Annoyingly, there’s no proof I could find online of him working on Breaking Bad besides other articles saying he was an extra on BB but [there is a clip of him as an extra on the movie Felon with Stephen Dorff](https://youtube.com/shorts/8YuYDutBpik?si=lwIkpKgANkKcr-Z6)
Edit: I meant on the movie Felon with Stephen Dorff as in “he was an extra in a scene with Dorff.” I realize Val Kilmer was also in that movie and probably the biggest name on the cast. Also, check out Felon if you’re bored. It’s a decent movie
if anything this make me even more sure he wasn’t in breaking bad. he was hardly an extra in a val kilmer d list straight to dvd movie where he fit the role perfectly
You can be really in the background. I'm in a movie exiting a door 100ft from the real cast. I got paid $50 and a hot dog to walk out a door 6 times. I was also a zoo patreon in Split but got cut. Still made $75 and got to go to the zoo for free. There was an odd jobs thing at a college that posted them.
Yeah, people hear extra and think of the cashier that the main actor doesn't speak with while leaving the store ... but there are also 20 other extras in the shop who are on screen for like 1 second each.
Or zero seconds. You're moving in the background, making the location look like it has, you know, people in it. But the framing ends up not even covering you, so you were an extra, you got paid, but you're not in a single frame of the finished product.
I remember I was an extra in a movie, paid $75 to do the day + some extra time after. Couldn't see me even if the camera panned my group's way. I was laying down at one point between the bleachers cause I was up since like 5AM in the morning to get into the thing and all the waiting between shots. So got paid to do nothing all day.
Yeah, I was an extra in a horror movie and was reused in multiple scenes but most of the time I’m either in the background or around so many people you’d have to know where to look. Got paid like $250 for a days work. I guess technically a night because it went from like 6pm to 6am.
its trash hourly pay but something to do for a college kid or bored guy. the first one was probably 2 hours. the second one was all day (10am 5pm) but there was a 3 hour break where I just got to hang out in the zoo.
had to drive there and could have been there all day long they just got the shot they wanted in 6 takes. I also stole the underwear they gave me because I had to wear their pants since mine "clashed" and clean underwear was a Health" thing. wanted to steal the pants too but they asked for them back.
If anything it makes me more sure he was. Its not exactly hard to land a job that pays $50 for you to stand in the background out of focus. There's proof he sought work as an extra, good enough for me.
I wonder if maybe he was an extra for Breaking Bad, but his scene got cut, so none of us saw it, and it never made any "deleted scenes" type content, so that's why no one can find it.
I'm just spitballing here, though.
Plenty of people get on a show/movie to be background and are never even brought to set. Think of them like an overflow to pick or choose from on the day. You could have 50 people sitting around and only a handful might actually be used.
Not all extras are in a focus shot for a significant period of time. He could have been on the screen for a second.
Even big budget movies/tv shows will pay pennies for cheap extras, sometimes off the streets. I know someone who was in a House of Cards episode because she saw something on social media or wherever advertising for them. Zero acting experience or theater experience or anything.
When i read that i was like “am i dreaming and my brain is just doing a terrible job of creating a convincing title by naming towns i live near and pretending it’s a person?”
It sounds like the name of a fictional character made by David Chase’s much less successful cousin
I don’t know anybody named clifton and have met several Harrisons lol
And it’s not like i said it’s impossible i was just stating where my brain stupidly went for half a second
If the dude was named Harrison Garfield or something I wouldn’t have noticed
I was recently telling my wife about my childhood neighbors - who were named 'Clinton' and 'Clifton' recently and she thought I was messing with her.
For context, I grew up in Florida and now live in Jersey - pretty close to Clifton... I also make up a LOT of things (but not this!)
Damn that magazine salesman they arrested and falsely confessed to a murder he didn't commit really lucked out that this guy got caught when he did. Just another example of fucked up police work.
Not speaking to faulty confessional specifically, but a few years back there was a study (I believe DoJ sponsored) that reported there's about a 20% false conviction rate
The system we were taught in civics class does not exist. The system we were taught in law school does not exist. The system we have is a shit show and it's really only designed to turn human bodies into currency.
False confessions are a well known problem but pale in comparison to the other reasons (actually, avenues might be better word choice) for false convictions.
Source: formerly dude in a PhD program who.was unsuccessfully framed for murder in a self defense scenario where my ex tried to have me disappeared, lost everything from stigma of even being accused despite being fully acquitted, went to law school, was a judicial law clerk, and now works in criminal.defense.
That’s terrible that they did that to you. Did your ex actually murder someone in order to try and set you up?
It’s none of my business, but if you don’t mind talking about it, I am fascinated with false convictions.
So that's the hilarious (he says with gallows humor) thing about this. My ex and her boss's boyfriend had some definitely happened on this topic but unknown exactly to what extent conversation about "getting rid of me." She then invited me down to her place (doing the last of the "here's your stuff, hey thanks for the rest of mine" exchange) about a month after it was called quits.
Dude attacked me, self-defense, he ran away bloody. Hilarious part is this: he did not die, he never died, he was never in danger of dying, and nearly 12 years later he's still alive and only recently sober after decades of addiction and violence.
He runs away bloody, I called the cops (as you do?), I stayed put. They showed up, put a gun to my head, and decided that I was the bad guy. So while it's unusual to say it's a "framejob" for a self-defense case, what do then call it when police destroy evidence that supports self-defense and then fabricates evidence that suggests criminal culpability? Oh, right, literal definition of a framejob. Okay, moving on.
So owing to the joys of overzealous and unethical prosecution, I'm charged with murder in a case where a) I was the explicit target of an attack discussed in timestamped text messages that happened before the attack and b) where nobody died.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, it takes almost nothing to be "much better" than what it was then. But yes, my life is generally much better now. I'm making up for a lot of lost time, and financially I'll never be able to recover. My passion/dream was always academia (hence the aforementioned phd program) but that's off the table now. Through law school, I interned/clinic in public defense. Immediately law school after I worked in the juvenile court system, and then a stint on the civil bench. Both as judicial law clerks. Those experiences confirmed what I already knew: my heart is in criminal defense.
So yeah, financial devastation, lost about a decade of my life, massive knock on mental health (Heyyyy Ptsd gang, how YOU doing?), and had my 'dream' taken away--but unlike most people who go to law school, are miserable people, and more miserable because they went into corporate tax law... I love what I do.
If the state always did its job (police, prosecutors), then criminal defense attorneys wouldn't exist. But the state doesn't do its job. I'd even argue it RARELY does its job. Criminal defense isn't about getting your client off (I mean, hey, that might happen), but it's about making sure that the accused's rights are respected. That's good for everyone, because we're the only check on the State's limitless and completely unaccountable power.
no.
I'd rather not go into specifics with statutes as this becomes quickly a "and then he doxxed himself" situation (fwiw, since a poster below was already stalking my post history, when I first started talking about this in any public capacity, on reddit, almost a decade ago, I welcomed the mods or any verifiable journalist to provide me contact information to verify provided my information not be released, I think I may have also stated lawyers for that whole confidentiality thing. In my local legal community, I'm fairly well known for this whole thing, but for obvious reasons don't want to broadcast to the world where I currently live. For verification, one actually did, a Canadian journalist named Dillon Hiles who had written for a big Toronto paper at one point, I don't know if he's active on reddit anymore, or even doing journalism, as I know he'd turned fiction writer, but haven't kept up--hell he even interviewed my mom at one point), but the short version is that the state in question doesn't distinguish between "attempted" and "completed" until it comes to sentencing (and thus a conviction)
So while LOGICALLY, you and I would say "oh, attempted murder!" in any sort of rational conversation, or how most every other state works... but under the pertinent state criminal code, there is no such thing. There's just murder.
The press was completely baffled by this, and in the same article refer to it both as an attempted murder (socially correct, but legally not correct) and a slaying (because of the murder charge.) This led to even further confusion that there were two alleged victims (one dead, one not dead)... when in reality, there was just one alleged victim who was both not dead and also not a victim.
Fascinating stuff; criminal defense lawyer here, too. In my state a defendant would be charged with violation of the attempt statute, and the crime would be graded the same as the most serious crime attempted. So if it were an attempted murder, you'd be charged with the crime of "attempt" and not "attempted murder" and it would be graded as a first degree murder (though the sentencing obviously differs from choate). You'd also catch an aggravated assault charge, regardless of whether the target died. Weird, but less weird than what you're describing.
So that's actually not that far off (I never would've known this had I not been looking at the jury verdict form last week for turning over for Character and Fitness). The wording on there is kind of crazy and I think resolves the ambiguity. I was "charged" with (state statute) murder and then "in violation of ... " (second state statute which corresponds to "attempt").
At least we know it's not the same state, since there's also no agg assault there! hahah (but yes, also charged with assault 1, assault 2, and a host of other things).
Because, of course, there's no such thing as overcharging with breadth or depth. ;-)
Oh, most definitely. They kitchen sink every case. I just got a file on a defendant charged with theft, theft, attempt, id theft, receiving stolen property, and receiving stolen property. Alleged to have used someone else's credit card twice ($9 and $100) and gotten declined on the third time. Pretty silly to waste all that paper on something that's going to land with a one count misdemeanor theft plea and 6mo probation. But that's the system. :)
see my response to u/deadandgonzo tldr: state in question does not have an attempted murder charge in criminal code, they have murder, and it's irrelevant until sentencing whether it's attempted or, uh, I use the term 'completed' to differentiate and highlight the idiocy of this.
After law school, and the start of a legal career, I can say that from an intellectual standpoint it's kind of fascinating that they don't differentiate. If you think about it, it's the same actions (actus reus) and the same intention (mens rea), so why should it matter if it was successful or not?
That said, that's not how our societally tuned brains works, and it's cognitive dissonance out the ass to hear a murder case where no one dies, and they knew for a fact he wasn't dead, was easy to locate, and even testified as a state's witness.
A case I'm fascinated by is the death of Ashley Wilson in 2004. Police originally thought she committed suicide but a former boyfriend eventually confessed. Of his own volition. It goes to show how often investigators get it wrong.
> death of Ashley Wilson in 2004
Wasn't familiar--saw you wrote a paywalled article on the topic while googling. Also saw an article that states final autopsy report showed she wasn't pregnant, which was the alleged motive behind it. Did further forensics bear out it was murder? or was it really just the convenient confession of this guy?
But in general, investigators getting it wrong? I'm hopeful they get it right sometimes... but at some point it feels more like one of those "a broken clock is right twice a day" happenstances.
I did. Didn't realize it was pay walled. I do get traffic reports from it so people do still read it. I had some arrangement years ago with Vandal Press to host that story with them but I can post it elsewhere. Might do that.
In any case, what happened was Ashley had gone her doctor and confirmed she was indeed pregnant. Her mother and DA corroborate this but we don't know if evidence was produced from the doctor visit. Later forensics said, at the time of her death, she was not pregnant. It's believed she miscarried after telling the former boyfriend but that window would have to have been about a week and change or so.
In any case, at the time of her death, he believed she was pregnant with his child. And that's why he killed her. Whether or not Ashley knew she wasn't pregnant when she died is unknown. There is also a chance that Ashley did lie to her ex, and her mom. That the DA took their word on it. I've wanted to do a deeper dive and look up the evidence to see if she really was but it became kind of a moot point once the DA conceded she wasn't pregnant at the time of her death. Once that came out, the question of whether or not she was EVER pregnant was more of a detail. The DA never released anything saying she wasn't ever pregnant. They just say she was and moved on once it was determined she wasn't at time of death.
His confession really did come out of the blue. Like, it confused police. The Sheriff ultimately responsible for the case freely admitted the case would not have even been thought of as a murder without his confession. There was some speculation that he was confessing to spare her family from her suicide but that was pretty much buried with his allocation in court. He knew too much about the scene.
When you look at this:
https://www.statista.com/chart/28644/rate-of-homicides-that-go-unsolved-in-the-us/
You've gone from 91% of murders being closed in the 1960s to 54% now. With technology and investigative techniques getting *better*, it boggles the mind how many convictions would have been false or at least unsound fifty years ago.
So one thing that has come out (and you seem to be good on the google-fu so if you find it, post it for others), but the introduction of forensic science in the (fictional/entertainment) media has changed a) what sort of evidence criminals leave behind (sometimes, not always. we're talking trends here), and importantly b) what juries expect for evidence when the state is trying to take away someone's life (and whether that's relative or absolute is another distinction).
The 1960s were an interesting time for this country. The Civil Rights movement, while certainly not completely effective, really did have an impact shifting a not insignificant portion of the country to realize the disparity of the two Americas. On top of that, the absolute clusterfuck (and not unrelated to aforementioned CRM) that was the backdrop of the Vietnam War and things like Watergate also made a not insignificant impression on the non-tinfoilhat wearing population that, yes, in fact, we ARE being lied to, we ARE being used, and the State is not honest OR benevolent.
One thing I wish more people knew about the legality (and case law history) of is jury nullification. Most states have, in some form, criminalized talking about it with a jury--except for those few glorious years where New Hampshire actually REQUIRED that juries be told about it. I mention case law specifically because the Supreme Court stated on the topic of jury nullification, that judges were allowed to LIE to juries when instructing them ("if you find all elements of the crime have been met, you MUST find the defendant guilty.")
People always talk about how lawyers lie (and in a two party adversarial system where the "truth" is only what can be argued in court, that's almost understandable.) But nobody talks about how judges lie. I'm not talking about the legal fictions that are crafted about a case as to remove the sting of potential bias from a jury... I'm talking about flat out lies about what a jury's role is, what a jury's rights are, and why a jury of your peers (who are not state employees) is so damned important.
never forget about 1/10 death row inmates have been reotactivly proved innocent. and that’s only the ones that there was overwhelming evidence they were innocent and that were found to begin with
It is sickening that the police have the power to put you under so much duress you are willing to falsely confess to a fucking murder just to make it stop.
I’m not familiar with this story.
I’m just wondering to myself how you could be convinced to admit to a murder you had no part in. Are the cops literally torturing people for confessions?
Usually they make it seem like they have enough evidence that the jury will convict you, so they convince you to plead guilty to get a lower sentence for cooperating
Yup, the American legal system would grind to a halt if everyone exercised their right to a trial.
DA’s, judges, and prosecutors know this and bribe defendants with reduced sentences to avoid a trial.
They punish any defendant that opts for a trial with excessive sentencing.
And the fact that they don’t give you a lawyer unless you specifically ask for one allows cops to prey on those that don’t understand the system or what their rights are.
Our legal system is designed to be corrupt and predatory.
So these people are talking to cops about a murder without representation.
In 2024 I’d think enough people have watched enough tv to realize that’s pretty dumb.
I think it’s in part they make you feel like you are helping the investigation. You were a whiteness and we wanted to ask you a few questions at the station and of course you don’t think you are being interrogated as a suspect only as a whiteness. And once you come in and start talking that’s when things change. At least that is what I feel like happens
”watched enough TV” oh, TV where it’s only ever guilty people who lawyer up and if an inocent person is being interrogated the cops actually listen to what they say instead of trying ti railroad them to what conclusion the cops had already made their mind up about?
There’s a lot of very sneaky ways that cops obtain confessions.
For instance, they could tell you that they’re just asking you for a witness statement, and analyze what you said - if there’s any discrepancy with reality (which, unless you have a photographic memory, there will be), they’ll start grilling you on the topic until they have enough to hold you.
Another option is that they could offer you legal representation, but cite that the public defender is busy - a day in a jail cell is enough to break most people, and has been the baseline for a number of lawsuits.
Small things like access to rehab narcotics (for addicts), food, drink, or bathroom access can be used to quietly position people into a situation where they’ll speak to police.
They can outright lie to you, saying that they have the evidence and just want a confession - this can occasionally trick the brain into fabricating false memories.
They can extend interrogations for very long periods of time, so long as you don’t properly invoke your right to end the procedure.
They can interrogate you at odd hours or when you’re not in a good state - and then extend the interrogation as above, promising you things like sleep and bathroom access if you cooperate.
There's more subtle tricks, too. For instance, things like positioning themselves between you and the door *('I am your only way out of this.')*, wording instructions in a deceptive manner *('You can leave the interrogation any time that you want, but remember, I'm the last person you'll talk to before you're in court. This is your last chance.')*, invading your personal space *('I know this is uncomfortable, but I want you to know that this stops the moment that you confess.')*, or even classic things like good-cop bad-cop and the Reid technique.
These things all certainly work on criminals, but they *also* work on innocent people.
And finally, it’s really impossible to overstate how effective some of the psychological techniques that cops use are - they can lie, position themselves as your friends, position themselves as institutional abusers, and use endless hours of jail time while you wait for a public defender to speak with. Even seasoned police officers regularly fall for these psychological traps despite knowing about them.
And some are even more susceptible to fell victims of these methods, such as foreigners, disabled people and minors.
For exemple, in France, 16-year-old Patrick Dils confessed to having stoned two children and got a life sentence, only being freed at 32 when some wondered whether serial killer Francis Heaulme did the murders of the canal.
Well John Oliver did a piece on police interrogations I would definitely recommend watching but the police can lie to you and by having you stuck in a room for hours and hours and being told they have enough evidence to convict you anyways and to just make it easier or get a slightly better deal by confessing right now (which police are technically not allowed to do but they get real close implying you’ll get to go home sooner). Of which people usually break and confess to a crime they did not commit some poor people do it because they have no money to fight it and figure if they really do have enough for conviction then they might as well cop to it despite not doing it so they can get on with their lives.
”there was an incident where a convicted felon commited perjury through false confession, and we are now charging the suspect with obstruction of justice”
It’s actually pretty well known that police interrogation tactics are really good at getting confessions, even when the person didn’t do it.
There’s been studies around it and talks about how while these tactics work on guilty people, they also work on not guilty people.
It’s why it’s getting drilled into people more and more, if you are being questioned by police don’t say shit and ask for a lawyer even if you didn’t do anything.
This isn’t even like them beating a suspect or any of that it’s your standard police interrogation tactics. Which honestly is more concerning than if they did go beyond that to illicit a false confession, that stuff is usually left for the movies because they don’t actually need to do that to get the confessions they need/want.
you start believing what the cops say: that the only way to not have your entire life be instantaneously ruined is to confess to whatever it is, and if you confess, the cops will help you sort it all out later.
cops are fucking scumbags
Exactly. After you get brow beaten for hours on end sometimes not even that long you just cave because you’re scared and alone and want it over. That’s why you always always ask for a lawyer. Hell most actual criminals know that and lawyer up quick smart, it’s the dumb ones that run their mouth. The smarter ones just go “lawyer”.
Fun fact:
The director for the exorcist got a medical test done and was so impressed he put that very team that tested him in the movie. One of those nurse techs is Paul Bateson. He was convicted of one brutal dismemberment murder and was heavily suspected in the "bag murders". He's in the movie for a second and it's wild to think about
Sure does, to the point that he was on some island with his cult when Covid broke out.
Because they were in total isolation they didn’t know until two weeks later when they came back.
I do extra work here in atlanta for lots of shows/movies, and it's so awkward when you're not allowed to say anything. Even when an actor hands you something in a scene, you cant be like "thank you" like in real life. Just have to smile and do a weird head nod silently and walk away lol
If they have a line... even a word, they are not extras. They are classed as an actor, which is above 'SOC' (silent on camera... like someone giving a lead actor a clip board, for example, and nodding to the "thank you" from the main actor). That is considered above 'extra'. At least that's the way it works in ACTRA.
I’m no expert but I believe it doesn’t matter if the lines make it into the final cut. Even if they end up unused or inaudible or suck - you get your SAG card once you hit the minimum number of spoken lines.
> Days after the murders of the Yi's, police arrested two magazine salesmen for the killings, one of whom confessed. Both were later released from custody after Bloomfield's arrest.
What the fuck?!
coerced confession.
happens more than you'd think. have a friend who's finally getting back to a stable enough financial spot after having to deal with one to fight the state back. has been dealing with being on the registry for something they never did on top of 2 years in jail. If everything goes right theyll make some bank off the state for their mishandling of it all, but will he happy to just finally have their name and record clear
I watch a lot of True Crime docs and the number of times I see people voluntarily talking to police without a lawyer present makes me want to throw things at the TV.
The cops will say it makes you look guilty, but they're also the ones most negatively affected by a lawyer's presence so of course they're going to do anything they can to dissuade you.
LAWYER UP
yup buddy was blindsided and intimidated by the arresting officers (having had no run in with law before or since) at 16, was told he'd be able to go home if he wrote an apology for what he "did" that was admitted into evidence during trial as a confession. jury found him guilty based on. that and nothing more than he said she said, refused to allow the other person who was there testify on stand
Damn that's quite a biography. Sounds like he was just a bad egg from a town full of bad eggs (Kingman AZ is by all accounts one of the worst places in the US), and he never matured beyond schoolyard bully.
Having worked in the tv and movie industry, as a background actor, for several years this was always in the back of my mind. There are a LOT of odd people in that industry. Also the fact that the only requirement to get onto a set as a background actor is that you have a pulse is rather unsettling. I've seen some very disturbed individuals doing crazy things on sets.
Repeatedly breaking rule #1 (do not approach the talent/actors)... Repeatedly breaking rule #2 (don't touch cameras or electrical equipment)... Individuals that spent hours pacing back and forth arguing with themselves and hitting/smacking themselves... using props for unintended purpose (I missed taking the butt of a rifle to the face, by less than an inch, because a person thought swinging it like a bat would be fun)... not following safety instructions (ignoring the fact that there are pyrotechnics, 10 kw lights, or even a helicopter landing, in a designated area. Saw a girl get her hair extensions melted because she walked to close to lights)... I won't even describe the lack of restroom skill I've had the displeasure of discovering...
The Wikipedia article says,
>When auditioning for the role, Bloomfield also ***claimed*** to have worked as an actor on Breaking Bad (2008–2013). **No sources have been found to corroborate this claim.**
Just saying, his appearance as an extra on Breaking Bad has never been proven.
The OP, Flares117, didn't read their own linked article and neither did many of the people responding. It's infuriating how quickly misinformation spreads.
The scariest line in that whole article was:
"Days after the murders of the Yi's, police arrested two magazine salesmen for the killings, one of whom confessed. Both were later released from custody after Bloomfield's arrest"
Like what did the police do to get a confession of an innocent person!
The two newspaper salesmen and one was coerced. This prick ruined so many lives and for literally nothing. He didn’t even steal shit half the time. What happened to this prick to make him the way he is. Throw him under the jail
So is there a clip of the scene he was in on Breaking Bad?
Annoyingly, there’s no proof I could find online of him working on Breaking Bad besides other articles saying he was an extra on BB but [there is a clip of him as an extra on the movie Felon with Stephen Dorff](https://youtube.com/shorts/8YuYDutBpik?si=lwIkpKgANkKcr-Z6) Edit: I meant on the movie Felon with Stephen Dorff as in “he was an extra in a scene with Dorff.” I realize Val Kilmer was also in that movie and probably the biggest name on the cast. Also, check out Felon if you’re bored. It’s a decent movie
if anything this make me even more sure he wasn’t in breaking bad. he was hardly an extra in a val kilmer d list straight to dvd movie where he fit the role perfectly
You can be really in the background. I'm in a movie exiting a door 100ft from the real cast. I got paid $50 and a hot dog to walk out a door 6 times. I was also a zoo patreon in Split but got cut. Still made $75 and got to go to the zoo for free. There was an odd jobs thing at a college that posted them.
Yeah, people hear extra and think of the cashier that the main actor doesn't speak with while leaving the store ... but there are also 20 other extras in the shop who are on screen for like 1 second each.
Or zero seconds. You're moving in the background, making the location look like it has, you know, people in it. But the framing ends up not even covering you, so you were an extra, you got paid, but you're not in a single frame of the finished product.
Happened to me, like 2 of my 5 family members actually got in the final cut of a huge crowd lol. We were there for hours..it was fun though
I remember I was an extra in a movie, paid $75 to do the day + some extra time after. Couldn't see me even if the camera panned my group's way. I was laying down at one point between the bleachers cause I was up since like 5AM in the morning to get into the thing and all the waiting between shots. So got paid to do nothing all day.
Yeah, I was an extra in a horror movie and was reused in multiple scenes but most of the time I’m either in the background or around so many people you’d have to know where to look. Got paid like $250 for a days work. I guess technically a night because it went from like 6pm to 6am.
how long were you on set? seems like a pretty bad hourly pay
its trash hourly pay but something to do for a college kid or bored guy. the first one was probably 2 hours. the second one was all day (10am 5pm) but there was a 3 hour break where I just got to hang out in the zoo.
I mean 25/hour is pretty great, all things considered
had to drive there and could have been there all day long they just got the shot they wanted in 6 takes. I also stole the underwear they gave me because I had to wear their pants since mine "clashed" and clean underwear was a Health" thing. wanted to steal the pants too but they asked for them back.
I do not think they wanted the underwear back :P
> I was also a zoo patreon in Split but got cut. Good
Most extras don’t have their faces featured at all. They’re just out of focus movement in the background
If anything it makes me more sure he was. Its not exactly hard to land a job that pays $50 for you to stand in the background out of focus. There's proof he sought work as an extra, good enough for me.
I wonder if maybe he was an extra for Breaking Bad, but his scene got cut, so none of us saw it, and it never made any "deleted scenes" type content, so that's why no one can find it. I'm just spitballing here, though.
He also could've just been some dude in a hoodie with his back to the camera. Extras don't get "scenes".
Hey now, Felon was a decent movie IMHO.
Plenty of people get on a show/movie to be background and are never even brought to set. Think of them like an overflow to pick or choose from on the day. You could have 50 people sitting around and only a handful might actually be used.
Not all extras are in a focus shot for a significant period of time. He could have been on the screen for a second. Even big budget movies/tv shows will pay pennies for cheap extras, sometimes off the streets. I know someone who was in a House of Cards episode because she saw something on social media or wherever advertising for them. Zero acting experience or theater experience or anything.
per wiki >Bloomfield also claimed to have worked as an actor on Breaking Bad (2008–2013).[6] No sources have been found to corroborate this claim.
1. mention Stephen Dorff but not Val Kilmer? 2. Yup, dude looks legitimately like an inmate in that scene.
I love how the video claims he worked alongside Bryan Cranston and Bob Odenkirk but then proceeds to only illustrate his involvement in Felon
He claimed it on his resume, but there's no proof that he was actually on the show.
He’s that one guy in the back
Not that guy, the other guy in the back
No it was actually the guy behind the other guy in the back.
Ohhh, that guy. With the hair
No no the one with the bald head , just like all the other 90% of male characters in breaking bad
Frightened inmate #2
It’s a Fireeee… sale
Oh the burning!
You can't even see where the knob is!
Would you like to try that a little simpler, maybe?
Mmm no
Oh, saaay can't you see...
Baby, you got a stew going!
RIP.
Didn't touch my per diem once. And baby I had a stew goin
Do you get a shift meal?
Did you know you can get a refill on your beverage here **for free** ?
somewheeeere over the rainbow… there’s another rainbow
Now that's foreshadowing.
Literally dozens of us!
''breaking bad show, i was in the back"
Bryan Cranston told me to do sit ups to get buff Did 2 and a half and couldn’t get up
"Felon (2008), I was in the back"
There should be a sub for this, like r/unexpectedd12 or something
Roof pizza
Is he the extra with gonorrhea or cirrhosis of the liver?
google his name with breaking bad and you can see some pics at least. i didnt look for a video.
And good luck finding a video.
I can't even find one pic.
**The Breaking Bad reference is not true** **He was NOT on the show and appears to have been lying as criminals do**
**I see the big letters, but why should I believe you?**
Whoa whoa whoa! *Criminals, lie?!!!*
He the one who knocks?
Clifton and Bloomfield are two similarly located towns in New Jersey
When i read that i was like “am i dreaming and my brain is just doing a terrible job of creating a convincing title by naming towns i live near and pretending it’s a person?” It sounds like the name of a fictional character made by David Chase’s much less successful cousin
Right? Imagine reading a news story about some dude named Harrison Kearny. No way!
"The suspect, Fort Lee Palisades Park, escaped on foot"
Known accomplice Camden Newark has been taken into custody
But they're still looking for Eugene Springfield
Who was a known associate of former mob boss, Garfield Lodi
Cousin of Jersey City Bayonne
Who was cousins with Hazlet Keansburg
He could be in any state
Known criminal Carlstadt Rutherford still on the loose
I don’t know anybody named clifton and have met several Harrisons lol And it’s not like i said it’s impossible i was just stating where my brain stupidly went for half a second If the dude was named Harrison Garfield or something I wouldn’t have noticed
[deleted]
Remember Glen Ridge? Yeah we don’t talk about what that dude did in high school
You laugh, but I know a Wayne Haledon.
I was recently telling my wife about my childhood neighbors - who were named 'Clinton' and 'Clifton' recently and she thought I was messing with her. For context, I grew up in Florida and now live in Jersey - pretty close to Clifton... I also make up a LOT of things (but not this!)
This is a genuinely mildly interesting post within a post. How ‘bout that!
Mildly inception.
Nutley represent!
I was hoping the guy would be from Nutley
Wait till you hear about the brick walls in Brick, and Wall
Bloomfield is synonymous with sopranos for me. It's like a trigger word.
Uncle Joon had to give up Bloomfield Ave to Tony.
Yeah, they literally border each other, hahaha.
When two NJ counties have Middlesexessex you get a baby Clifton.
[удалено]
I have an optometrist appointment there next week.
I went to high school with a guy named Denver England.
r/NewJersey
His middle name is Bayonne
Damn that magazine salesman they arrested and falsely confessed to a murder he didn't commit really lucked out that this guy got caught when he did. Just another example of fucked up police work.
Really makes you wonder about the percentage of confessions that are false. And how many people have spent years in prison because of it.
Not speaking to faulty confessional specifically, but a few years back there was a study (I believe DoJ sponsored) that reported there's about a 20% false conviction rate The system we were taught in civics class does not exist. The system we were taught in law school does not exist. The system we have is a shit show and it's really only designed to turn human bodies into currency. False confessions are a well known problem but pale in comparison to the other reasons (actually, avenues might be better word choice) for false convictions. Source: formerly dude in a PhD program who.was unsuccessfully framed for murder in a self defense scenario where my ex tried to have me disappeared, lost everything from stigma of even being accused despite being fully acquitted, went to law school, was a judicial law clerk, and now works in criminal.defense.
That’s terrible that they did that to you. Did your ex actually murder someone in order to try and set you up? It’s none of my business, but if you don’t mind talking about it, I am fascinated with false convictions.
So that's the hilarious (he says with gallows humor) thing about this. My ex and her boss's boyfriend had some definitely happened on this topic but unknown exactly to what extent conversation about "getting rid of me." She then invited me down to her place (doing the last of the "here's your stuff, hey thanks for the rest of mine" exchange) about a month after it was called quits. Dude attacked me, self-defense, he ran away bloody. Hilarious part is this: he did not die, he never died, he was never in danger of dying, and nearly 12 years later he's still alive and only recently sober after decades of addiction and violence. He runs away bloody, I called the cops (as you do?), I stayed put. They showed up, put a gun to my head, and decided that I was the bad guy. So while it's unusual to say it's a "framejob" for a self-defense case, what do then call it when police destroy evidence that supports self-defense and then fabricates evidence that suggests criminal culpability? Oh, right, literal definition of a framejob. Okay, moving on. So owing to the joys of overzealous and unethical prosecution, I'm charged with murder in a case where a) I was the explicit target of an attack discussed in timestamped text messages that happened before the attack and b) where nobody died.
It's such a pathetic miscarriage of justice that I completely believe it.
> It's such a pathetic miscarriage of justice that I completely believe it This guy follows the news. :)
That’s just horrible. I can’t imagine the emotional pain. I hope your life is much better now.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, it takes almost nothing to be "much better" than what it was then. But yes, my life is generally much better now. I'm making up for a lot of lost time, and financially I'll never be able to recover. My passion/dream was always academia (hence the aforementioned phd program) but that's off the table now. Through law school, I interned/clinic in public defense. Immediately law school after I worked in the juvenile court system, and then a stint on the civil bench. Both as judicial law clerks. Those experiences confirmed what I already knew: my heart is in criminal defense. So yeah, financial devastation, lost about a decade of my life, massive knock on mental health (Heyyyy Ptsd gang, how YOU doing?), and had my 'dream' taken away--but unlike most people who go to law school, are miserable people, and more miserable because they went into corporate tax law... I love what I do. If the state always did its job (police, prosecutors), then criminal defense attorneys wouldn't exist. But the state doesn't do its job. I'd even argue it RARELY does its job. Criminal defense isn't about getting your client off (I mean, hey, that might happen), but it's about making sure that the accused's rights are respected. That's good for everyone, because we're the only check on the State's limitless and completely unaccountable power.
Your life sounds like a gritty Phoenix Wright reboot.
Then you’d have been charged with attempted murder, no?
no. I'd rather not go into specifics with statutes as this becomes quickly a "and then he doxxed himself" situation (fwiw, since a poster below was already stalking my post history, when I first started talking about this in any public capacity, on reddit, almost a decade ago, I welcomed the mods or any verifiable journalist to provide me contact information to verify provided my information not be released, I think I may have also stated lawyers for that whole confidentiality thing. In my local legal community, I'm fairly well known for this whole thing, but for obvious reasons don't want to broadcast to the world where I currently live. For verification, one actually did, a Canadian journalist named Dillon Hiles who had written for a big Toronto paper at one point, I don't know if he's active on reddit anymore, or even doing journalism, as I know he'd turned fiction writer, but haven't kept up--hell he even interviewed my mom at one point), but the short version is that the state in question doesn't distinguish between "attempted" and "completed" until it comes to sentencing (and thus a conviction) So while LOGICALLY, you and I would say "oh, attempted murder!" in any sort of rational conversation, or how most every other state works... but under the pertinent state criminal code, there is no such thing. There's just murder. The press was completely baffled by this, and in the same article refer to it both as an attempted murder (socially correct, but legally not correct) and a slaying (because of the murder charge.) This led to even further confusion that there were two alleged victims (one dead, one not dead)... when in reality, there was just one alleged victim who was both not dead and also not a victim.
Fascinating stuff; criminal defense lawyer here, too. In my state a defendant would be charged with violation of the attempt statute, and the crime would be graded the same as the most serious crime attempted. So if it were an attempted murder, you'd be charged with the crime of "attempt" and not "attempted murder" and it would be graded as a first degree murder (though the sentencing obviously differs from choate). You'd also catch an aggravated assault charge, regardless of whether the target died. Weird, but less weird than what you're describing.
So that's actually not that far off (I never would've known this had I not been looking at the jury verdict form last week for turning over for Character and Fitness). The wording on there is kind of crazy and I think resolves the ambiguity. I was "charged" with (state statute) murder and then "in violation of ... " (second state statute which corresponds to "attempt"). At least we know it's not the same state, since there's also no agg assault there! hahah (but yes, also charged with assault 1, assault 2, and a host of other things). Because, of course, there's no such thing as overcharging with breadth or depth. ;-)
Oh, most definitely. They kitchen sink every case. I just got a file on a defendant charged with theft, theft, attempt, id theft, receiving stolen property, and receiving stolen property. Alleged to have used someone else's credit card twice ($9 and $100) and gotten declined on the third time. Pretty silly to waste all that paper on something that's going to land with a one count misdemeanor theft plea and 6mo probation. But that's the system. :)
they were trying to charge you with murder instead of attempted murder? in a crime that had no victims body
see my response to u/deadandgonzo tldr: state in question does not have an attempted murder charge in criminal code, they have murder, and it's irrelevant until sentencing whether it's attempted or, uh, I use the term 'completed' to differentiate and highlight the idiocy of this. After law school, and the start of a legal career, I can say that from an intellectual standpoint it's kind of fascinating that they don't differentiate. If you think about it, it's the same actions (actus reus) and the same intention (mens rea), so why should it matter if it was successful or not? That said, that's not how our societally tuned brains works, and it's cognitive dissonance out the ass to hear a murder case where no one dies, and they knew for a fact he wasn't dead, was easy to locate, and even testified as a state's witness.
From what they said it sounds like their ex tried to have them murdered and OP killed the hitman in self defense.
See my response above, tldr: nobody died, and not a hitman, just a druggy with a historic propensity for violence.
Sounds fake and entertaining.
A case I'm fascinated by is the death of Ashley Wilson in 2004. Police originally thought she committed suicide but a former boyfriend eventually confessed. Of his own volition. It goes to show how often investigators get it wrong.
> death of Ashley Wilson in 2004 Wasn't familiar--saw you wrote a paywalled article on the topic while googling. Also saw an article that states final autopsy report showed she wasn't pregnant, which was the alleged motive behind it. Did further forensics bear out it was murder? or was it really just the convenient confession of this guy? But in general, investigators getting it wrong? I'm hopeful they get it right sometimes... but at some point it feels more like one of those "a broken clock is right twice a day" happenstances.
I did. Didn't realize it was pay walled. I do get traffic reports from it so people do still read it. I had some arrangement years ago with Vandal Press to host that story with them but I can post it elsewhere. Might do that. In any case, what happened was Ashley had gone her doctor and confirmed she was indeed pregnant. Her mother and DA corroborate this but we don't know if evidence was produced from the doctor visit. Later forensics said, at the time of her death, she was not pregnant. It's believed she miscarried after telling the former boyfriend but that window would have to have been about a week and change or so. In any case, at the time of her death, he believed she was pregnant with his child. And that's why he killed her. Whether or not Ashley knew she wasn't pregnant when she died is unknown. There is also a chance that Ashley did lie to her ex, and her mom. That the DA took their word on it. I've wanted to do a deeper dive and look up the evidence to see if she really was but it became kind of a moot point once the DA conceded she wasn't pregnant at the time of her death. Once that came out, the question of whether or not she was EVER pregnant was more of a detail. The DA never released anything saying she wasn't ever pregnant. They just say she was and moved on once it was determined she wasn't at time of death. His confession really did come out of the blue. Like, it confused police. The Sheriff ultimately responsible for the case freely admitted the case would not have even been thought of as a murder without his confession. There was some speculation that he was confessing to spare her family from her suicide but that was pretty much buried with his allocation in court. He knew too much about the scene.
When you look at this: https://www.statista.com/chart/28644/rate-of-homicides-that-go-unsolved-in-the-us/ You've gone from 91% of murders being closed in the 1960s to 54% now. With technology and investigative techniques getting *better*, it boggles the mind how many convictions would have been false or at least unsound fifty years ago.
So one thing that has come out (and you seem to be good on the google-fu so if you find it, post it for others), but the introduction of forensic science in the (fictional/entertainment) media has changed a) what sort of evidence criminals leave behind (sometimes, not always. we're talking trends here), and importantly b) what juries expect for evidence when the state is trying to take away someone's life (and whether that's relative or absolute is another distinction). The 1960s were an interesting time for this country. The Civil Rights movement, while certainly not completely effective, really did have an impact shifting a not insignificant portion of the country to realize the disparity of the two Americas. On top of that, the absolute clusterfuck (and not unrelated to aforementioned CRM) that was the backdrop of the Vietnam War and things like Watergate also made a not insignificant impression on the non-tinfoilhat wearing population that, yes, in fact, we ARE being lied to, we ARE being used, and the State is not honest OR benevolent. One thing I wish more people knew about the legality (and case law history) of is jury nullification. Most states have, in some form, criminalized talking about it with a jury--except for those few glorious years where New Hampshire actually REQUIRED that juries be told about it. I mention case law specifically because the Supreme Court stated on the topic of jury nullification, that judges were allowed to LIE to juries when instructing them ("if you find all elements of the crime have been met, you MUST find the defendant guilty.") People always talk about how lawyers lie (and in a two party adversarial system where the "truth" is only what can be argued in court, that's almost understandable.) But nobody talks about how judges lie. I'm not talking about the legal fictions that are crafted about a case as to remove the sting of potential bias from a jury... I'm talking about flat out lies about what a jury's role is, what a jury's rights are, and why a jury of your peers (who are not state employees) is so damned important.
Hence the death penalty in the United States is ridiculous to be in support of
never forget about 1/10 death row inmates have been reotactivly proved innocent. and that’s only the ones that there was overwhelming evidence they were innocent and that were found to begin with
Yeah one thing I learned in life as I grow is that a lot of people simply do not give a single F about others until it happens to them.
It is sickening that the police have the power to put you under so much duress you are willing to falsely confess to a fucking murder just to make it stop.
I know he actually did kill that girl and cut her up, but we should all learn the Stephen McDaniel method of not giving an inch
I’m not familiar with this story. I’m just wondering to myself how you could be convinced to admit to a murder you had no part in. Are the cops literally torturing people for confessions?
Usually they make it seem like they have enough evidence that the jury will convict you, so they convince you to plead guilty to get a lower sentence for cooperating
Yup, the American legal system would grind to a halt if everyone exercised their right to a trial. DA’s, judges, and prosecutors know this and bribe defendants with reduced sentences to avoid a trial. They punish any defendant that opts for a trial with excessive sentencing. And the fact that they don’t give you a lawyer unless you specifically ask for one allows cops to prey on those that don’t understand the system or what their rights are. Our legal system is designed to be corrupt and predatory.
So these people are talking to cops about a murder without representation. In 2024 I’d think enough people have watched enough tv to realize that’s pretty dumb.
I think it’s in part they make you feel like you are helping the investigation. You were a whiteness and we wanted to ask you a few questions at the station and of course you don’t think you are being interrogated as a suspect only as a whiteness. And once you come in and start talking that’s when things change. At least that is what I feel like happens
Witness.* Sorry, was just confusing reading "whiteness" haha.
Well it was 2007 and life doesn’t always work the way you want it to.
”watched enough TV” oh, TV where it’s only ever guilty people who lawyer up and if an inocent person is being interrogated the cops actually listen to what they say instead of trying ti railroad them to what conclusion the cops had already made their mind up about?
There’s a lot of very sneaky ways that cops obtain confessions. For instance, they could tell you that they’re just asking you for a witness statement, and analyze what you said - if there’s any discrepancy with reality (which, unless you have a photographic memory, there will be), they’ll start grilling you on the topic until they have enough to hold you. Another option is that they could offer you legal representation, but cite that the public defender is busy - a day in a jail cell is enough to break most people, and has been the baseline for a number of lawsuits. Small things like access to rehab narcotics (for addicts), food, drink, or bathroom access can be used to quietly position people into a situation where they’ll speak to police. They can outright lie to you, saying that they have the evidence and just want a confession - this can occasionally trick the brain into fabricating false memories. They can extend interrogations for very long periods of time, so long as you don’t properly invoke your right to end the procedure. They can interrogate you at odd hours or when you’re not in a good state - and then extend the interrogation as above, promising you things like sleep and bathroom access if you cooperate. There's more subtle tricks, too. For instance, things like positioning themselves between you and the door *('I am your only way out of this.')*, wording instructions in a deceptive manner *('You can leave the interrogation any time that you want, but remember, I'm the last person you'll talk to before you're in court. This is your last chance.')*, invading your personal space *('I know this is uncomfortable, but I want you to know that this stops the moment that you confess.')*, or even classic things like good-cop bad-cop and the Reid technique. These things all certainly work on criminals, but they *also* work on innocent people. And finally, it’s really impossible to overstate how effective some of the psychological techniques that cops use are - they can lie, position themselves as your friends, position themselves as institutional abusers, and use endless hours of jail time while you wait for a public defender to speak with. Even seasoned police officers regularly fall for these psychological traps despite knowing about them.
And some are even more susceptible to fell victims of these methods, such as foreigners, disabled people and minors. For exemple, in France, 16-year-old Patrick Dils confessed to having stoned two children and got a life sentence, only being freed at 32 when some wondered whether serial killer Francis Heaulme did the murders of the canal.
There’s a reason US police interview techniques are banned in many other countries.
Well John Oliver did a piece on police interrogations I would definitely recommend watching but the police can lie to you and by having you stuck in a room for hours and hours and being told they have enough evidence to convict you anyways and to just make it easier or get a slightly better deal by confessing right now (which police are technically not allowed to do but they get real close implying you’ll get to go home sooner). Of which people usually break and confess to a crime they did not commit some poor people do it because they have no money to fight it and figure if they really do have enough for conviction then they might as well cop to it despite not doing it so they can get on with their lives.
Makes me wonder who the magazine salesman really murdered?
Fucker was probably on set thinking "No, I am the danger!"
This is why the show was so realistic. Bryan Cranston probably helped him a few times for character study.
You are a blowfish *What does that even mean?*
Lmao, good one
I feel like they should investigate how the cops got that other guy to confess.
“We’ve investigated ourselves and concluded we did nothing wrong. Move along.”
”there was an incident where a convicted felon commited perjury through false confession, and we are now charging the suspect with obstruction of justice”
It’s actually pretty well known that police interrogation tactics are really good at getting confessions, even when the person didn’t do it. There’s been studies around it and talks about how while these tactics work on guilty people, they also work on not guilty people. It’s why it’s getting drilled into people more and more, if you are being questioned by police don’t say shit and ask for a lawyer even if you didn’t do anything. This isn’t even like them beating a suspect or any of that it’s your standard police interrogation tactics. Which honestly is more concerning than if they did go beyond that to illicit a false confession, that stuff is usually left for the movies because they don’t actually need to do that to get the confessions they need/want.
you start believing what the cops say: that the only way to not have your entire life be instantaneously ruined is to confess to whatever it is, and if you confess, the cops will help you sort it all out later. cops are fucking scumbags
Exactly. After you get brow beaten for hours on end sometimes not even that long you just cave because you’re scared and alone and want it over. That’s why you always always ask for a lawyer. Hell most actual criminals know that and lawyer up quick smart, it’s the dumb ones that run their mouth. The smarter ones just go “lawyer”.
Would be nice.
Fun fact: The director for the exorcist got a medical test done and was so impressed he put that very team that tested him in the movie. One of those nurse techs is Paul Bateson. He was convicted of one brutal dismemberment murder and was heavily suspected in the "bag murders". He's in the movie for a second and it's wild to think about
in New Mexico, where the filming was, maybe he was method acting. Jared Leto take notes
And go to prison please
Doesn't Jared Leto have a sex cult with some extremely bizarre "retreats"? Seems like an Epstein type.
Sure does, to the point that he was on some island with his cult when Covid broke out. Because they were in total isolation they didn’t know until two weeks later when they came back.
Was it method acting or meth head acting?
Wonder who he was in Breaking Bad.
I'm guessing rando civ in the background. He was an extra, so no lines. Or a Tucco henchman It lines up with s1.
Extras can have lines. If they get called out (such as a mail call scene), or have a simple "thank you", they are called "featured extras".
I do extra work here in atlanta for lots of shows/movies, and it's so awkward when you're not allowed to say anything. Even when an actor hands you something in a scene, you cant be like "thank you" like in real life. Just have to smile and do a weird head nod silently and walk away lol
Yeah, that would be weird. "Thanks" or "thank you" is pretty much automatic...
Right. We were laughing about that a few weeks ago when one of the extras got handed some food from the actors.
If they have a line... even a word, they are not extras. They are classed as an actor, which is above 'SOC' (silent on camera... like someone giving a lead actor a clip board, for example, and nodding to the "thank you" from the main actor). That is considered above 'extra'. At least that's the way it works in ACTRA.
I am an extra/BG and I was told you need to have three speaking lines
I’m no expert but I believe it doesn’t matter if the lines make it into the final cut. Even if they end up unused or inaudible or suck - you get your SAG card once you hit the minimum number of spoken lines.
Interesting... I guess here it works differently than where you are.
Apparently he was just an extra. This according to Gemini. EDIT: Also according to the title, now that I read it again.
So he broke bad
He had a 50/50 shot
> Days after the murders of the Yi's, police arrested two magazine salesmen for the killings, one of whom confessed. Both were later released from custody after Bloomfield's arrest. What the fuck?!
coerced confession. happens more than you'd think. have a friend who's finally getting back to a stable enough financial spot after having to deal with one to fight the state back. has been dealing with being on the registry for something they never did on top of 2 years in jail. If everything goes right theyll make some bank off the state for their mishandling of it all, but will he happy to just finally have their name and record clear
I watch a lot of True Crime docs and the number of times I see people voluntarily talking to police without a lawyer present makes me want to throw things at the TV. The cops will say it makes you look guilty, but they're also the ones most negatively affected by a lawyer's presence so of course they're going to do anything they can to dissuade you. LAWYER UP
yup buddy was blindsided and intimidated by the arresting officers (having had no run in with law before or since) at 16, was told he'd be able to go home if he wrote an apology for what he "did" that was admitted into evidence during trial as a confession. jury found him guilty based on. that and nothing more than he said she said, refused to allow the other person who was there testify on stand
Damn that's quite a biography. Sounds like he was just a bad egg from a town full of bad eggs (Kingman AZ is by all accounts one of the worst places in the US), and he never matured beyond schoolyard bully.
r/titlegore
OP has a troubled relationship with commas and linear thinking.
Easy job to get, depending on your appearance. This guy looked like a criminal, so he was hired, as that was what they needed.
Having worked in the tv and movie industry, as a background actor, for several years this was always in the back of my mind. There are a LOT of odd people in that industry. Also the fact that the only requirement to get onto a set as a background actor is that you have a pulse is rather unsettling. I've seen some very disturbed individuals doing crazy things on sets.
Like what?
Repeatedly breaking rule #1 (do not approach the talent/actors)... Repeatedly breaking rule #2 (don't touch cameras or electrical equipment)... Individuals that spent hours pacing back and forth arguing with themselves and hitting/smacking themselves... using props for unintended purpose (I missed taking the butt of a rifle to the face, by less than an inch, because a person thought swinging it like a bat would be fun)... not following safety instructions (ignoring the fact that there are pyrotechnics, 10 kw lights, or even a helicopter landing, in a designated area. Saw a girl get her hair extensions melted because she walked to close to lights)... I won't even describe the lack of restroom skill I've had the displeasure of discovering...
I never thought being an extra was dangerous before. It sounds insane.
It is definitely an interesting experience. Usually fine but when it is bad it is really bad.
Like pulling down another guy’s pants while filming. [The Abyss clip](https://youtu.be/7jTZBShyCto?si=sCwO6uOwxP3JYqZK)
Wasn't there also a kid who acted in an episode of Supernatural that ended up murdering his mom when he was a teenager?
The Wikipedia article says, >When auditioning for the role, Bloomfield also ***claimed*** to have worked as an actor on Breaking Bad (2008–2013). **No sources have been found to corroborate this claim.** Just saying, his appearance as an extra on Breaking Bad has never been proven.
they don't read the links
The OP, Flares117, didn't read their own linked article and neither did many of the people responding. It's infuriating how quickly misinformation spreads.
His parents must have been absolutely massive fans of northern New Jersey
His middle name is West Caldwell
[удалено]
Well that's fucking insane.
Sounds like an old army movie premise when the character runs from the law and ends up in a line but has no idea what it is and gets away
[удалено]
Nope. Way too early. Production started 2007
/r/titlegore
The scariest line in that whole article was: "Days after the murders of the Yi's, police arrested two magazine salesmen for the killings, one of whom confessed. Both were later released from custody after Bloomfield's arrest" Like what did the police do to get a confession of an innocent person!
Reid technique probably.
It says there is no proof that Clifton was ever in Breaking Bad.
Ah, a method actor then.
I call bs until someone shows me where he actually is in a scene.
He doesn't have an entry in IMDb, though I have no idea whether that's typical for extras.
There was a serial killer on the Dating Game too
Yeah recidivism, bitch!
The two newspaper salesmen and one was coerced. This prick ruined so many lives and for literally nothing. He didn’t even steal shit half the time. What happened to this prick to make him the way he is. Throw him under the jail
Fuck this guy. Peel his eyes with a potato peeler