tvc184

This has been said before but I guess it either goes over your head or you just ignore it. They were on a movie set. They do things that are illegal in the real world. It is against the law to make an explosive device in the United States yet movies have explosions all the time. It is against the law and up to six months in jail in Texas to recklessly replace someone in danger of serious i jury. Movies however routinely place people in danger and that is why they are stunt people to fill in for actors although some actors do some of their own stunts. Start people often get injured, sometimes as much as breaking a bone. Why aren’t the directors and producers charged criminally? It is against the law to be reckless driving and can cost you a few months in the county jail in almost every state yet they film police chase scenes in several states on public streets yet the actors and stunt drivers don’t go to jail. Why is that? You are comparing the real world with a fantasy land intentionally created where there are risks. During the filming of the Wizard of Oz, the wicked witch had her face catch on fire from the stunt where she appeared in munchkin land. She has some third-degree burns I believe and filming had to stop until she recovered. It was obviously dangerous and somebody screwed up. Should they have gone to jail? I have said in more than one post, Baldwin or someone else or multiple people might be charged. If they are they are. It goes by state law but you are comparing the real world with people who intentionally go into dangerous situations, many of whom are untrained (like actors) and rely on other people to do the right thing.

He is absolutely civilly responsible and will either pay out of his pocket or the production company or his insurance. If a person visit you on trips on your driveway and gets injured, they are almost certainly going to sue you. Should you go to jail?

The guy that shot and killed Brandon Lee on the movie said did not check the weapon. Why was he not indicted? Yes, if John Voight had done the same thing the liberals would be coming after him. The conservatives are doing the exact same thing to Baldwin. Why should politics enter into this? You’re basically making your case for prejudice against Ballwin with your examples.

I think you made many people’s case right there. He is a real work, has a bad attitude, I totally disagree with him politically and generally think of him as an idiot. Unfortunately I think many of those same people think he should have charges filed because of that. Justice is supposed to be blind however reading various forums, sometimes obviously it is not.

It is against the law in Texas to point a firearm at a person even if you think it is not loaded and even if it is not loaded. On a movie set and many have been made in Texas, you have to point firearms at people at certain points in filming. I’m sure this, like all tragedies, will cause a change in policy in the way movies are made. Maybe they will file charges on Alec Baldwin, the person that handed him the gun or maybe both. I don’t have a clue. People are wanting to indict Alec Baldwin because he has Alec Baldwin. The concept of ex post facto and is in the Constitution. You can’t file charges on somebody after you change the law to match what happened before. Did he follow or do what is normally done at movie search over and over? How many actors check the Firearms before they take a movie shot? In the movie the Green Beret with John Wayne, did all of the actors checked the M-16s they were shooting on set and pointing in all directions? I am fairly certain they were real weapons and I doubt they bought hundreds of fake M16s that were fully functioning. There is a huge difference. One guy‘s last name was Wayne and one was named Baldwin.

Have I ever mentioned in any other threads that I think reporters are sometimes highly educated idiots? They ask a question and they get an answer. Another reporter will basically asked the same question, sometimes substituting a different word and will get the same answer. Then another reporter… Maybe that’s a taught technique that if you shout the same question over and over but by different reporters each time, you might get a different answer. The way it sounds to me though is like the second reporter did not grasp the person‘s response, I’m not answering that question. Like the district attorney in this case says something to the effect that we don’t know who will be charged if anyone. If we can find out who is responsible and it fits New Mexico law, we will file charges. We have to complete the investigation. A couple of minutes later a reporter asked, I know you said you’re not going to comment on it but could charge you to be filed against Alec Baldwin? Uhhhhh… I guess the attorney’s comment that she would not comment and the reporter’s opening statement that he knew she said she would not come here, would elicit a different response? One person asked the sheriff if they were taking into consideration the rumors (which are never evidence) that the set wasn’t safe. I can’t remember his exact response but it was the standard noncommittal, we will look into all aspects that we find and turn over all facts to the district attorney. The district attorney‘s response was that they would look into the accusations. Sure enough, a couple of minutes later a reporter asked the district attorney if the rumors about it being unsafe would matter.

The sheriff did note get there at three revolvers recovered in the vicinity of the shooting. One was the actual gun which will be test fired but he said they assume that is a functioning weapons since it fired the round that killed the woman. He said that one appears as though it may have been modified but did not describe any and one he said it was a classic non-functioning revolver. I am assuming the one that was modified was probably a real revolver but set up only to fire blanks.

The sheriff said in the interview… “a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and what we are suspecting, live rounds”.

I would say that anytime someone is accidentally shot, it is an unsafe atmosphere. I don’t think you have to go past the fact that was somebody was shot to declare it as unsafe It seems like that movie set was an accident waiting to happen.

A walk through or rehearsal.

Yes, for covid19 it is new because covid19 is new. The technology isn’t. Again, when you can’t breathe and might be looking at the end, new technology is the least of your worries.

Well the times have changed. When I went to school more than 40 years ago, students were not assaulting teachers on getting in fights just so they could take videos.

Having never worked in a school except as a police officer, I suspect that is a big part of it.

That still does not negate what I have said before. Once people are sick and like me and many others possibly seriously ill, the choice between a new treatment and hospitalization or death seems like an easy choice. A majority and probably a vast majority of the people who get Covid and are not vaccinated, go through a relatively mild illness. If those people start taking a turn for the worst, they will likely opt for a new treatment rather than being put in a coma on a ventilator or death. That is not mind-boggling.

Is it because of corporal punishment or the attitude of the district officials? Maybe both? I know that nobody likes to air out their dirty laundry in public but having worked at a high school for security as a police officer (but not for the school district itself), I have arrested people on campus that the school district wished I had not. I am hesitant to use the word cover-up because they really didn’t cover anything up. Sometimes they’re highly suggestive to let the school district handle it internally. That never happened though. When I put handcuffs on someone, they are gone. An officer I were working at a high school and we watched one student assault another right in front of us. A teacher was standing between them and one reached over the teacher and smashed the other in the face. We arrested him immediately for assault of which he faced up to a year in jail. Some school officials came over and said that they would like to handle it. Nope. Off the student went to the County Jail. That is what I am wondering about as far as having a school backing up discipline (not necessarily from the police but any type of discipline) and trying to brush it under the rug so that it does not go public. That is one of the criticisms I have with a school district police departments. They are state licensed police officers but answer to school district officials. I think that a lot of times that comes into a conflict of interest for the school is not necessarily worried about enforcing the law as much as they are having control over the officers on the campus. Of course they will not say that but I have talked to school district officers before… When I worked on campus, we were contract labor and not worried about our boss being a school superintendent or principal. There was actually a pretty big incident at a high school several years ago and I was on duty for my police department and responded along with many officers. I had a school official look at me and my partner and ordered us on how to handle the situation. Uhhhhhh……. No. When I got that “order” my only response to be official was “Excuse me?”. We are pretty much turned around and ignored what was being said and went about our business. But that goes back to my question. Is it the corporal punishment or the backing of the school district or some kind of combination of both? Edited for tpyos ….. maybe I still missed some

Monoclonal antibodies have been around for decades. I don’t think mRNA vaccines have been around but about a year and a half as approved for humans. Obviously they did not make monoclonal antibodies 50 years ago for COVID-19 because two years ago it did not exist. After I have read tons of arguments against the vaccine, it is not that it is a vaccine but the fact that it is mRNA. Many people, like myself, including people I have read are against the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have said they look forward to the Novavax which is traditional, non-mRNA vaccine.

Nothing that I know of. I have arrested and in detectives filed charges on several juveniles and they would never any charges to bring against the parents. Being a crappy parent is not a crime.

With the sequence of events, there is a lot of stuff that amazes me. Even if you were going to use a prop gun to shoot at a range while not filming, why would a loaded firearm be brought back into the set? I have gone shooting hundreds of times. Except for a handgun that I am wearing in a holster for self-defense, they never even go back in my car loaded. All guns are unloaded and the action is open. It seems like some safety personnel including the so-called experts made some obviously horrible decisions. You don’t need to be an expert to follow basic safety protocols. I can see maybe some criminal charges being filed against someone that brought a loaded gun and put it on the set as if it was an unloaded gun if it could be proven.

At one time probably everybody allowed it. I certainly took a couple of swats in high school.

It sounds good… but the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that vaccinationsq can be ordered by the state and against private citizens, much less actual state employees. Of course he might have state law on his side which can be more restrictive. He also might try discrimination as in the governor ordered it from state employees but not everyone else. That does not fit any federal statute that I have ever heard of (discrimination for sex, age, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, pregnancy) but who knows about the state. While I sympathize with his case,I don’t know how successful he will be except going after deep pockets. The state and the university may decide to settle for a fee rather than taking years to fight it in court. That is many times the tactics of lawyers. You don’t have to prove your case, you just have to make winning cost more than losing. Maybe he will win, maybe he will get a settlement rather than the state spending thousands or millions of dollars to fight it but the idea of him making millions of dollars seems far-fetched in my opinion.

I don’t disagree at all with your thinking however I think bomb threats on campus are a felony. Once a bomb threat is called in, it is in the hands of the police, not the school district. I actually caught, arrested and proved who made a bomb threat when I was a detectives. They filed charges on the student. Corporal punishment is legal under state law however good luck in today’s world about getting that approved. While that is a great dream, it simply will not happen.

Harsher punishment for what?

Reading Supreme Court decisions, sometimes you think that they are leaning a certain way but have not found the right case. The court generally rules only on the case and question(s) in front of them at the moment. I have read decisions where the Court basically said, had you brought up with this question or argument we might have ruled differently however that question was not asked and no argument was made. It is kind of like, you asked us to rule on this issue and that is what we are going to do. An example on ruling on a specific case or question, in DC v. Heller they made such a decision. Heller wanted to have a loaded firearm in his home in Washington DC but city law did not allow that. You could not have an assembled a firearm even in your own home for protection. That question went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that, yes you could. They also ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment was about an individual right to firearms, not a state organized militia. But they left it at that. They could have made sweeping changes such as the right to carry a firearm anywhere in the United States without a permit, or a ruling that a state could demand that you had to have a permit or license but the state had to issue if you were not a criminal, etc. They simply answered the questions in front of them, is the Second Amendment an individual right and could you have a firearm for protection in your own home. I suspect from just my opinion and reading some cases, this Court might change Roe v. Wade and might make a Second Amendment ruling in an upcoming session.

in hindsight, yes. It’s crazy how that works. If we knew exactly what was going to happen before it happened, the world would be a lot better place and some people could make millions of dollars in sports betting. Maybe this, maybe that… but you can bet out of hundreds or thousands of movies and many thousands of action sequences, the actors are not checking to see if the firearms/stunt expert accidentally put a live round in it. When Brandon Lee was killed, there were no charges filed. That does not mean they won’t be in this case because it is a different set of circumstances and a different set of state laws. But in that case Lee was killed with an actual bullet. Would an actor have known to look down the barrel to make sure the gun was clear when he saw an actual blank put into it? Under the United States Supreme Court phrase of “objective reasonableness”, they said that the police must be judged in the use of force or deadly force by what a reasonable police officer would do, not a civilian or someone judging it later knowing additional facts. It is not intentionally the same however it is the same concept. In Graham v. Connor where the police kind of kicking the crap out of an innocent man, The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the use of force was justified even though the man had done nothing wrong and the officers made a mistake. That is because when judging at officer’s actions, even when injuring an innocent person, it must be viewed through the eyes of a reasonable officer having to make their decisions with a facts known to them at that moment. In other words, what does a person with his training and in that same situation, usually do? It doesn’t matter using 20/20 hindsight and looking back on it with additional information. So, what do actors usually do? That is significant because using Texas law as an example. It is a crime to point a firearm at a person even if you believe the gun is unloaded and if there was no threat. Simply pointing a gun at someone is a crime, even if you were joking among friends (no matter how stupid).That means that you could probably go back and arrest every actor that has ever appointed a gun on a movie set. Under the law and under the rules taught of firearm safety, you could almost never make a movie with any kind of action sequence using firearms unless they were toys. Maybe it will change in the future. Maybe it needs to be or have better safety protocols put in place. It is against the law however (actually in the United States Constitution) to hold people responsible for something that was not a crime when it happened but was later made a law. It would be like a police officer writing you a speeding ticket for going 70 miles an hour in a 70 mile an hour zone but the speed limit was charged to 55 miles an hour six months later. I think people are wanting to hold Alec Baldwin responsible for what many popular actors have done but because his name is Alec Baldwin.

…. and you are assuming that anti-gun Hollywood actors have a clue about gun safety? That is why they hire supposedly experts. Apparently in this case one of the experts screwed up big-time or maybe as has been rumored, they hired someone who claimed to be an expert that was not. In any case, high-speed chases, explosions, shoot outs, fight scenes, etc., depend on those experts. I doubt that John Wayne knows much about high explosives, putting out oil well fires, TNT, nitroglycerin or anything of that nature but I sure saw him do a lot of it in Hellfighters….. or maybe it was just the experts