entertainment Tonight piece on Michael
Chiklis, on The Shield, carefully and forcefully directing a day player
to fire about six feet to his left during a confrontation scene. He
said something about having kids and wanting to go home to them in one
piece.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Let's correct this: Camera operator. He had aimed at the camera, so
anyone behind the camera was in the line of sight.

The armorer WAS NOT on set, NOT doing her job, NOT making sure the guns
were secure when she wasn't minding them, and best of all, mixing up
blanks and bullets.

Pretty much the only person in the production company in no danger of
getting shot that day was the armorer.

>I think I mentioned seeing an Entertainment Tonight piece on Michael
>Chiklis, on The Shield, carefully and forcefully directing a day player
>to fire about six feet to his left during a confrontation scene. He
>said something about having kids and wanting to go home to them in one
>piece.

Smart man

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 18:59:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I don't know - anybody who thinks of Baldwin playing Dirty Harry
>>Callahan in a remake of Eastwood's character is deeply delusional.
>
>>Even before the incident much less now.
>
>Not "anybody". Baldwin himself.

So if I understand you correctly you're saying Baldwin himself is
deeply delusional

The difference of course being that Eastwood routinely carried guns on
camera and no one ever suggested he was less than fully careful

[trotsky]

Uh, you might want to check your facts. I believe it was the
cinematographer that was killed and the director who was wounded. The
armorer is under fire, as it were, because the gun had live ammo in it.
The problem seems to be they had live ammo on the set because they
were shooting during down time. The was obviously a recipe for
disaster. But the fact that we're talking this rather than the murders
Kyle Rittenhouse committed and got away with means right wing assholes
are controlling the narrative, which will never happen with me.

[A Friend]

In article <16be6e324ad6c6fd$1$2438686$4cd5...@news.newsdemon.com>,

I got sloppy there, but my point is that you just don't play around
with guns.

> The problem seems to be they had live ammo on the set because they
> were shooting during down time. The was obviously a recipe for
> disaster. But the fact that we're talking this rather than the murders
> Kyle Rittenhouse committed and got away with means right wing assholes
> are controlling the narrative, which will never happen with me.

Kyle Rittenhouse's miserable ass is going to be in civil court for
decades to come. He will lose there, repeatedly, and this will consume
the rest of his life.

[Ubiquitous]

lcr...@home.ca wrote:
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>All together now:
>>>YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE!!!
>>
>>Yeah. Now that he's appearing on television as the subject of an
>>hour-long prime time news interview just for the sake of publicity, I
>>hope this is enough to push the prosecutor into filing criminal charges,
>>and I hope that major personal injury liability for the tort falls upon
>>him in the lawsuit.
>>
>>He pays an expensive lawyer to keep him out of any more legal hot water
>>and he pulls a stunt like this... unbelievable.
>
>Agreed. In my world this is called "asking for it"!

I hear there's new footage of him chasing someone with his umbrella,
swinging.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[trotsky]

It's a movie set, do stuff such as rehearsing isn't out of the norm.

[moviePig]

...which, viewing him as a brainwashed juvenile, only compounds the
tragedy. Still, the longer his "punishment" stays in the public eye,
the (somewhat) less likely are his exploits to be copycatted.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:08:47 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> Kyle Rittenhouse's miserable ass is going to be in civil court for
>> decades to come. He will lose there, repeatedly, and this will consume
>> the rest of his life.
>
>...which, viewing him as a brainwashed juvenile, only compounds the
>tragedy. Still, the longer his "punishment" stays in the public eye,
>the (somewhat) less likely are his exploits to be copycatted.

With all due respect, using firearms to project lethal force is not
the act of a juvenile brainwashed or otherwise. It's an adult act and
he was justifiably tried in adult court.

One expects a much higher level of moral rectitude from a 17 year old
than a 10 year old and in my opinion not much less than of an adult.
We've come a LONG way from the old days when ages 7, 14 and 21 were
important because that was when a noble boy became a page, a squire
and a knight!

While my son has served many hours with the local civil liberties
union he has never wielded anything more lethal than a camera or more
latterly his smartphone. Nor when he was under my roof would I have
allowed him with a firearm.

And while RIttenhouse may well end up a rightist icon I think your
comment about his 'miserable ass' is true and would be the primary
reason he is unlikely to disappear from the public eye too quickly.
He'll never starve but he won't achieve his dreams either.

[Adam H. Kerman]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:08:47 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>Kyle Rittenhouse's miserable ass is going to be in civil court for
>>>decades to come. He will lose there, repeatedly, and this will consume
>>>the rest of his life.

>>...which, viewing him as a brainwashed juvenile, only compounds the
>>tragedy. Still, the longer his "punishment" stays in the public eye,
>>the (somewhat) less likely are his exploits to be copycatted.

>With all due respect, using firearms to project lethal force is not
>the act of a juvenile brainwashed or otherwise. It's an adult act and
>he was justifiably tried in adult court.

Thank you for saying that. moviePig is being his usual asshole self 'cuz
he thinks he's scored a rhetorical point and has patted himself on the
back to acknowledge his own brilliance.

Yes. He used a gun. He needed to be charged as an adult.

>One expects a much higher level of moral rectitude from a 17 year old
>than a 10 year old and in my opinion not much less than of an adult.

Less, surely. One doesn't develop an adult sense of morality till early
to mid 20s, if ever.

>We've come a LONG way from the old days when ages 7, 14 and 21 were
>important because that was when a noble boy became a page, a squire

>and a knight! . . .