1911Forum banner
41 - 60 of 93 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
...
No, the law in California allows companies to be held liable for anything a jury says they are liable for. And in the first $289 million lawsuit that was docked down to $80 million punitive which is being appealed, the jury punished the company for not warning people that it might cause cancer, OK think about this, it is California, it does not cause cancer, but in California you can lose a lawsuit unless you warn that it does cause cancer. Get it? That jury awarded big bucks because there was not fake warning label. Now, just check ebay, everything you buy in Califorina has a label that says it may cause cancer, it fact, it says the state has determined that it does cause cancer, everything in California does, check those labels.
...
To me this reads the State of CA stealing from the rest of the world, or rather, enabling people in CA to steal. If it's really as easy as a label, perhaps this theft vector has run its course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Keep in mind the context of Shakespeare's "kill all the lawyers" line. It was spoken by Dick the Butcher and really is meant to show that lawyers are what stands between thuggery and the rule of law. The plaintiff's bar is pretty easy to hate but they are only part of a system that keeps guys like me out of jail or from being arbitrarily hanged.

Much is made of the Bill of Rights and its various protections. Freedom of speech is one of five rights contained in the First Amendment. One fifth of one of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. Criminal and civil procedure account for fully half the Bill of Rights. Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. If you remember that its authors, our founding fathers, were almost all trained in law, that should come as no surprise. Compare and contrast those wonderful garden spots without lawyers and an independent judiciary: Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda. Any wonder why refugees come this way and not to those places?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
That's right.
Whose responsibility is it to be sure and wear ear pro around guns?
...
It's not around guns, it's around guns being fired.

Lots of people that I know personally have a gun on their person when awake ... but are not wearing ear-pro all that time. And around strangers who may have guns all the time: no ears. Ears in my pocket all the time ... just in case - but not worn all the time. We don't wear ears in the gun store, do on the range. If her complaint is valid: the "range" was supposed to be "cold"; and harm is the fault of the person shooting during a "cease-fire"; a cease-fire assumed to be the default state. Therefore the meaning of "cold gun" becomes significant ...

Not sure from "news" reports stating that "cold gun" means loaded only with blanks. That reads as illogical vs the Hollywood firearm safety practices which place so much emphasis on "BLANK AMMUNITION" and practices related to it. Many of the "news" writers seem poorly informed and disinclined to research*. If "cold gun" really does mean "loaded with blanks", yes, reasonable for all present to apply eye-&-ears. "cold gun" may not be even reasonably consistent from company-to-company. If "cold gun" can reasonably be expected to mean "loaded with blanks", her physical trauma may strike a court as at least somewhat specious. This is why my interest in whether true the claims that the aiming and firing was a temper-tantrum, thus a threat, itself criminal. The answer to that question changes the entire character of the incident and I'm not sure any participant has gotten that far thinking it through.


*- writing this, I recall that my college buddies in Hollywood - especially the one who does FX, can likely give a definitive answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
It's not around guns, it's around guns being fired.

Lots of people that I know personally have a gun on their person when awake ... but are not wearing ear-pro all that time. And around strangers who may have guns all the time: no ears. Ears in my pocket all the time ... just in case - but not worn all the time. We don't wear ears in the gun store, do on the range. If her complaint is valid: the "range" was supposed to be "cold"; and harm is the fault of the person shooting during a "cease-fire"; a cease-fire assumed to be the default state. Therefore the meaning of "cold gun" becomes significant ...

Not sure from "news" reports stating that "cold gun" means loaded only with blanks. That reads as illogical vs the Hollywood firearm safety practices which place so much emphasis on "BLANK AMMUNITION" and practices related to it. Many of the "news" writers seem poorly informed and disinclined to research*. If "cold gun" really does mean "loaded with blanks", yes, reasonable for all present to apply eye-&-ears. "cold gun" may not be even reasonably consistent from company-to-company. If "cold gun" can reasonably be expected to mean "loaded with blanks", her physical trauma may strike a court as at least somewhat specious. This is why my interest in whether the aiming and firing was a temper-tantrum, thus a threat, itself criminal. The answer to that question changes the entire character of the incident and I'm not sure any participant has gotten that far thinking it through.


*- writing this, I recall that my college buddies in Hollywood - especially the one who does FX, can likely give a definitive answer.

Thank you!
Statements of Reality, always get my attention!!!

:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Interesting discussion.

I did read in another article about this lawsuit in several excerpts cited from the filing that the lawsuit characterizes Baldwin's behavior as "playing Russian roulette" when he fired the gun. This would seem to contradict the assertions that he was "rehearsing" some action for the upcoming scene.

On another note, though, I do wonder how of if this lawsuit could set some sort of precedence for other bystanders, claiming physical of mental injury, to sue someone who uses a gun legitimately for self defense, claiming? Perhaps this is already a routine "thing"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
On another note, though, I do wonder how of if this lawsuit could set some sort of precedence for other bystanders, claiming physical of mental injury, to sue someone who uses a gun legitimately for self defense, claiming? Perhaps this is already a routine "thing"?

Yah, I wouldn't doubt it, at all!!!

NOTHING!!! would surprise me in the democrat/socialist/progressive, limp wrist snowflake, time out closeted, bollockless, twilight zone programmed segment of society!!!

NOTHING!!! :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 · (Edited)
An Explanation:

It was the specificity and detail, as well as words of a person directly present, of the allegations relative to Baldwin that caught my attention.

I understand that some may be focused more on whether the plaintiff is nothing more than a money chasing dirt bag. And a perspective that no charges or lawsuits should be filed against Baldwin by anyone other than New Mexico legal authorities (which likely won’t happen) or surviving family (husband already says Baldwin wasn’t at fault, so Baldwin appears good to go there).

These perspectives — trusting the NM investigation and eliminating or disparaging the filing of civil actions against Baldwin and exploring others’ pecuniary motives — were not my focus or interest. But it’s perfectly fair to focus on whatever one’s interest are in the matter.

My focus was on the former...the allegations against Baldwin, whom I feel was seriously in the wrong. I feel these allegations have merit. Doesn’t make me right, but that was my focus point and reason for starting this thread.

Again, just an explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Honest Tom

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,363 Posts
It's not around guns, it's around guns being fired.
Seems like they were planning to shoot a scene when guns were going to be fired. The script chick could've reasonably expect a loud noise to happen without getting a personal invitation to gear up.
Point is, if someone is going to claim noise injury from a shot, they open up a line of questioning what was their personal responsibility to protect self.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
I keep trying to follow all of this thread, but, my frustration always leads me back to one thought! Whatever bad thing happens to Baldwin,... couldn't happen to a more deserving individual!!!

jm .02
Thank you AZ.

That was my whole point in starting this thread. I didn’t expect it to turn into a disparagement of the plaintiff…or assertions that the plaintiff should have worn ear muffs. But other perspectives are what these discussions are all about. That’s why most of us are here, to exchange insights and opinions, and hopefully learn by sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Seems like they were planning to shoot a scene when guns were going to be fired.
...
oh? I've seen reports from at least three people on the set, including the medic, claiming no shooting was planned.

Now a sudden change of plans, without a safety briefing meeting to explain the change might have been why this plaintiff was so angry during the 911 call she placed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 · (Edited)
oh? I've seen reports from at least three people on the set, including the medic, claiming no shooting was planned.

Now a sudden change of plans, without a safety briefing meeting to explain the change might have been why this plaintiff was so angry during the 911 call she placed.
Indeed. Baldwin was the one and only person who unilaterally “changed plans” to aim and pull the trigger.

Even Baldwin, all negligence aside, was not expecting a gun shot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Indeed. Baldwin was the one and only person who unilaterally “changed plans” to aim and pull the trigger.

Even Baldwin, all negligence aside, was not expecting a gun shot.
My recollection of the 911 audio, Mitchell explicitly says to the 911 dispatcher that everybody ran off the set because of the firearm report. If they were expecting a report, that seems an outre' reaction.

In an aside from 911, she was also cursing changes and an unnamed ( or redacted - some parts of her cursing were blanked out ) changer. That's what I was referencing in citing her anger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Every report I have read since day one called it a rehearsal. News is a funny thing, I tend to trust initial reports to have less "spin", but expect new or more accurate information to come out as time goes by. I am betting it was a rehearsal to get how the scene looked on camera since the cinematographer was present. Don't know though. All the news wants to talk about are feelings and the stuff leading up to the events, just like the Kyle Rittenhouse trial coverage, it took me ten minutes of searching to find a news report detailing the actions of Kyle and the rioters at the shooting, all the news outlets wanted to talk about was background and "home town stories". of the rioters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 · (Edited)
^^^
Definitely a rehearsal.

Neither of the two camera units were filming, thus obviously a rehearsal.

The only reason the gun was even present was for Baldwin to practice a drawing from the holster. Otherwise, only a hand motion or a blue gun would have been the norm. And by some comments, he felt he had already practiced enough, was getting a bit frustrated …and wanted to “get on“ with filming the scene. (They were already over budget, and Baldwin was co-producer with a financial interest).

Equally obvious, there was no reason to be firing blanks (with no filming) or for anyone to be donning ear muffs (which no one did). So I was surprised to see posts here about the plaintiff “should” have expected a loud pop and worn muffs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
This just-filed lawsuit against Baldwin appears backed by substantive facts and specific allegations:

"Alec Baldwin wasn’t scripted to fire gun in ‘Rust’ scene: lawsuit."

"The script supervisor who called 911 after Alec Baldwin shot and killed a woman on the “Rust” movie set has accused the actor of recklessness in practicing for a scene that didn’t even call for him to fire his gun."

“Alec Baldwin intentionally, without just cause or excuse, cocked and fired the loaded gun even though the upcoming scene to be filmed did not call for the cocking and firing of the firearm,” script supervisor Mamie Mitchell said in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “Mr. Baldwin chose to play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun without checking it and without having the armorer do so.”

Having now read the complaint ... wow. Not sure whether this doc is an affidavit, i.e. sworn. But it's the most complete description by a witness so far. The included analysis closely agrees with what firearm safety proponents here on the forum have written re standard safety practices. What I was looking to find, however, would be collapsed into her description "... playing Russian roulette ...". If it goes to trial, I suppose that to be described in more detail.

Quite, quite clear in her description that no discharges were expected; easily falsifiable / verifiable circumstances alleged in support of her assertion. Also clearly states that failure to follow standard safety practices was a sacrifice to budget-&-schedule. She characterized dismissal of safety practices as done "derisively", or some very-near synonym. Again, reads to me as reckless bordering upon depraved.

Is it true? We have multiple participants in general agreement and one in general dissent. Nothing that I can see for certain sworn by any witness. The gaffer's suit? ... was his complaint sworn?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 · (Edited)
Having now read the complaint ... wow. Not sure whether this doc is an affidavit, i.e. sworn. But it's the most complete description by a witness so far. The included analysis closely agrees with what firearm safety proponents here on the forum have written re standard safety practices. What I was looking to find, however, would be collapsed into her description "... playing Russian roulette ...". If it goes to trial, I suppose that to be described in more detail.

Quite, quite clear in her description that no discharges were expected; easily falsifiable / verifiable circumstances alleged in support of her assertion. Also clearly states that failure to follow standard safety practices was a sacrifice to budget-&-schedule. She characterized dismissal of safety practices as done "derisively", or some very-near synonym. Again, reads to me as reckless bordering upon depraved.

Is it true? We have multiple participants in general agreement and one in general dissent. Nothing that I can see for certain sworn by any witness. The gaffer's suit? ... was his complaint sworn?
Indeed.

The attorney who prepared this petition knows her stuff, knows how to make an effective argument. It’s a far better plaintiff’s petition than the one prepared by the gaffer’s attorney.

The details are very specific and “on target”, so to speak. This is what really got my attention.

Obviously these details would not have been so documented without the plaintiff/script supervisor being prepared to testify to these details under oath.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
Perhaps I missed it, but how many bullets, or blanks were in the gun after it was fired? Did it have 1 empty and 5 live rounds? It matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
Keep in mind the context of Shakespeare's "kill all the lawyers" line. It was spoken by Dick the Butcher and really is meant to show that lawyers are what stands between thuggery and the rule of law. The plaintiff's bar is pretty easy to hate but they are only part of a system that keeps guys like me out of jail or from being arbitrarily hanged.

Much is made of the Bill of Rights and its various protections. Freedom of speech is one of five rights contained in the First Amendment. One fifth of one of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. Criminal and civil procedure account for fully half the Bill of Rights. Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. If you remember that its authors, our founding fathers, were almost all trained in law, that should come as no surprise. Compare and contrast those wonderful garden spots without lawyers and an independent judiciary: Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda. Any wonder why refugees come this way and not to those places?
True Once saw a sign in a pasture with the words, "nobody likes a crooked lawyer......until you need one" Not sure why it was there, just recall it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,616 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 · (Edited)
Perhaps I missed it, but how many bullets, or blanks were in the gun after it was fired? Did it have 1 empty and 5 live rounds? It matters.
IMHO, this will never be known with much certainty…because immediately after the shooting, the armourer grabbed the gun and removed whatever was in it. Anything in the gun after LEO arrived was either consciously left or replaced by the armourer.

So the armourer is the only person who really knows.

If known, just as you say, it obviously would matter…providing significant, compelling clues as to how/from what source the gun was loaded …and the possibility of one “different“ round being surreptitiously placed (by someone) in the next-to-fire chamber, as alleged by the armourer. (I’m not a revolver guy, so I hope “chamber” is acceptable terminology, at least understandable ).
 
41 - 60 of 93 Posts
Top