Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Story is getting crazier.

Baldwin is fucked if the rumors are true.

What are the rumors?

macphisto wrote:I guess he got tired of wondering and decided to find out for himself.

qed

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Story is getting crazier.

Baldwin is fucked if the rumors are true.

What are the rumors?

i assume he's referring to corners being cut on production, union vs non, etc. baldwin's a producer.

this is probably just standard business on any production, however.

Financially fucked I mean, since he was a producer and there were problems on the set beforehand.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssion=true

BurtReynolds wrote:Financially fucked I mean, since he was a producer and there were problems on the set beforehand.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssion=true

The stunt double had two or more "misfires" previously. Does that mean he discharged blanks when he wasn't supposed to? To gun people that generally means a gun didn't go bang when you intended it to, are the film people using the term differently?

Also, using "hot" to mean a gun that is not empty is not a very useful distinction. A "hot" gun could be loaded with blanks or ... what? C'mon Hollywood, use terms that are understandable to those outside the industry.

I guess they have evidence that the prop person called out a cold gun before handing it to him. What a fucked up situation

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I guess they have evidence that the prop person called out a cold gun before handing it to him. What a fucked up situation

It makes me wonder how often people in Hollywood are pointing functional firearms at each other because they've been told they're unloaded. Seems like a bad practice.

Of course there are conservative wing nuts taking pot shots at Baldwin but for Newsmax to remind viewers of his well documented anger outbursts and imply that the shooting might not have been an accident is a bit much.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:Of course there are conservative wing nuts taking pot shots at Baldwin but for Newsmax to remind viewers of his well documented anger outbursts and imply that the shooting might not have been an accident is a bit much.

It’s really not.

Sounds like Hollywood safety standards allow "dry firing" of functional firearms at people on set. No firing of blanks at people, but if some dude tells you its a cold gun, go nuts. Why do they think they don't have to follow the same basic 4 rules as everyone else?

simple schoolboy wrote:Sounds like Hollywood safety standards allow "dry firing" of functional firearms at people on set.

The first line of my Robocop 1987 reaction video.

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Sounds like Hollywood safety standards allow "dry firing" of functional firearms at people on set.

The first line of my Robocop 1987 reaction video.

In '87 they didn't have realistic airsoft reproductions of basically any popular firearm.

I'm similarly annoyed that film productions got covid carveouts when things were on lockdown. They could source covid testing, great. Why that made them not subject to facially neutral rules, I'm not sure. Same thing here.

What are the chances that it was a wadcutter? Profile not too different from a blank for a wheel gun.

Nevermind, no boomer casting his own wadcutters and mixing them in with homemade blanks required:

https://amp.tmz.com/2021/10/23/alec-bal ... ssion=true

*If TMZ is to be believed

Rittenhouse trial coming up. Pretty standard motions today*, but the coverage would have you believe otherwise.

*the likelihood of success is apparently very locality dependent. NY and Urban CA, prohibiting the use of 'victim' until closing is pretty normal, elsewhere your mileage may vary.

simple schoolboy wrote:Rittenhouse trial coming up. Pretty standard motions today*, but the coverage would have you believe otherwise.

*the likelihood of success is apparently very locality dependent. NY and Urban CA, prohibiting the use of 'victim' until closing is pretty normal, elsewhere your mileage may vary.

you're almost there. let me help...

have those that were shot dead been convicted of rioting, looting, or arson?

No, I believe they’re too dead to stand trial.

so what should we refer to them as? the deceased?

For purposes of the trial, whatever they were last doing. Calling them victims precludes a fair trial.

spike wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Rittenhouse trial coming up. Pretty standard motions today*, but the coverage would have you believe otherwise.

*the likelihood of success is apparently very locality dependent. NY and Urban CA, prohibiting the use of 'victim' until closing is pretty normal, elsewhere your mileage may vary.

you're almost there. let me help...

have those that were shot dead been convicted of rioting, looting, or arson?

Judge allowed that language in closing if the defense can establish a fact pattern supporting such an assertion. Seems unlikely they will be able to. Did you read the entire thread?

The prosecution can refer to the decedents/ disarmed as victims if they can argue a fact pattern supporting that.

The time not to do that is opening, no evidence has been presented yet.

Way to be tedious.

Don't worry, anyone materially affected by rioting has been purged from the jury pool, they'll get him on something based on the adamant stupid takes visible everywhere on this.