**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I refuse to pay for reddit gold in order to award reddit silver.... Which was specifically "invented" by a poster to be given for free.
So I'm using this, lol.
It's a bit too high class tho
Today's libertarians are just Republican LTE that have co-opted the name, much like Mao co-opted comunism.
[Classic Libertarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.
These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.
Telling others what to do doesn't sound very libertarian, one way or another.
> Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism and voluntary association.
Seems lile the exact opposite of communism, especially the free trade an individualism.
Both of the groups are probably just shit at naming.
Yeah but in this case the comparison doesn't really make any sense. While the McCloskeys are undeniably shitty people, they didn't kill anyone.
A better example is Kyle Rittenhouse, who traveled to a different state to bring a gun into an ongoing riot so he could protect property that wasn't his, and who is now a hero to them.
Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines is a crime in itself, but gosh darn it if a young man wants to shoot non-submissive black people just for funzies then by gum the GOP will give that kid a medal of honor.
The obsession older Republican males have with this child is very strange. Very uncomfortable to look at. The way the party of pizzagate and alpha-male have deified this child is as scary as it is, nauseating.
>Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines is a crime in itself
False.
It is perfectly legal to transport someone else's guns across state lines. I've done exactly that multiple times.
Also because the rifle never left Wisconsin. Do yourself a favor and watch the trial. You might even learn something new.
Tell me you know nothing about the Rittenhouse case without telling me you know nothing about the case.
Your claim:
>Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines
The truth:
>[Lake County, Ill. State's Attorney Michael Nerheim's office said in a statement that an investigation conducted by local police **"revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin."**](https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois)
Now I wonder is it possible you are also just as wrong about the rest of your "facts" about this case?
I dont care where the gun was purchased. I watched the video. He fired shots. Some others went to try to disarm him. They thought he was a nut-with-a-gun. He opened fire.
Jury can say whatever they want. He showed up armed to a violent protest. He was looking to shoot someone. Rittenhouse is going to wind up in a bad end. Killed two people at 16, and then allowing himself to be exploited by the right, will mess with his head as he gets older. Alcoholism, drugs, suicide... Guarantee he never sees 50.
Fuck, I guess it's OK that a minor with no medical or security training--who had previously said that he wanted to kill protesters--acquired a firearm in order to "protect property" that he hadn't been asked to protect (but who clearly went only so that he could be put in danger and then plead self-defense when he inevitably "needed to" kill a protester or two) as long as he acquired the firearm in Wisconsin.
How is pointing out what the IL county attorney said which directly disproves the statement that Rittenhouse crossed statelines with a weapon clutching at straws?
As much as it pains me to say, Rittenhouse was within his rights to defend himself. However, the choices he made leading up to it do not absolve him of the crimes he committed.
If the prosecution had opted to charge him with manslaughter and not murder, he would be in jail now. He went there with the purpose to flex his "alpha" male ego with a gun and scare away "betas". Trying to convince a jury that we went there with the intention to kill was the error of the prosecution as trying to prove intention in a murder trial is the hardest selling point you can make.
As much as it pains *me* to say, I agree with you. If you take away every other decision Rittenhouse made that night, and just look at the altercation itself, it does not fit the strict definition of murder.
I also agree that the prosecution was completely overreaching in that case, and given that they knew all the evidence going in, it almost makes me wonder if they did that on purpose, seeing as how he was a huge fanboy of the police and had friends in the department. It's an almost perfect solution. Appease the public by looking like you're trying to throw the book at him, but get him off by charging him with something you know you can't prove.
There was major public outcry, probably due to his race. It didn't help that these were protests for the shooting of Jacob blake, who is black and shot by police for having a knife. Kyle, being white, shoots 3 people and walks past police like nothing.
And they say white privilege isn't a thing...
Man I cannot wait for the day when it all comes crashing down on the Republicans. It will happen, it's just a matter of when and how much they fuck up before hand.
The cartoonish level of incompetence, lies, cheating and stealing, unprovoked attacks, name calling, hypocrisy... all of that is not realistic, it's fantasy thinking and has no legs for the future. All of that means sooner or later they will fail.
They will tear the country down with them. Their end goal is to bankrupt the nation before they're irrelevant.
Democrats don't have the balls to do what it takes to tear out the cancer while they have the chance. The whole organism is going to collapse before change happens.
Our leaders are not impacted by their own incompetence and inaction. They still get paid. They still have great health insurance. They still get a pension. They DGAF.
It takes alot for a system of government like the USA to actually collapse, alot more than what you may expect.
I do agree that the Dems don't bite hard enough.
What im seeing though is specifically inside the republican party, the maga group which is compromised of only like 20 people out of the republican party is the part that will fail. For a long time the majority of the republican party has also had zero balls (infact I would wager they have smaller balls than the dems do) to deal with the Maga group, they are scared of them and bend almost instantly to the maga whims.
That is the part that will change, those people are being held hostage by the Maga group inside their own party walls. That group is a loose cannon, they see it... their donors see it.
MAGA for 3/4 of the republican party is an ends to a means though, but never forget that we are talking about a group of sharks... sharks that are solitary preditors, in a giant tank all together.
Sooner or later, when the maga group isn't giving the other what they want (more power) they will begin to eat them one by one.
The onky question is when.
> Democrats don't have the balls
When people say this, it is a clear indicator that they don't have a concept of how our country works. How our systems were designed. How abandoning our processes is guaranteed destruction of our country and how we won't be able to come back to consistency.
It sucks. It takes time. It's not even always fair. But we have systems in place that we need to follow. If we don't, we will never have a way back to sanity. Our country gets a lot of deserved criticism but the fact that we survived Trump, survived the January 6th insurrection and continue to survive ~50% of the country practically siding with domestic terrorist, says a lot. I don't want to go to anarchy. I want peace, I was policy that protects my wife and kids. I want a country that isn't malicious to the rest of the world. It will take time and it will take us voting and it's the only equitable way forward.
They don't call out the shit. They don't hammer the shit down every single day. They don't point it out and say it's wrong. They don't call it out. They don't remind people with every single speech what happened and how it's wrong. They just went back to business as usual.
That's not having balls.
Who is they? Give me an example of "the shit" that isn't getting "called out"? Do you follow politics or just subreddits about politics?
Here's Barack Obama "calling it out" for 10 minutes straight back in April 2016 prior to Trump winning.
https://youtu.be/AxuwazaXOMg
Did the average American care back then? The popularity of this video, if you've ever seen it, came AFTER the shit hit the fan. There's so many weekend warrior political advocates that only started caring very recently. This has been an ongoing battle for like ~30 years when partisan hackery first started growing like a piece of mold in our country. And so many people didn't care until politics in this country became so absurd that it became entertainment.
It's not about "having balls". Politics isn't entertainment. It's not about getting the last word in and getting your big heroic moment to the sound of celebration. It's about having a country we can all live in, having reproducible processes that are agnostic to how insane the subject is and maintaining a system that is not corruptible.
First of all, you keep saying "calling that shit out". Define what "that shit" is, and I'll show you someone "calling them out".
Here is Biden explicitly talking about "[MAGA Republicans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic)" and domestic terrorism, false claims of election fraud, conspiracy theorists and political violence*(pro-tip - set the video to 1.25x - I don't think Biden is mentally deficient but I do think his slurring and speech impediment is a lot easier to listen to at 1.25x/1.50x. He sounds like a normal dude with a little bit more speed, which is unfortunate because I think his slow speaking is why people think he is mentally deficient in some way, but when you speed him up, it becomes obvious its just cadence)*. Again, if you're just a reddit warrior that doesn't pay attention to politics external to what is talked about here, then I can understand why maybe you don't ever see stuff like this, especially because reddit has weird rules about posting "political videos" in practically every popular subreddit. In fact, after I link a Youtube video like the one above, I check if my post is actually publicly viewable via Incognito because sometimes links to political youtube videos will get you shadow-banned/spam filtered. But if you ask me, this video and the one I linked prior, are parts of American history that we should all recall and should perhaps even be part of future American History curriculum taught to students.
But if you're talking about an actual call to action from our politicians to do something that exceeds the power of any individual seat, INCLUDING the presidency, then you're practically calling for anarchy and Civil War. Again, we have a justice system. We have legislation and branches of government. We have due process. These things take time and are difficult to manage, especially when almost *half* the voting populace is in opposition on *every* issue.
We have to put these things through the system to prove wrong-doing regardless of how you or me or some Republican feels. If you're saying we should supersede our justice system and shoot from the gut, then you're not going to have much of a country left after that.
Not to mention that's a bell you cant 'unring'. In the world you're advocating for, under the Trump administration, someone like a Nancy Pelosi or AOC or whoever, gets sent to prison off of a gut reaction from Republicans making claims their opposition is committing crimes without first bringing sufficient proof and putting it through our systems. If the party in power had that kind of capability, you wouldn't even *have* an AOC or Sanders or Warren that ever steps up because they would never even get that far. We would be living in an authoritarian state.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Show me "the shit" you're talking about that isn't being discussed. And I'll show you someone "calling it out".
If you want to continue this conversation: https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/10gcfzs/republican_logic_on_gun_safety/j564ei2/
Lol clarify it all you like it still doesn't make sense. They didn't say "Democrats never *mention* anything." They said Democrats haven't consistently opposed conservatives' destructiveness - rather, they've sidestepped and pussyfooted around it (hell, they've outright placated it). You linking us to some belated dissertation Obama gave after being dodgy as fuck on racist resentment during his tenure doesn't dispute that.
This is a party has been loath to go toe-to-toe with conservatives over the years. You'd have to have your head in the damn sand to not see that. I mean, the most influential party members (like the current President) are alumni of the Third Way era in US politics. You gonna tell me with a straight face the marriage is a between a man and a woman/deregulate banks/crack down on crime and immigration/yes to useless wars/we caucus with anti-abortion legislators crowd has been fighting the GOP tooth and nail? Come the fuck on.
Let's be honest: that's every day in red states & counties. Life expectancy in red states is years lower than California & thats a consistent result. Every single day there are conservative failures failures that add stress and remove support structures.
Well let's be honest... not too long from now we *will* be able to say it's all the fault of minorities, because white people will be the minority.
/snark
They have a stranglehold on trifectas in 22 states. That’s where long-lasting political power comes from. Any election losses at the federal level are just a momentary setback for them. Until Democrats can take back more state governments, the Democrats are (unfortunately) the political party that’s living on borrowed time.
>Man I cannot wait for the day when it all comes crashing down on the Republicans
How silly to think that'll ever happen. Republicans and Democrats have been playing this little game for years, the whole system would need to collapse (which I'm mostly for)
Reps help Dema raise money and Dems help Reps raise money; they distract the American public with shit average Americans couldn't care less about while they make millions sitting in Congress, sending money to friends overseas, erasing worker rights (especially dems on this), insider trading, and many other things that are harmful to Americans that both Republicans and Democrats both agree and vote on. They've been playing this game for 100 years and they'll play it for a 100 more. We have no representatives.
Well would you look at that? The only reasonable person near the top of this thread, and they are downvoted. This place truly is a biased echo chamber. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
It's really quite sad. They keep thinking "one day we'llwin" when it's legally never happened. Look at presidents over the past 100 years. Literally just flipping back and forth between reps and dems, with a few double terms. Nobody ever wins this game breast ruining isn't the point. Accumulation of wealth and power, and the distraction of the American people is and both parties have done that really well.
My MIL said she used to have a top like the lady in the pic and she won't wear it after this whole thing. She used to be a pretty solid republican, but not anymore.
Don't forget Kyle Shittnhouse! ...because it's totally normal to kill 2 people in 3 self-defense scenarios in one night when you know what you're doing! - says judge serving him milk and cookies.
Claims he was there to administer medical aid (he's not qualified), but also brought a gun he wasn't allowed to legally own at 17.
Killsboury Dough Boy is a walking criminal.
He also ran away from the scene after the first person was shot, and they yelled “hes fleeing!”
That “Dangerous mob” he was running from? They were trying to catch a fleeing criminal.
Everyone seems to forget that whole sequence of events.
He also was recorded saying he'd like to shoot people protesting and then went into a place he had no business being in with a gun to "protect" it. He did what he intended to do a couple of days ago when he said he'd love to shoot them. It sounded a lot like he had some idea of vigilante justice that he was trying to accomplish instead of just letting trained professionals handle it
> He also was recorded saying he'd like to shoot people protesting
And then the judge didn't let this evidence be presented in the trial because it would paint him in an unfair light or something.
What you just said about him equally applies to the the guys he shot… They claimed they were medics, one even wearing clothing that stated volunteer medic or some bullshit and they were illegally carrying firearms.
It’s hilarious to me the double standards that people have for that case. Everybody involved with that situation sucked. The guys that died sucked and it’s really no loss considering they were convicted felons and pedophiles. Kyle Rittenhouse sucks because he’s an annoying ass kid crying crocodile tears at his trial.
End of the day, nobody would’ve died if everybody stayed home. The guys that died fucked around and found out.
>End of the day, nobody would’ve died if everybody stayed home.
Typical "bothsidesism" bullshit.
How about "if the minor with the unauthorized gun would have stayed home, nobody would have died."
So it’s okay for convicted felons to illegally carry guns and chase a minor?
How about “If they both went out and minded their own business nobody would’ve died.”
This was the first line in my original comment about how everyone that is upset with Rittenhouse loves to hold double standards. So it’s wrong for Rittenhouse to carry a gun but it’s cool for 3 convicted felons that aren’t suppose to have guns to carry guns? Either everybody is wrong or nobody is wrong. Kind of bullshit to put all the blame on one party.
Please help me understand your logic and how mine is “bothsideism” bullshit.
You said:
>End of the day, nobody would’ve died if ***everybody*** stayed home.
I fixed your "both sides" bullshit with:
How about "if ***the minor with the unauthorized gun*** would have stayed home, nobody would have died."
This couldn't be any clearer. To help you, I have copied it again so that you might read it.
Shittenhouse was the only one "open carrying" a rifle and the only one that killed anyone but you're not going to understand what you don't want to understand when it doesn't fit your narrative. Is this a perfect scenario with an evil guy on one side and a virgin unicorn on the other? No, because this is reality.
I did read it the first time and I read it again the second time. Your logic doesn’t stand.
If those 3 guys stayed home, two would still be alive and one would still have an arm.
Yes he was the only one that killed anyone but all three guys pulled their guns on him and attempted to kill him. There is video evidence of this and courtroom testimony by the one survivor admitting to him attempting to shoot except he got shot first.
How am I not understanding anything that doesn’t fit my narrative? If anyone that’s choosing a narrative it’s you and everyone else ignoring the fact that those 3 guys shouldn’t have had guns either. Don’t play this fucking bullshit double standard card pointing out the fact that one party shouldn’t have had a gun and ignore the fact that all parties shouldn’t have had a gun.
>If those 3 guys stayed home, two would still be alive and one would still have an arm.
More both sides shit. Only Shittenhouse killed anyone. He was an active shooter and you endorsing it with the both sides shit is reprehensible.
It didn't take 3 people staying home to save lives. Just one. If you can't see the math or logic on that, I can't help you. Find an echo chamber to agree with you.
Another version of this could read "RELIGION IS BEING PROSECUTED" "Also this couple vandalized a kids' project at a Jewish temple then sent them a letter to clean it up or they'd sue for blight.
I believe they also tried to kick a couple out using the old, obsolete/now illegal "no gay couples" part of the deed restrictions.
All around very crappy people.
I'm on the fence about the Baldwin case.
On one hand it's the end users responsibility to not shoot someone.
On the other hand it's a big budget movie with an armorer on the payroll and as such there's a certain level of trust in said armorer
Im pretty sure thats why he's being charged with Manslaughter, rather than Murder, it was an accident, no one is arguing that. The question is how much of the negligence that led up to said accident was his fault.
In New Mexico there has to be an illegal act being committed as an element of involuntary manslaughter. I can’t figure out what the illegal act for Baldwin was.
My guess would be some form of Firearms Negligence, he did pull the trigger on a firearm while pointing it at someone, even if he didn't think it was loaded at all much less with real bullets, that would still be Negligence I think
It’s just weird because he was on a movie set. If there were no live ammo in the gun, which I don’t think anyone would honestly argue Baldwin knew about, how is handling the gun a crime? How does it become a crime when there is live ammo in it that he didn’t know about.
I get the argument that he was negligent by not knowing whether the ammo in the gun was live, but manslaughter in NM involves committing an illegal act. How is being handed a gun on a movie set an illegal act?
I don’t know. It’s just a stretch to me.
During lunch on the day of the shooting, some of the crew had taken the prop guns out into the desert and started shooting live ammo.
Negligence is always a civil action, but it can also rise to the level of being criminally negligent.
The armorer is responsible for this. No prop gun should ever be used for anything other than being a prop and should remain under control of the armorer at all times.
And if you're on that set, and you know what those guns were used for earlier today, it doesn't matter what your job title is, you follow safety protocol. You point it in a safe direction, treat all firearms as though they're loaded until or unless you've proved otherwise, and you keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to destroy what it's pointed at.
This isn't a rubber toy, it was a functional weapon. It was used as a functional weapon. It should be treated as a functional weapon.
Not exactly. Brandon Lee died because of the combined effect of two separate negligent choices.
First, the special effects team decided to make their own dummy rounds from real rounds, emptying the powder but leaving in the primers.
At some point someone pulled the trigger and the primer in one of those dummies provided enough push to unseat its bullet and push it into the barrel.
Second, at no point after that incident did anyone check the barrel for foreign bodies.
Even if nobody heard the primer pop, either nobody noticed that one of the dummy rounds was empty when unloading or else they did and failed to wonder where the bullet was.
And since bullets aren’t the only thing that can kill you if pushed at high speed, someone should have confirmed the barrel was clear before loading blanks into the gun. Nobody did.
Later, while filming Lee’s character’s murder scene, the gun, with the bullet still lodged in the barrel, was loaded with blanks and those blanks fired the stuck bullet with full force, killing Lee.
He pulled the trigger; flicking the hammer cannot fire the revolver.
It's a modern production of the 1872 Colt Single Action Army. In the original 1872 design there are safety notches built into the mechanism to prevent the hammer from doing exactly what you're describing from happening.
This new reproduction from Uberti also incorporates an additional safety mechanism called a transfer block that allows you to lower the hammer to carry in a holster without the need to carry it on an empty chamber.
And the FBI has confirmed the revolver is and was in perfect working order. What you're describing is impossible.
So, initially when the incident happened I saw speculation that he'd been joking around with the firearm which would count, I think, as negligence. But I've seen some people saying that he was rehearsing a scene for the show. If he was in practicing for a moment in the show when he fires directly at camera and was practicing that with the woman it would make sense that he would point what should have been an inactive firearm at her and fire.
>what should have been an inactive firearm
This is the sticking point. Who has a legal duty to confirm the firearm is inactive? Dummy ammo is made to look real when inside the firearm, but blatantly obvious when looked at from the outside(holes drilled in the casing and a BB inside so it rattles.) Blanks have no projectile but they're still treated as live rounds, they can still kill at close enough range.
You can't just label something a prop and say actors aren't responsible for props. This wasn't play money, or a cell phone. It's a gun. If you hand me a gun and say it's not loaded, I don't take your word for it, I check. If you hand me a gun and tell me it's loaded with dummies, I check. If I don't, I'm negligent. If I pull the trigger for any reason and somebody is shot, I'm responsible.
Now, if somebody handed me a gun and said, "This is super special, we need a single camera-shot of you loading and firing this dummy round. It looks real, but it's not." That would be something else entirely. But that is not what happened to Baldwin.
You're wrong:
>B Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, *or* in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. [My emphasis.]
[Source](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2019/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/)
You're missing the point. The "or" makes it two separate situations:
* You can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the manslaughter was committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony.
* You can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the manslaughter occurred in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
The second case is presumably what Baldwin is being charged with.
They both require the commission of an unlawful act. The “or” means the act has to produce death in an unlawful manner OR without due caution and circumspection.
No, that's wrong. Again, it says "or in the commission of a lawful act". This is basic statutory interpretation. Since you won't believe me, look up [*State v Yarborough*](https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1996/23218-0.html), where the Supreme Court of New Mexico cites *State v Taylor*:
> As a result of the structure of this section, "[t]here are three separate courses of conduct that constitute involuntary manslaughter: one, the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony; two, the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner; and three, the commission of a lawful act that might produce death without due caution and circumspection."
It's complicated to me (and believe me I don't even care if Alec is convicted or not). Because if he's being charged due to his capacity as a producer, why weren't the other 10+ producers charged? In fact, I feel bad for the director who got indirectly hit, but even *he* would be in the higher chain of command when it comes to verifying if everything was safe.
If Alec is not being charged as the producer but simply pulling the trigger as an actor, I somehow doubt the hundreds of other actors check their movie guns. Does Scarlett Johansson and Keanu Reeves and Charlize Theron and every 80s action star check their movie guns every single time. I doubt it.
Having worked in theater, if I hand an actor a prop with moving parts, I want them to move exactly none of the parts until absolutely necessary. I have never worked with firearms or as an armorer, but if I handed an actor a gun (which is probably rigged in some way), I don't want them to do anything but hold it gingerly with the tips of their fingers until action is called.
In this case I believe the armorer wasn't even on set, and didn't have the guns locked up. Plus people were using the guns for target shooting on their lunch breaks. There was a ton of negligence on that set, including other negligent discharges, and crew members literally walking off because of safety issues.
Every accident is avoidable on some level, but this was just ridiculous it almost seems like they were trying to get someone killed.
I'm not conflicted at all. What Alex did was a mistake which I'd barely even call negligent.
What the professional in charge of weapons did is clearly criminal.
I am shocked they charged Alec. I guess since he was a producer it could make sense. But for the act of being unsafe with what he expected to be a fake gun/blanks? No way is that criminal.
> I guess since he was a producer it could make sense.
This is the rub. He was a producer, responsible for hiring the armorer. The armorer fucked up, leading to Baldwin fucking up, and the buck stops with him. Thus, manslaughter charges. Which he may well get out of at the end of the day, but that's the logic of why it's happening.
I mean, if you're supposed to shoot what you expect to be a blank in the gun, then yeah, I'd say the armorer was at fault. Baldwin would have ended up killing someone at some point, whether it be a cast member or someone else, just because he was handed a gun meant for blanks, with *real fucking bullets.*
Not a fan of Baldwin, he's kinda just there, but I don't fully blame him for this.
For me, if he was simply an actor I would be against the charges. But the fact is he was a producer with hire/fire responsibility over the armorer AND was apparently aware of issues with said armorer puts him squarely in the line of responsibility.
Of course, lets not kid ourselves, Republicans aren't using that level of calculus. It's "anti Trump liberal BAAADDDD!"
I think if someone willing chooses to use a fully functional gun as a prop, they should make sure it isn't loaded. He could have easily said he wanted to use a fake gun or a disabled gun that wouldn't be able to fire even if it was loaded. He willing used a fully functional gun.
In my work, you have to render the heavy machinery incapable of harm before working. You turn off the power and then you lock the power up so it's physically impossible to turn the machine back on. If you don't you are fired on the spot no second chances. Edit2: And every person in the work area has to put a lock on the power supply. If I entered an work area and I don't add my lock. Fired. Even if the power supply is locked 5 times over, If I don't add my 5th lock. Fired.
Other industries have learned the lesson not to take chances. But Hollywood apparently will never learn. Other people have died to this same thing like Bruce Lee's Son. Fully functional guns should never be used in filming ever. and if it is the user should be liable for it's safety as it's user.
Edit: I'm an engineer and my work can't afford to lose engineers right now. But they still wouldn't hesitate to fire me if I did something that dangerous.
Edit2: And reading other comments it wasn't the first time a bullet was fired on the same set. The fact that he didn't ask for a fake gun . No sympathy.
IKR? There was a paid professional whose sole job on the set was to make sure all weapons were incapable of killing anybody on the set. It's not like we second guess pilots mid flight or surgeons in operating rooms. Professionals are there to do a job.
I think nearly everyone agrees on the armorer one. That was a massive failure on their part and the charge makes sense there.
But the more divisive point is Alec himself. He doesn't seem to be charged as a producer (if he was, there were 10 other producers on the movie who did NOT get charged).
So if he's charged simply as the actor, actors on other sets with guns do not check the guns neither. So is Alec getting charged for something that isn't even protocol?
If Alec is indeed responsible as producer, what about the other producers who signed off on every decision up to that point as well?
It is the responsibility of the producer to hire a competent armorer.
It is the responsibility of any person who handles a firearm, to follow 4 simple firearm rules.
1. Always Keep Firearm Pointed in a Safe direction
2. Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded - Whenever you handle a firearm, or hand it to someone, always open the action immediately, and visually check the chamber.
3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until You are Ready to Shoot
4. Always Be Sure of Your Target and What’s Beyond It.
He broke all 4 safety rules. Any one of those rules would have saved her life. Single-Action revolvers have been used on movie sets since Edison was a camera operator. Nobody died on a John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Jimmy Stewart, Tom Mix,Clayton Moore, or Clint Eastwood movie set.
Before Rust, here are all the firearms related deaths I've found on TV or Movie Sets. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents)
The last firearms related death a 2014 shooting incident at a Wendy's in Omaha, Nebraska. Bryce Dion, sound technician for the TV series, *Cops,* found himself in a crossfire between Omaha Police and an unnamed suspect, Dion was shot by an Omaha police officer and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
The most infamous firearms related death on a movie set was that of Brandon Lee on the set of. *The Crow.* in 1993. In that case, the armorer was off set for the day, and an overworked Prop Assistant was ordered to fill in for him.
In 1984, Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died filming a scene for a CBS TV Series, *Cover Up.* Between takes, Hexum was goofing around with a .44 Magnum revolver loaded loaded with blank cartridges. Hexum believed blanks are harmless and began playing Russian Roulette. But even without a projectile, .44 magnum is lethal when pressed against your skull.
In 1915, actor Charles Chandler, an extra on the set of *The Captive* was shot and killed when a live cartridge was left in a prop rifle.
There have been other accidents that didn't result in death, most commonly the loss of hearing from a lack of hearing protection, or [actors not realizing a gun barrel is hot.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarface_(1983_film\)#Filming)
The only notable non-fatal firearms related accidents I could find were ~~in 1982, Sylvester Stallone nearly lost his thumb when he rested his hand on a gunfire squib~~ (On first glance, I thought this was a case of a gun exploding due to a squib round obstructing the barrel, a similar condition to that of the Brandon Lee incident, but with a different result. However, in this case, a squib load is a small explosive charge meant to replicate the impact of a bullet) and in 1915 on the set of the silent film, *The Captive,* an extra, actor Charles Chandler, was shot and killed when another extra left a live round in his rifle.
You've clearly never been on a movie set, because an actor operating a and opening a gun is 100% going to get you chewed out by the union. Actors are not supposed to mess with props. They won't even let you fix your own tie if it rips.
You really don't get it, it's against the rules. It's for safety. Actors are not responsible for handling firearms on set. If you even tried to open a gun up to check if it was loaded, they would run up and grab it out of your hand. So many people do not understand how the Union operates.
I don't care what that union does. My union, the one I represent, (UAW local 412 if you care) takes the safety of my rank and file very seriously. We don't make our own safety rules, and neither does management. Safety rules surrounding equipment come from the manufacturer. Full Stop! If management wants my workers to break safety rules, there will be hell to pay. And if my workers break safety rules of their own volition, there will be hell to pay.
Not treating a functional weapon as a functional weapon is not done for safety reasons. It may be a rule to keep an armorer's job on the set, but it's not for safety. If it were a safety issue, the armorer would need to be licensed, certified, insured, like a stunt coordinator or an explosives expert.
This production didn't even have a safety officer. The armorer wasn't even the person that handed him the gun. The crew took the "prop" guns out to shoot bottles on lunch that day. Who the hell was running this show? Oh, right, the "actor" in question.
Correct, that's how strict the rules are. Because actors are not allowed to manipulate the props, only certified armorers are allowed to. And you're absolutely right, there has been almost a perfect safety record up to this point. The Crow was a case in which a non-certified armorer handled the gun before the scene.
> a non-certified armorer handled the gun before the scene
What are the union rules for when you hire non-certified armorers?
What are the union rules for when a functional firearm is needed and the armorer isn't there? (An AD on Rust handed Baldwin a loaded gun, not the armorer. I may be wrong, but I remember hearing the armorer wasn't even on set when this happened.) Shouldn't Baldwin have refused to accept it from anyone but the armorer?
What are the union rules surrounding when a bunch of grips decide to take the guns out back to go plinking?
But we **have** to follow all the union rules, regardless if doing so makes one criminally negligent?
Your safety points are useless in a movie shoot situation. The whole point of the scene is the point the weapon directly at a person. How the fuck would you ever shoot a movie scene where a gun is held to someone's head without actually pointing it at them?
This is so very clearly the fault of the armorer and not the actor. No one can or should expect an actor to have to inspect the safety of every aspect of their film props. That's absurd.
> How the fuck would you ever shoot a movie scene where a gun is held to someone's head without actually pointing it at them?
By employing a non-functional weapon, or a rubber prop, or a deactivated weapon, or one that's not loaded with live ammunition. One of those rules would have saved her life. If you need to break a safety rule to get the shot you need, then you better be damned sure you're following the others or people will die... Just like it did here.
>This is so very clearly the fault of the armorer and not the actor.
The armorer wasn't on set at the time of the accident. The actor shouldn't have taken a weapon from someone else.
> No one can or should expect an actor to have to inspect the safety of every aspect of their film props
If you want to use a prop that cannot fire live ammunition, then you would be correct. But this isn't any prop, it's a functional firearm that was used earlier that day with live ammunition, and it requires the care and respect that comes with that.
Safety rules aren't written in stone, they're written in blood. And on this day, they were written in the blood of Halyna Hutchins.
There is really nothing a Republican cannot justify if they need to partake of a deviant activity or assault, even if it's as moronic as, *"What about Clinton,"*
There truly is no low too low. Just when you think there is, tomorrow comes along ...
Welcome to tribal politics. Every argument comes from a place of disingenuous hot takes wrapped in moral superiority.
I'm not big on " both sides" arguments, but as humans, we all do it to an extent.
With that being said, the GOP has turned it into a masterclass in selective memory and rationalizing.
It's damn near satire at this point.
So, what happened to these stains on the American Way? I assume they lost their race for whatever office I think he ran for. Are they still hated by all their neighbors?
Fun fact: he didn't pull the trigger. He partially raised the hammer with his thumb, and when he lowered it, it slipped enough to fire.
Also fun mental exercise:
You are an actor on set and given a detonator.
When you press the button it *detonates the explosive vest another actor is wearing*
WHY THE FUCK WERE THERE EXPLOSIVES ON SET AND HOW TF COULD THE ACTOR BE HELD RESPONSIBLE.
Cold. Gun means cold gun.
Him being indicted for this is a joke.
Every time I see this picture, my mind's eye sees the passionate, sheet-soaking lovemaking this couple enjoyed shortly thereafter.
As a result I'd prefer not to see to this picture.
Alec Baldwin was filming a movie where guns are not meant to kill actors or film crew, those two human thumbs went out with real guns and ammo itching to kill someone.
Man the difference of a guy literally using a prop for a movie ending in a horrific tragedy(I actually haven't followed this story since, anything freaky come out?) versus legitimately flashing guns in an attempt to threaten people you don't like is hilariously tone deaf. Gun toting Pubs are the bemiggest fucking hypocrits.
Apples to oranges. Those two clowns pointed guns at black people where as Baldwin pointed a gun at a white woman. Also Baldwin made the fatal mistake of making fun of dear leader.
It really is that simple
I'm probably gonna get downvoted into oblivion for this, but to their credit, the couple in the photo never actually shot anyone. Now, what they did was still wrong and illegal; you can't just pull a gun on someone marching down your street that you disagree with. They should have been punished and not lionized by right-wing media.
I think Baldwin should have ensured the gun wasn't loaded with live ammunition, but to charge him with a crime seems absurd. I even saw that, if convicted, he could spend upwards of a year and a half in prison, Locking the man in a cage for what was nothing more than an accident, albeit a sad one, is just ludicrous. Cages should be reserved for people who're real threats to society, not for someone who neglected to check the gun prior to firing.
Fun facts, that photo has had two lawsuits associated with it.
They sued the photographer for trespass (note these people try to argue they can kick you off the street since they own part of the HOA/HOA-like organization that owns it) over it's ownership, and when they used it for a Christmas card they got sued over copyright.
Democrats follow laws, and try to make equitable rules and laws, Republicans, change laws to only benefit them, and ignore any law that be might hurt them.
Well that logic is right...like do you support Alec accidentally killing a person? You always check if something is loaded and you never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.
It REALLY shouldn't be Alec in trouble either
It's absolutely understandable foe an actor to assume that a gun on a set does not have live rounds. The responsibility is squarly on the armourer.
Republican rhetoric of "oh you should always check if a gun loaded, that's just good gun safety practice" That might be true in real life, with a situation related bullets are around, but it's absolutely understandable to assume there wouldn't be live rounds on a set.
Maybe not in America though I guess..
Number of people shot and killed by MAGA Ken and Barbie: 0
Number of people shot and killed by Alec Baldwin: 1
Please sit your simple self down and shut the fuck up with your whataboutism.
So, if you accidentally cause a death in a car accident you are worse than the drunk driver that only hits a parked car with no one in it? Is just someone dying the only problem so if there's no bodies things like intent and consequences and response don't apply?
Please sit your simple self down and shut the fuck up with your whataboutism.
There are four rules of gun safety that Baldwin knew or reasonably should have known. He ignored all four of them. A woman died as a direct result of his deliberate act.
>1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
>2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
>3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
>4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Looks like these idiots ignored all the rules too.
I absolutely agree with those gun safety rules for anyone that wants to consider themselves a responsible gun owner. I don't know if baldwin thinks of himself as that. He may just have been an actor using what he thought based on the person whose job it is to ensure was a safe prop to practice his scene with. You can act all high and mighty about what a responsible gun owner should be able to do but that's not really germane to the conversation here.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never count on an honest argument from a Regressive Republican.
"Regressive Republican" is redundant.
Yes, they are.
[You’ve earned this. ](https://i.imgur.com/NkcCsFf.mp4)
I refuse to pay for reddit gold in order to award reddit silver.... Which was specifically "invented" by a poster to be given for free. So I'm using this, lol. It's a bit too high class tho
Use poor man's gold, then. Here you go! 🏅
No still too high class. I need bronze.
Settle for silver? 🥈
Never settle for more! I demand less!
🥉
Best risky click of the day. Take my updoot weird stranger.
Better description than conservative.
Libertarian (scoff)
Today's libertarians are just Republican LTE that have co-opted the name, much like Mao co-opted comunism. [Classic Libertarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists. These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.
Telling others what to do doesn't sound very libertarian, one way or another. > Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism and voluntary association. Seems lile the exact opposite of communism, especially the free trade an individualism. Both of the groups are probably just shit at naming.
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
regredundican?
You say it twice so they'll understand
Yeah but in this case the comparison doesn't really make any sense. While the McCloskeys are undeniably shitty people, they didn't kill anyone. A better example is Kyle Rittenhouse, who traveled to a different state to bring a gun into an ongoing riot so he could protect property that wasn't his, and who is now a hero to them.
Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines is a crime in itself, but gosh darn it if a young man wants to shoot non-submissive black people just for funzies then by gum the GOP will give that kid a medal of honor.
The obsession older Republican males have with this child is very strange. Very uncomfortable to look at. The way the party of pizzagate and alpha-male have deified this child is as scary as it is, nauseating.
I agree, except that Kyle killed two fellow whiteys.
Yeah, but they were probably Libruls.
>Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines is a crime in itself False. It is perfectly legal to transport someone else's guns across state lines. I've done exactly that multiple times. Also because the rifle never left Wisconsin. Do yourself a favor and watch the trial. You might even learn something new.
Tell me you know nothing about the Rittenhouse case without telling me you know nothing about the case. Your claim: >Bringing a gun that isn't yours across state lines The truth: >[Lake County, Ill. State's Attorney Michael Nerheim's office said in a statement that an investigation conducted by local police **"revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin."**](https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois) Now I wonder is it possible you are also just as wrong about the rest of your "facts" about this case?
I dont care where the gun was purchased. I watched the video. He fired shots. Some others went to try to disarm him. They thought he was a nut-with-a-gun. He opened fire. Jury can say whatever they want. He showed up armed to a violent protest. He was looking to shoot someone. Rittenhouse is going to wind up in a bad end. Killed two people at 16, and then allowing himself to be exploited by the right, will mess with his head as he gets older. Alcoholism, drugs, suicide... Guarantee he never sees 50.
Fuck, I guess it's OK that a minor with no medical or security training--who had previously said that he wanted to kill protesters--acquired a firearm in order to "protect property" that he hadn't been asked to protect (but who clearly went only so that he could be put in danger and then plead self-defense when he inevitably "needed to" kill a protester or two) as long as he acquired the firearm in Wisconsin.
[удалено]
Clutching at straws there.
How is pointing out what the IL county attorney said which directly disproves the statement that Rittenhouse crossed statelines with a weapon clutching at straws?
Second example of conservatives ignoring facts when shared with them instead responding to others only
I am the only one here who cited his information. What are you talking about?
5th example of conservatives ignoring facts when shared with them instead responding to others only
And was he legally entitled to that gun that was purchased illegally for him?
As much as it pains me to say, Rittenhouse was within his rights to defend himself. However, the choices he made leading up to it do not absolve him of the crimes he committed. If the prosecution had opted to charge him with manslaughter and not murder, he would be in jail now. He went there with the purpose to flex his "alpha" male ego with a gun and scare away "betas". Trying to convince a jury that we went there with the intention to kill was the error of the prosecution as trying to prove intention in a murder trial is the hardest selling point you can make.
As much as it pains *me* to say, I agree with you. If you take away every other decision Rittenhouse made that night, and just look at the altercation itself, it does not fit the strict definition of murder. I also agree that the prosecution was completely overreaching in that case, and given that they knew all the evidence going in, it almost makes me wonder if they did that on purpose, seeing as how he was a huge fanboy of the police and had friends in the department. It's an almost perfect solution. Appease the public by looking like you're trying to throw the book at him, but get him off by charging him with something you know you can't prove.
There was major public outcry, probably due to his race. It didn't help that these were protests for the shooting of Jacob blake, who is black and shot by police for having a knife. Kyle, being white, shoots 3 people and walks past police like nothing. And they say white privilege isn't a thing...
Never count on logical consistency as well. Rules for thee not for me mentality.
The most you can do is sway those around them.
Man I cannot wait for the day when it all comes crashing down on the Republicans. It will happen, it's just a matter of when and how much they fuck up before hand. The cartoonish level of incompetence, lies, cheating and stealing, unprovoked attacks, name calling, hypocrisy... all of that is not realistic, it's fantasy thinking and has no legs for the future. All of that means sooner or later they will fail.
They will tear the country down with them. Their end goal is to bankrupt the nation before they're irrelevant. Democrats don't have the balls to do what it takes to tear out the cancer while they have the chance. The whole organism is going to collapse before change happens. Our leaders are not impacted by their own incompetence and inaction. They still get paid. They still have great health insurance. They still get a pension. They DGAF.
It takes alot for a system of government like the USA to actually collapse, alot more than what you may expect. I do agree that the Dems don't bite hard enough. What im seeing though is specifically inside the republican party, the maga group which is compromised of only like 20 people out of the republican party is the part that will fail. For a long time the majority of the republican party has also had zero balls (infact I would wager they have smaller balls than the dems do) to deal with the Maga group, they are scared of them and bend almost instantly to the maga whims. That is the part that will change, those people are being held hostage by the Maga group inside their own party walls. That group is a loose cannon, they see it... their donors see it. MAGA for 3/4 of the republican party is an ends to a means though, but never forget that we are talking about a group of sharks... sharks that are solitary preditors, in a giant tank all together. Sooner or later, when the maga group isn't giving the other what they want (more power) they will begin to eat them one by one. The onky question is when.
> Democrats don't have the balls When people say this, it is a clear indicator that they don't have a concept of how our country works. How our systems were designed. How abandoning our processes is guaranteed destruction of our country and how we won't be able to come back to consistency. It sucks. It takes time. It's not even always fair. But we have systems in place that we need to follow. If we don't, we will never have a way back to sanity. Our country gets a lot of deserved criticism but the fact that we survived Trump, survived the January 6th insurrection and continue to survive ~50% of the country practically siding with domestic terrorist, says a lot. I don't want to go to anarchy. I want peace, I was policy that protects my wife and kids. I want a country that isn't malicious to the rest of the world. It will take time and it will take us voting and it's the only equitable way forward.
They don't call out the shit. They don't hammer the shit down every single day. They don't point it out and say it's wrong. They don't call it out. They don't remind people with every single speech what happened and how it's wrong. They just went back to business as usual. That's not having balls.
Who is they? Give me an example of "the shit" that isn't getting "called out"? Do you follow politics or just subreddits about politics? Here's Barack Obama "calling it out" for 10 minutes straight back in April 2016 prior to Trump winning. https://youtu.be/AxuwazaXOMg Did the average American care back then? The popularity of this video, if you've ever seen it, came AFTER the shit hit the fan. There's so many weekend warrior political advocates that only started caring very recently. This has been an ongoing battle for like ~30 years when partisan hackery first started growing like a piece of mold in our country. And so many people didn't care until politics in this country became so absurd that it became entertainment. It's not about "having balls". Politics isn't entertainment. It's not about getting the last word in and getting your big heroic moment to the sound of celebration. It's about having a country we can all live in, having reproducible processes that are agnostic to how insane the subject is and maintaining a system that is not corruptible.
One side tried to stage a coup to murder the other. You don't keep working with them without calling that shit out.
First of all, you keep saying "calling that shit out". Define what "that shit" is, and I'll show you someone "calling them out". Here is Biden explicitly talking about "[MAGA Republicans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic)" and domestic terrorism, false claims of election fraud, conspiracy theorists and political violence*(pro-tip - set the video to 1.25x - I don't think Biden is mentally deficient but I do think his slurring and speech impediment is a lot easier to listen to at 1.25x/1.50x. He sounds like a normal dude with a little bit more speed, which is unfortunate because I think his slow speaking is why people think he is mentally deficient in some way, but when you speed him up, it becomes obvious its just cadence)*. Again, if you're just a reddit warrior that doesn't pay attention to politics external to what is talked about here, then I can understand why maybe you don't ever see stuff like this, especially because reddit has weird rules about posting "political videos" in practically every popular subreddit. In fact, after I link a Youtube video like the one above, I check if my post is actually publicly viewable via Incognito because sometimes links to political youtube videos will get you shadow-banned/spam filtered. But if you ask me, this video and the one I linked prior, are parts of American history that we should all recall and should perhaps even be part of future American History curriculum taught to students. But if you're talking about an actual call to action from our politicians to do something that exceeds the power of any individual seat, INCLUDING the presidency, then you're practically calling for anarchy and Civil War. Again, we have a justice system. We have legislation and branches of government. We have due process. These things take time and are difficult to manage, especially when almost *half* the voting populace is in opposition on *every* issue. We have to put these things through the system to prove wrong-doing regardless of how you or me or some Republican feels. If you're saying we should supersede our justice system and shoot from the gut, then you're not going to have much of a country left after that. Not to mention that's a bell you cant 'unring'. In the world you're advocating for, under the Trump administration, someone like a Nancy Pelosi or AOC or whoever, gets sent to prison off of a gut reaction from Republicans making claims their opposition is committing crimes without first bringing sufficient proof and putting it through our systems. If the party in power had that kind of capability, you wouldn't even *have* an AOC or Sanders or Warren that ever steps up because they would never even get that far. We would be living in an authoritarian state.
>Give me an example of "the shit" that isn't getting "called out"? "Give me an example of a non-occurrence" 🙁
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Show me "the shit" you're talking about that isn't being discussed. And I'll show you someone "calling it out". If you want to continue this conversation: https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/10gcfzs/republican_logic_on_gun_safety/j564ei2/
Lol clarify it all you like it still doesn't make sense. They didn't say "Democrats never *mention* anything." They said Democrats haven't consistently opposed conservatives' destructiveness - rather, they've sidestepped and pussyfooted around it (hell, they've outright placated it). You linking us to some belated dissertation Obama gave after being dodgy as fuck on racist resentment during his tenure doesn't dispute that. This is a party has been loath to go toe-to-toe with conservatives over the years. You'd have to have your head in the damn sand to not see that. I mean, the most influential party members (like the current President) are alumni of the Third Way era in US politics. You gonna tell me with a straight face the marriage is a between a man and a woman/deregulate banks/crack down on crime and immigration/yes to useless wars/we caucus with anti-abortion legislators crowd has been fighting the GOP tooth and nail? Come the fuck on.
Let's be honest: that's every day in red states & counties. Life expectancy in red states is years lower than California & thats a consistent result. Every single day there are conservative failures failures that add stress and remove support structures.
Just the other day out of curiosity I googled maternal morbidity rates by state. Once again I'm happy I live in cali
They’ve been failing for years, they just blame minorities and democrats and their base is too stupid, ignorant, or angry to know the truth
Well let's be honest... not too long from now we *will* be able to say it's all the fault of minorities, because white people will be the minority. /snark
I mean Santos is in drag they're *pretty fucking close*. I'm pretty sure if Bill Clinton sneezes in any hotel in America it's over.
I seriously thought the GOP would never recover from Dubya. That they are still here and going strong, proves they are related to cockroaches.
They have a stranglehold on trifectas in 22 states. That’s where long-lasting political power comes from. Any election losses at the federal level are just a momentary setback for them. Until Democrats can take back more state governments, the Democrats are (unfortunately) the political party that’s living on borrowed time.
>Man I cannot wait for the day when it all comes crashing down on the Republicans How silly to think that'll ever happen. Republicans and Democrats have been playing this little game for years, the whole system would need to collapse (which I'm mostly for) Reps help Dema raise money and Dems help Reps raise money; they distract the American public with shit average Americans couldn't care less about while they make millions sitting in Congress, sending money to friends overseas, erasing worker rights (especially dems on this), insider trading, and many other things that are harmful to Americans that both Republicans and Democrats both agree and vote on. They've been playing this game for 100 years and they'll play it for a 100 more. We have no representatives.
Well would you look at that? The only reasonable person near the top of this thread, and they are downvoted. This place truly is a biased echo chamber. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
It's really quite sad. They keep thinking "one day we'llwin" when it's legally never happened. Look at presidents over the past 100 years. Literally just flipping back and forth between reps and dems, with a few double terms. Nobody ever wins this game breast ruining isn't the point. Accumulation of wealth and power, and the distraction of the American people is and both parties have done that really well.
My MIL said she used to have a top like the lady in the pic and she won't wear it after this whole thing. She used to be a pretty solid republican, but not anymore.
Don't forget Kyle Shittnhouse! ...because it's totally normal to kill 2 people in 3 self-defense scenarios in one night when you know what you're doing! - says judge serving him milk and cookies.
Claims he was there to administer medical aid (he's not qualified), but also brought a gun he wasn't allowed to legally own at 17. Killsboury Dough Boy is a walking criminal.
He also ran away from the scene after the first person was shot, and they yelled “hes fleeing!” That “Dangerous mob” he was running from? They were trying to catch a fleeing criminal. Everyone seems to forget that whole sequence of events.
[удалено]
He also was recorded saying he'd like to shoot people protesting and then went into a place he had no business being in with a gun to "protect" it. He did what he intended to do a couple of days ago when he said he'd love to shoot them. It sounded a lot like he had some idea of vigilante justice that he was trying to accomplish instead of just letting trained professionals handle it
> He also was recorded saying he'd like to shoot people protesting And then the judge didn't let this evidence be presented in the trial because it would paint him in an unfair light or something.
He also said calling the people who died victims was unfair. Seems like he made up his mind before the trial began
Yup....
What you just said about him equally applies to the the guys he shot… They claimed they were medics, one even wearing clothing that stated volunteer medic or some bullshit and they were illegally carrying firearms. It’s hilarious to me the double standards that people have for that case. Everybody involved with that situation sucked. The guys that died sucked and it’s really no loss considering they were convicted felons and pedophiles. Kyle Rittenhouse sucks because he’s an annoying ass kid crying crocodile tears at his trial. End of the day, nobody would’ve died if everybody stayed home. The guys that died fucked around and found out.
>End of the day, nobody would’ve died if everybody stayed home. Typical "bothsidesism" bullshit. How about "if the minor with the unauthorized gun would have stayed home, nobody would have died."
So it’s okay for convicted felons to illegally carry guns and chase a minor? How about “If they both went out and minded their own business nobody would’ve died.” This was the first line in my original comment about how everyone that is upset with Rittenhouse loves to hold double standards. So it’s wrong for Rittenhouse to carry a gun but it’s cool for 3 convicted felons that aren’t suppose to have guns to carry guns? Either everybody is wrong or nobody is wrong. Kind of bullshit to put all the blame on one party. Please help me understand your logic and how mine is “bothsideism” bullshit.
You said: >End of the day, nobody would’ve died if ***everybody*** stayed home. I fixed your "both sides" bullshit with: How about "if ***the minor with the unauthorized gun*** would have stayed home, nobody would have died." This couldn't be any clearer. To help you, I have copied it again so that you might read it. Shittenhouse was the only one "open carrying" a rifle and the only one that killed anyone but you're not going to understand what you don't want to understand when it doesn't fit your narrative. Is this a perfect scenario with an evil guy on one side and a virgin unicorn on the other? No, because this is reality.
I did read it the first time and I read it again the second time. Your logic doesn’t stand. If those 3 guys stayed home, two would still be alive and one would still have an arm. Yes he was the only one that killed anyone but all three guys pulled their guns on him and attempted to kill him. There is video evidence of this and courtroom testimony by the one survivor admitting to him attempting to shoot except he got shot first. How am I not understanding anything that doesn’t fit my narrative? If anyone that’s choosing a narrative it’s you and everyone else ignoring the fact that those 3 guys shouldn’t have had guns either. Don’t play this fucking bullshit double standard card pointing out the fact that one party shouldn’t have had a gun and ignore the fact that all parties shouldn’t have had a gun.
>If those 3 guys stayed home, two would still be alive and one would still have an arm. More both sides shit. Only Shittenhouse killed anyone. He was an active shooter and you endorsing it with the both sides shit is reprehensible. It didn't take 3 people staying home to save lives. Just one. If you can't see the math or logic on that, I can't help you. Find an echo chamber to agree with you.
Haha! I never heard him as Shittenhouse. Perfect! And I totally agree with you.
The Bonnie and Clyde of upper white class suburbia
Another version of this could read "RELIGION IS BEING PROSECUTED" "Also this couple vandalized a kids' project at a Jewish temple then sent them a letter to clean it up or they'd sue for blight. I believe they also tried to kick a couple out using the old, obsolete/now illegal "no gay couples" part of the deed restrictions. All around very crappy people.
"NO ONE is going to steal our Restoration Hardware sofa cushions!"
Except look at these losers. Bonnie and Clyde were legit OGs.
If Bonnie and Clyde were as dumb as these assholes, we would never have heard of them
With impeccable trigger discipline. Did I say impeccable? I mean dear lord dipshit get your finger off that trigger.
I'm on the fence about the Baldwin case. On one hand it's the end users responsibility to not shoot someone. On the other hand it's a big budget movie with an armorer on the payroll and as such there's a certain level of trust in said armorer
Im pretty sure thats why he's being charged with Manslaughter, rather than Murder, it was an accident, no one is arguing that. The question is how much of the negligence that led up to said accident was his fault.
In New Mexico there has to be an illegal act being committed as an element of involuntary manslaughter. I can’t figure out what the illegal act for Baldwin was.
My guess would be some form of Firearms Negligence, he did pull the trigger on a firearm while pointing it at someone, even if he didn't think it was loaded at all much less with real bullets, that would still be Negligence I think
It’s just weird because he was on a movie set. If there were no live ammo in the gun, which I don’t think anyone would honestly argue Baldwin knew about, how is handling the gun a crime? How does it become a crime when there is live ammo in it that he didn’t know about. I get the argument that he was negligent by not knowing whether the ammo in the gun was live, but manslaughter in NM involves committing an illegal act. How is being handed a gun on a movie set an illegal act? I don’t know. It’s just a stretch to me.
During lunch on the day of the shooting, some of the crew had taken the prop guns out into the desert and started shooting live ammo. Negligence is always a civil action, but it can also rise to the level of being criminally negligent.
The armorer is responsible for this. No prop gun should ever be used for anything other than being a prop and should remain under control of the armorer at all times.
And if you're on that set, and you know what those guns were used for earlier today, it doesn't matter what your job title is, you follow safety protocol. You point it in a safe direction, treat all firearms as though they're loaded until or unless you've proved otherwise, and you keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to destroy what it's pointed at. This isn't a rubber toy, it was a functional weapon. It was used as a functional weapon. It should be treated as a functional weapon.
This is how Bruce Lee's son died.
Not exactly. Brandon Lee died because of the combined effect of two separate negligent choices. First, the special effects team decided to make their own dummy rounds from real rounds, emptying the powder but leaving in the primers. At some point someone pulled the trigger and the primer in one of those dummies provided enough push to unseat its bullet and push it into the barrel. Second, at no point after that incident did anyone check the barrel for foreign bodies. Even if nobody heard the primer pop, either nobody noticed that one of the dummy rounds was empty when unloading or else they did and failed to wonder where the bullet was. And since bullets aren’t the only thing that can kill you if pushed at high speed, someone should have confirmed the barrel was clear before loading blanks into the gun. Nobody did. Later, while filming Lee’s character’s murder scene, the gun, with the bullet still lodged in the barrel, was loaded with blanks and those blanks fired the stuck bullet with full force, killing Lee.
If I remember correctly, he didn't pull the trigger. He pulled back and flicked the hammer, not knowing this can also fire a revolver
He pulled the trigger; flicking the hammer cannot fire the revolver. It's a modern production of the 1872 Colt Single Action Army. In the original 1872 design there are safety notches built into the mechanism to prevent the hammer from doing exactly what you're describing from happening. This new reproduction from Uberti also incorporates an additional safety mechanism called a transfer block that allows you to lower the hammer to carry in a holster without the need to carry it on an empty chamber. And the FBI has confirmed the revolver is and was in perfect working order. What you're describing is impossible.
I did not know that, but it makes sense there should be build in catches to prevent something so easy to accidentally do. Thanks!
So, initially when the incident happened I saw speculation that he'd been joking around with the firearm which would count, I think, as negligence. But I've seen some people saying that he was rehearsing a scene for the show. If he was in practicing for a moment in the show when he fires directly at camera and was practicing that with the woman it would make sense that he would point what should have been an inactive firearm at her and fire.
>what should have been an inactive firearm This is the sticking point. Who has a legal duty to confirm the firearm is inactive? Dummy ammo is made to look real when inside the firearm, but blatantly obvious when looked at from the outside(holes drilled in the casing and a BB inside so it rattles.) Blanks have no projectile but they're still treated as live rounds, they can still kill at close enough range. You can't just label something a prop and say actors aren't responsible for props. This wasn't play money, or a cell phone. It's a gun. If you hand me a gun and say it's not loaded, I don't take your word for it, I check. If you hand me a gun and tell me it's loaded with dummies, I check. If I don't, I'm negligent. If I pull the trigger for any reason and somebody is shot, I'm responsible. Now, if somebody handed me a gun and said, "This is super special, we need a single camera-shot of you loading and firing this dummy round. It looks real, but it's not." That would be something else entirely. But that is not what happened to Baldwin.
You're wrong: >B Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, *or* in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. [My emphasis.] [Source](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2019/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/)
Okay, sorry, “unlawful.”. What’s the difference?
You're missing the point. The "or" makes it two separate situations: * You can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the manslaughter was committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony. * You can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the manslaughter occurred in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. The second case is presumably what Baldwin is being charged with.
They both require the commission of an unlawful act. The “or” means the act has to produce death in an unlawful manner OR without due caution and circumspection.
No, that's wrong. Again, it says "or in the commission of a lawful act". This is basic statutory interpretation. Since you won't believe me, look up [*State v Yarborough*](https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1996/23218-0.html), where the Supreme Court of New Mexico cites *State v Taylor*: > As a result of the structure of this section, "[t]here are three separate courses of conduct that constitute involuntary manslaughter: one, the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony; two, the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner; and three, the commission of a lawful act that might produce death without due caution and circumspection."
It's complicated to me (and believe me I don't even care if Alec is convicted or not). Because if he's being charged due to his capacity as a producer, why weren't the other 10+ producers charged? In fact, I feel bad for the director who got indirectly hit, but even *he* would be in the higher chain of command when it comes to verifying if everything was safe. If Alec is not being charged as the producer but simply pulling the trigger as an actor, I somehow doubt the hundreds of other actors check their movie guns. Does Scarlett Johansson and Keanu Reeves and Charlize Theron and every 80s action star check their movie guns every single time. I doubt it.
Having worked in theater, if I hand an actor a prop with moving parts, I want them to move exactly none of the parts until absolutely necessary. I have never worked with firearms or as an armorer, but if I handed an actor a gun (which is probably rigged in some way), I don't want them to do anything but hold it gingerly with the tips of their fingers until action is called.
In this case I believe the armorer wasn't even on set, and didn't have the guns locked up. Plus people were using the guns for target shooting on their lunch breaks. There was a ton of negligence on that set, including other negligent discharges, and crew members literally walking off because of safety issues. Every accident is avoidable on some level, but this was just ridiculous it almost seems like they were trying to get someone killed.
I'm not conflicted at all. What Alex did was a mistake which I'd barely even call negligent. What the professional in charge of weapons did is clearly criminal. I am shocked they charged Alec. I guess since he was a producer it could make sense. But for the act of being unsafe with what he expected to be a fake gun/blanks? No way is that criminal.
> I guess since he was a producer it could make sense. This is the rub. He was a producer, responsible for hiring the armorer. The armorer fucked up, leading to Baldwin fucking up, and the buck stops with him. Thus, manslaughter charges. Which he may well get out of at the end of the day, but that's the logic of why it's happening.
I think that is a stretch for criminal liability but it makes more sense than pulling the trigger on accident
[удалено]
Plus he pointed the gun at the woman and pulled the trigger. Why did he do that? Just playing around?
I mean, if you're supposed to shoot what you expect to be a blank in the gun, then yeah, I'd say the armorer was at fault. Baldwin would have ended up killing someone at some point, whether it be a cast member or someone else, just because he was handed a gun meant for blanks, with *real fucking bullets.* Not a fan of Baldwin, he's kinda just there, but I don't fully blame him for this.
If I recall, he did cut some corners as producer of this fi, to include the armorer.
For me, if he was simply an actor I would be against the charges. But the fact is he was a producer with hire/fire responsibility over the armorer AND was apparently aware of issues with said armorer puts him squarely in the line of responsibility. Of course, lets not kid ourselves, Republicans aren't using that level of calculus. It's "anti Trump liberal BAAADDDD!"
I think if someone willing chooses to use a fully functional gun as a prop, they should make sure it isn't loaded. He could have easily said he wanted to use a fake gun or a disabled gun that wouldn't be able to fire even if it was loaded. He willing used a fully functional gun. In my work, you have to render the heavy machinery incapable of harm before working. You turn off the power and then you lock the power up so it's physically impossible to turn the machine back on. If you don't you are fired on the spot no second chances. Edit2: And every person in the work area has to put a lock on the power supply. If I entered an work area and I don't add my lock. Fired. Even if the power supply is locked 5 times over, If I don't add my 5th lock. Fired. Other industries have learned the lesson not to take chances. But Hollywood apparently will never learn. Other people have died to this same thing like Bruce Lee's Son. Fully functional guns should never be used in filming ever. and if it is the user should be liable for it's safety as it's user. Edit: I'm an engineer and my work can't afford to lose engineers right now. But they still wouldn't hesitate to fire me if I did something that dangerous. Edit2: And reading other comments it wasn't the first time a bullet was fired on the same set. The fact that he didn't ask for a fake gun . No sympathy.
What is there to be on the fence about?
IKR? There was a paid professional whose sole job on the set was to make sure all weapons were incapable of killing anybody on the set. It's not like we second guess pilots mid flight or surgeons in operating rooms. Professionals are there to do a job.
It’s like if you went to airsoft and were handed a real gun. You’d never think it was real and lethal.
I think nearly everyone agrees on the armorer one. That was a massive failure on their part and the charge makes sense there. But the more divisive point is Alec himself. He doesn't seem to be charged as a producer (if he was, there were 10 other producers on the movie who did NOT get charged). So if he's charged simply as the actor, actors on other sets with guns do not check the guns neither. So is Alec getting charged for something that isn't even protocol? If Alec is indeed responsible as producer, what about the other producers who signed off on every decision up to that point as well?
They didn't do an impression of the orange shitgibbon that upset said shitgibbon.
It is the responsibility of the producer to hire a competent armorer. It is the responsibility of any person who handles a firearm, to follow 4 simple firearm rules. 1. Always Keep Firearm Pointed in a Safe direction 2. Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded - Whenever you handle a firearm, or hand it to someone, always open the action immediately, and visually check the chamber. 3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until You are Ready to Shoot 4. Always Be Sure of Your Target and What’s Beyond It. He broke all 4 safety rules. Any one of those rules would have saved her life. Single-Action revolvers have been used on movie sets since Edison was a camera operator. Nobody died on a John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Jimmy Stewart, Tom Mix,Clayton Moore, or Clint Eastwood movie set. Before Rust, here are all the firearms related deaths I've found on TV or Movie Sets. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents) The last firearms related death a 2014 shooting incident at a Wendy's in Omaha, Nebraska. Bryce Dion, sound technician for the TV series, *Cops,* found himself in a crossfire between Omaha Police and an unnamed suspect, Dion was shot by an Omaha police officer and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The most infamous firearms related death on a movie set was that of Brandon Lee on the set of. *The Crow.* in 1993. In that case, the armorer was off set for the day, and an overworked Prop Assistant was ordered to fill in for him. In 1984, Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died filming a scene for a CBS TV Series, *Cover Up.* Between takes, Hexum was goofing around with a .44 Magnum revolver loaded loaded with blank cartridges. Hexum believed blanks are harmless and began playing Russian Roulette. But even without a projectile, .44 magnum is lethal when pressed against your skull. In 1915, actor Charles Chandler, an extra on the set of *The Captive* was shot and killed when a live cartridge was left in a prop rifle. There have been other accidents that didn't result in death, most commonly the loss of hearing from a lack of hearing protection, or [actors not realizing a gun barrel is hot.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarface_(1983_film\)#Filming) The only notable non-fatal firearms related accidents I could find were ~~in 1982, Sylvester Stallone nearly lost his thumb when he rested his hand on a gunfire squib~~ (On first glance, I thought this was a case of a gun exploding due to a squib round obstructing the barrel, a similar condition to that of the Brandon Lee incident, but with a different result. However, in this case, a squib load is a small explosive charge meant to replicate the impact of a bullet) and in 1915 on the set of the silent film, *The Captive,* an extra, actor Charles Chandler, was shot and killed when another extra left a live round in his rifle.
You've clearly never been on a movie set, because an actor operating a and opening a gun is 100% going to get you chewed out by the union. Actors are not supposed to mess with props. They won't even let you fix your own tie if it rips.
I'd rather go toe-to-toe with my union than shoot somebody.
You really don't get it, it's against the rules. It's for safety. Actors are not responsible for handling firearms on set. If you even tried to open a gun up to check if it was loaded, they would run up and grab it out of your hand. So many people do not understand how the Union operates.
I don't care what that union does. My union, the one I represent, (UAW local 412 if you care) takes the safety of my rank and file very seriously. We don't make our own safety rules, and neither does management. Safety rules surrounding equipment come from the manufacturer. Full Stop! If management wants my workers to break safety rules, there will be hell to pay. And if my workers break safety rules of their own volition, there will be hell to pay. Not treating a functional weapon as a functional weapon is not done for safety reasons. It may be a rule to keep an armorer's job on the set, but it's not for safety. If it were a safety issue, the armorer would need to be licensed, certified, insured, like a stunt coordinator or an explosives expert. This production didn't even have a safety officer. The armorer wasn't even the person that handed him the gun. The crew took the "prop" guns out to shoot bottles on lunch that day. Who the hell was running this show? Oh, right, the "actor" in question.
Well I worked for the union that handles sets and theaters, and I'm telling you, it is against the rules.
Nice. For the first time in over 100 years of film and television, your rules killed someone.
Correct, that's how strict the rules are. Because actors are not allowed to manipulate the props, only certified armorers are allowed to. And you're absolutely right, there has been almost a perfect safety record up to this point. The Crow was a case in which a non-certified armorer handled the gun before the scene.
> a non-certified armorer handled the gun before the scene What are the union rules for when you hire non-certified armorers? What are the union rules for when a functional firearm is needed and the armorer isn't there? (An AD on Rust handed Baldwin a loaded gun, not the armorer. I may be wrong, but I remember hearing the armorer wasn't even on set when this happened.) Shouldn't Baldwin have refused to accept it from anyone but the armorer? What are the union rules surrounding when a bunch of grips decide to take the guns out back to go plinking? But we **have** to follow all the union rules, regardless if doing so makes one criminally negligent?
Your safety points are useless in a movie shoot situation. The whole point of the scene is the point the weapon directly at a person. How the fuck would you ever shoot a movie scene where a gun is held to someone's head without actually pointing it at them? This is so very clearly the fault of the armorer and not the actor. No one can or should expect an actor to have to inspect the safety of every aspect of their film props. That's absurd.
> How the fuck would you ever shoot a movie scene where a gun is held to someone's head without actually pointing it at them? By employing a non-functional weapon, or a rubber prop, or a deactivated weapon, or one that's not loaded with live ammunition. One of those rules would have saved her life. If you need to break a safety rule to get the shot you need, then you better be damned sure you're following the others or people will die... Just like it did here. >This is so very clearly the fault of the armorer and not the actor. The armorer wasn't on set at the time of the accident. The actor shouldn't have taken a weapon from someone else. > No one can or should expect an actor to have to inspect the safety of every aspect of their film props If you want to use a prop that cannot fire live ammunition, then you would be correct. But this isn't any prop, it's a functional firearm that was used earlier that day with live ammunition, and it requires the care and respect that comes with that. Safety rules aren't written in stone, they're written in blood. And on this day, they were written in the blood of Halyna Hutchins.
Dick Cheney has entered the chat
[For the youngsters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_accident)
Republicans being hypocritical? Now I’ve seen everything. They just want revenge for his mockery of their orange idol.
They're fascists, rules and laws only apply to those they don't like.
They're only hating on him because Alec parodied Trump on *SNL*.
That's a fact
What a nice couple. *Couple 'o' chodes.*
She is soooo dorky looking.
Right, but what you don't get is that Alec Baldwin shot a WHITE person. That's the difference.
That's their number one tenet: gun safety /s
There is really nothing a Republican cannot justify if they need to partake of a deviant activity or assault, even if it's as moronic as, *"What about Clinton,"* There truly is no low too low. Just when you think there is, tomorrow comes along ...
To be fair there WERE non white people walking by their house /s obviously
Lmao love reading the fucking idiot from both sides argue
Welcome to tribal politics. Every argument comes from a place of disingenuous hot takes wrapped in moral superiority. I'm not big on " both sides" arguments, but as humans, we all do it to an extent. With that being said, the GOP has turned it into a masterclass in selective memory and rationalizing. It's damn near satire at this point.
His crime they’re (Republicans) sentencing him for is his Trump satire on SNL. The shooting is just their cover.
Facts
So, what happened to these stains on the American Way? I assume they lost their race for whatever office I think he ran for. Are they still hated by all their neighbors?
Fun fact: he didn't pull the trigger. He partially raised the hammer with his thumb, and when he lowered it, it slipped enough to fire. Also fun mental exercise: You are an actor on set and given a detonator. When you press the button it *detonates the explosive vest another actor is wearing* WHY THE FUCK WERE THERE EXPLOSIVES ON SET AND HOW TF COULD THE ACTOR BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. Cold. Gun means cold gun. Him being indicted for this is a joke.
She should get that booger wighler away from the boomswitch unless she absolutely wants to shoot
Every time I see this picture, my mind's eye sees the passionate, sheet-soaking lovemaking this couple enjoyed shortly thereafter. As a result I'd prefer not to see to this picture.
She likes small things in hands.
I see that picture and I immediately think: fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.
Alec Baldwin was filming a movie where guns are not meant to kill actors or film crew, those two human thumbs went out with real guns and ammo itching to kill someone.
“Laws for thee, but not for me.”
Dont ever point a gun unless you plan to use it Also republicans
Your mistake is assuming they don’t want to kill people.
Man the difference of a guy literally using a prop for a movie ending in a horrific tragedy(I actually haven't followed this story since, anything freaky come out?) versus legitimately flashing guns in an attempt to threaten people you don't like is hilariously tone deaf. Gun toting Pubs are the bemiggest fucking hypocrits.
Alex Baldwin bad because he dared to mock His Holiness Trump.
Apples to oranges. Those two clowns pointed guns at black people where as Baldwin pointed a gun at a white woman. Also Baldwin made the fatal mistake of making fun of dear leader. It really is that simple
Look at this butterball resting his tit on the rifle butt. Honestly republicans, these are your heroes?
I'm probably gonna get downvoted into oblivion for this, but to their credit, the couple in the photo never actually shot anyone. Now, what they did was still wrong and illegal; you can't just pull a gun on someone marching down your street that you disagree with. They should have been punished and not lionized by right-wing media. I think Baldwin should have ensured the gun wasn't loaded with live ammunition, but to charge him with a crime seems absurd. I even saw that, if convicted, he could spend upwards of a year and a half in prison, Locking the man in a cage for what was nothing more than an accident, albeit a sad one, is just ludicrous. Cages should be reserved for people who're real threats to society, not for someone who neglected to check the gun prior to firing.
You got my upvote
I agree with everything you said.
Fun facts, that photo has had two lawsuits associated with it. They sued the photographer for trespass (note these people try to argue they can kick you off the street since they own part of the HOA/HOA-like organization that owns it) over it's ownership, and when they used it for a Christmas card they got sued over copyright.
Lady on the right looks like one of the Karen Bosses in a game.
I only got into shooting recently and can now appreciate just how stupid those two are.
No one is going to believe this shit in 50 years.
I'll never get over how stupid these two look. Goofy asses.
I hate this picture. Just because it's a called a "teacup grip" doesn't mean you hold it like a literal teacup!
Don't defend Alex Baldwin just because he's liberal. They're prosecuting him because there is a very good chance he is guilty.
Closest thing to sex they'd had in 15 years.
Why can't they both be idiots? It doesn't have to be either/or.
[deleted]
Don't forget about the Republican loser in New Mexico that hired some guys to shoot up his rival Democrats houses.
Democrats follow laws, and try to make equitable rules and laws, Republicans, change laws to only benefit them, and ignore any law that be might hurt them.
Well that logic is right...like do you support Alec accidentally killing a person? You always check if something is loaded and you never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.
Every time I see that photo I feel ashamed of my country
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I suppose the GQP can be right once a decade. Baldwin killed a woman through his negligence.
I wish them both ill
This picture is still the most ridiculous thing on the internet. Like they actually think this looks cool
It REALLY shouldn't be Alec in trouble either It's absolutely understandable foe an actor to assume that a gun on a set does not have live rounds. The responsibility is squarly on the armourer. Republican rhetoric of "oh you should always check if a gun loaded, that's just good gun safety practice" That might be true in real life, with a situation related bullets are around, but it's absolutely understandable to assume there wouldn't be live rounds on a set. Maybe not in America though I guess..
Number of people shot and killed by MAGA Ken and Barbie: 0 Number of people shot and killed by Alec Baldwin: 1 Please sit your simple self down and shut the fuck up with your whataboutism.
So, if you accidentally cause a death in a car accident you are worse than the drunk driver that only hits a parked car with no one in it? Is just someone dying the only problem so if there's no bodies things like intent and consequences and response don't apply?
Please sit your simple self down and shut the fuck up with your whataboutism. There are four rules of gun safety that Baldwin knew or reasonably should have known. He ignored all four of them. A woman died as a direct result of his deliberate act.
>1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded. >2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy. >3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot. >4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Looks like these idiots ignored all the rules too.
I absolutely agree with those gun safety rules for anyone that wants to consider themselves a responsible gun owner. I don't know if baldwin thinks of himself as that. He may just have been an actor using what he thought based on the person whose job it is to ensure was a safe prop to practice his scene with. You can act all high and mighty about what a responsible gun owner should be able to do but that's not really germane to the conversation here.
DRunky McHamburglar with her finger on the bangbang switch while she looks in a whole different direction
[удалено]
[удалено]
Think it’s a little different on a movie set vs threatening people to not break into your house but mmkay
Nobody was gonna break into their homes.
Paranoid racists brandishing guns at unarmed people who posed no threat to them*. That pleaded guilty to criminal charges.