All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:02
ALEC BALDWIN'S GUN HAD BEEN USED TO SHOOT BEER CANS!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody. It's Steph. Hope you're doing well.
So I've been tracking some of this Baldwin stuff.
I do find it really quite fascinating.
And it's a really good blog, LegalInsurrection.com.
This guy goes over, was this an accident, negligence, recklessness, slash involuntary manslaughter?
So, I mean, the first thing, of course, that you need to understand is when something like this happens, PR firms being paid an ungodly amount of money, Leap straight into action to manage the way that this is described.
So you'll see these descriptions of he accidentally killed someone, the woman, right, when the gun discharged, the prop gun discharged.
And the prop gun killed, like they're really shaping the narrative so that this piece of metal kind of got possessed in his hands and just pulled its own trigger and so on.
so on.
He was told that it was a cold gun, that it wasn't dangerous.
He's appalled.
He's horrified.
They, of course, spread the pictures of him doubled over in pain and all of this.
So they really are shaping the narrative.
The question is why?
And I'll tell you why in just a few minutes.
I'll tell you why this is all happening.
Of course, it's politics, which is kind of predictable and boring.
So there are a bunch of different standards.
And Now, remember, I'm no lawyer. It's just sort of my understanding, of course, right?
So, under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony, normally punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Of course, the most common is drunk driving, but a firearm being handled lawfully, but, quote, without due caution and circumspection that results in death fits the statutory definition of So, let's talk about the legal defense of accident.
This is from the blog. Legally speaking, the defense of accident applies when the harm caused could not have been foreseen by the person who caused the harm and who was otherwise acting in a normal and non-negligent manner.
For example, imagine that your elderly aunt asked you to move a heavy plant from one side of her apartment to the other.
You carry the plant to the new spot, place it on the floor, but unknown and unknowable to you, the floor joists in that spot are rotten.
The plant falls through the floor, lands on the head of your aunt's neighbor downstairs, and kills that neighbor.
So, naturally, you're acting in a normal manner.
You have no reason to suspect, and it's a genuine accident.
You have no legal liability for the death that results.
You know, stuff happens in life. Stuff happens, right?
Now, liability is acquired when you're acting negligently when you cause the harm.
So the example that – I think this is Ron Coleman, really great guy to – no, Andrew Branca, sorry.
Andrew Branca, also a really great guy to follow.
So he gives this example.
You're driving down a neighborhood road with a speed limit of 25 miles an hour.
You're in a bit of a hurry, however, so you're driving at a solid 35 miles an hour.
There's no reason for you to think and you don't think that you're creating any exceptional risk by driving a bit over the speed limit.
Plenty of the people in the neighborhood do it all the time.
Suddenly, boom, however, a child dashes out into the street and that 10 miles an hour over the limit is what prevents you from stopping before your vehicle hits and kills the child.
Here, you were not acting in a normal and non-negligent manner.
So the argument is, you know, everybody on the planet, at least in New Mexico, has a generalized legal duty to not cause unjustified harm to others because you intentionally disregarded the stated speed limit.
You violated that legal duty, even though you didn't know you were creating an exceptional risk of injury or death.
So by violating that generalized legal duty to not cause harm to others, you were acting negligently.
And your negligence means that you've acquired at least civil Liability for the death you caused by your negligent conduct.
The parents would sue you for wrongful death in a civil court and win a judgment because your conduct was negligent.
Now, you don't necessarily have criminal liability for the child's death, right?
So civil liability is money, criminal liability is jail or fine, massive fines, or I guess, what, $5,000 in this case, not massive.
So criminal liability requires more than mere negligence, the failure to meet a duty to not cause harm.
Criminal liability requires Recklessness.
Now, recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so and you intentionally disregard that risk.
So that's pretty wild, right?
So the classic illustration for criminal recklessness causing death, which is the same as what's often called involuntary manslaughter, is drunk driving, right?
You kill someone. Now, the reason why you have the criminal liability is everybody knows that driving while intoxicated increases your chances of causing an accident, of killing someone or giving them serious bodily injury and so on.
So if you get drunk, decide to drive a car, you are aware of the risk that you are taking on and you are choosing, right?
You know that risk and you're choosing to disregard that risk.
Now, if you then hit and kill someone, it's the recklessness that means it's not an accident, or it's not negligence, it's not coincidence, it's not bad luck, but a crime, the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
Now, I think the reason why it's manslaughter, not murder, is there's no requirement that you want to cause anybody harm or death.
If you're drunk driving home, you're not trying to kill anyone.
So if the death is intentional, that's murder or I guess voluntary manslaughter, but it's not involuntary manslaughter, which means you weren't choosing it, but you were basing your decisions on recklessness that you had reason to believe could cause significant harm.
So, of course, Alec Baldwin did not want to kill Ms.
Hutchins. But that doesn't mean it's not a crime.
So, that is a big question.
And somebody wrote to me, and it's quite true.
I should have remembered this because I worked with OSHA quite a bit in my software days.
So, occupational health and safety groups try to reclassify accidents as incidents because accident has a whoops factor to it.
Oh, I didn't see that there was a wet spot on the stairs and I slipped.
To me, it's a little different.
If you don't notice a wet spot, someone spilled something, you can't see it.
But if the stairs are slippery and you decide not to put any salt down or not to hold the handrail or not to avoid carrying heavy things, it's kind of on you because everyone knows that when it's icy and slippery on the stairs, you've got a big risk of danger, right?
So what does it mean when they say accident?
So this is what the blog says.
Very good. He says, what might a genuine accident with a handgun look like?
well, imagine, a gun that has an unseen defect, such as when the barrel is brought up to the horizontal position, the gun discharges without any press of the trigger.
That's not, of course, how a gun is supposed to fire, and no reasonable person would expect the gun to fire in such circumstances.
And if the gun that was handled by Alec Baldwin is found to have such a defect, and his handling of the gun was otherwise non-negligent, he would have a good argument that the gun discharging and killing Ms. Hutchins was a genuine accident for which he should bear no civil or criminal liability.
Now, again, listen to the lawyer, not me, but from a moral standpoint, if you point a gun at anyone, there is always the risk that it could go off, right?
That's why you don't point guns at anyone unless you're in an extremity of self-defense.
So he goes on to say, on the other hand, a defective gun doesn't necessarily mean there was no negligence involved.
And if there is negligence, there cannot be an innocent accident and zero legal liability.
There must at least be civil liability.
So, oh yeah, so I guess he agrees with me, or rather I agree with him, since he's the expert.
He says, in our hypothetical with the defective gun, for example, it may be true that the discharge of the gun was not foreseeable by Alec Baldwin, and therefore not really in his control, but the direction in which the gun was pointed certainly was in his control.
The death of Ms. Hutchins by the discharge of the gun could not have occurred had the gun not been pointed at her, and the pointing of the gun at her would certainly seem to constitute negligence.
So if you've been trained in firearm safety and if you're going to go handling guns, we can assume that you have been trained in their safety in the same way that if you grab the controls of an airplane, we assume that you have had some experience flying and know a little bit about what you're doing.
So, I mentioned this in a show previously, one of the four primary safety rules of handling firearms is you do not point the muzzle of the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
So, because Alec Baldwin pointed the gun at Ms.
Hutchins, if the gun goes off and kills her, its negligence Probably, or possibly could qualify.
Just negligence, which would be a civil liability.
But, doesn't end there, right?
So, is there criminal recklessness?
Okay, so what if we say there's no defect to the gun?
The gun is working fine, and it's not going to fire unless you pull the trigger.
So he puts forward how the news reporting could accurately describe the discharge of the weapon.
And he says, let me be clear, I have no idea if what I'm about to describe will turn out to be accurately describing the events in this case.
I've read such a description of the events online and have no idea if the person providing that description has any idea what they're talking about.
Here we're using that description of events not as a claim that they represent what actually happened but merely as a hypothetical.
So, the day was running long, and the actors and crew were getting tired, and another scene had to be shot yet again.
And in an effort to add some levity to the circumstances, Alec Baldwin, holding a firearm in his hands that he believed to be unloaded, jokingly told the director of photography, Ms.
Hutchins, and director Joel Sousa, We have to shoot that scene again?
How about if I just shoot you both instead?
He then points the firearm at them and depresses the trigger, resulting in the gun discharging, killing Ms.
Hutchins and wounding Mr. Sousa.
Now, I've heard that story before, and I mentioned this in the first show about it.
I don't believe it, but I've heard that.
But if this did happen, right?
So this is not an innocent accident.
This is not civil negligence.
Because if you point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger, boom.
Criminal recklessness, according to these arguments.
So it's not a hidden defect.
The gun worked like it's supposed to.
Fire a bullet when the trigger is pulled.
Now, of course, the gun has to be loaded and so on.
But, of course, the gun was loaded.
So whose responsibility is it to make sure that he or she doesn't shoot someone?
Well, it really comes down to the responsibility of the person who pulls the trigger and the attempt to move that responsibility to someone else, as Alec Baldwin is supposed to have done or reportedly did when he said, who handed me a hot gun?
Like, no, no.
If you're pointing a gun at someone and you're pulling the trigger, it's your job.
You are the one causal in the matter.
Somebody handed you a hot gun, that didn't cause the death.
Somebody told you it was a hot gun, it was a cold gun, didn't cause the death.
You pointing at someone, pulling the trigger.
That caused the death, right?
So you can't say, well, I didn't know.
It was dangerous because everybody knows guns are dangerous, particularly Alec Baldwin, who, what, didn't he have a big gunfight in The Hunt for Red October?
And he's been around guns as an actor for donkeys years.
This guy's 63 years old.
It's been going on forever, right?
You can't say he didn't know they were dangerous.
And of course, he also can't say he didn't know they were dangerous.
Not that I'm saying he would, but for the obvious reason that he hired a gun armorer, this 24-year-old woman who frankly seems quite mad to me.
She was just photographed today for the first time since the accident outside her home on the phone.
And she had a t-shirt on.
And there's stuff with her on TikTok that's just truly appalling in terms of the sexual comments and this kind of stuff.
It's really, really brutal.
So, let's see here.
She was roaming around her home.
She had a black t-shirt on.
And on the back, it was a woman bound and gagged with her boobs hanging out.
And you can see her pubic area.
And the caption, and she's in fishnet stockings with a gag.
The picture on the back of her shirt, right?
Woman, naked, bound, gagged with red shoes and fishnet stockings.
And the caption above it says, I'm all tied up at the moment.
That's very R-selected, for those who know what that means.
So, of course, Alec Baldwin, I mean, knew that the gun was dangerous.
So, he knows.
So if he pointed the weapon at Ms.
Hutchins and pressed the trigger or pulled the trigger, he's aware that this has the potential to cause grievous bodily harm, injury, or death.
Because, of course, another gun handling safety rule is presume at all times that a gun is loaded.
So the article here says, when you are aware you are creating a risk of death, deliberately disregard that risk and death results.
That's the very definition of criminal recklessness, commonly referred to as involuntary manslaughter.
So the actor at the bottom of the responsibility ladder, as some people say, the producer at the top, the actor could say, hey, the producer should have had better safety protocols in place.
And the producer might say, well, the actor was finally responsible for safely handling the firearm, making sure he didn't kill anyone.
But, of course, Alec Baldwin occupies both roles.
So that also changes things quite a bit, right?
So, yeah.
That is some pretty powerful stuff.
Now, let's go, this is from the Daily Mail, sort of whip over here.
So, of course, the first thing that the media said was, no charges have been laid, and it's like, well, of course charges haven't been laid, because apparently the cameras weren't rolling, but they're still requisitioning all of the film and so on that was being shot.
And this is from the Daily Mail.
It says, criminal charges are on the table in a fatal accidental shooting by actor Alec Baldwin on the set of a Western film, according to local prosecutors.
Legal documents have revealed that Baldwin was drawing a gun across his body and pointing at a camera during a rehearsal on the Santa Fe set of the film Rust when it fired, killing cinematographer Helena Hutchins and injuring director Joel Sousa.
And again, I don't know why.
It could be good legal reasons.
So my view, my particular view, it's like the gun does not fire.
The gun does not fire. The gun does not fire.
The gun doesn't.
Well, you say it fired, and I suppose that's for legal reasons.
Like you don't want to accuse Alec Baldwin of pulling a trigger if he didn't pull a trigger.
But... It would seem to me, if he did pull the trigger, then you would say, when he shot, right, he shot the gun or whatever, right?
But I guess they say it fired because there's no confirmation that Baldwin pulled the trigger.
So I guess, yeah, I guess that's what they're saying, right?
So I'm not going to contradict that.
Affidavits containing statements from SUSE and camera operator Reed Russell state that Baldwin was handed a prop gun and was told it was unloaded.
Now, they say prop gun. It means just being used by an actor.
It doesn't mean like it's made of soap or something like that.
I think it was a genuine antique that could fire bullets, right?
So, let's see here.
Criminal charges have not been ruled out.
The firearm used in the incident was a legit and antique area appropriate gun, not just a fake gun, not just a prop.
So, first assistant director David Hall said earlier, told crew members that the revolver being handled by Baldwin, the film's lead actor and producer, was a cold gun, a term used by filmmakers to indicate that a prop gun is safe to use and not loaded with live ammunition.
The prosecutor added that an enormous amount of bullets had been found on the set.
An investigation was needed into the nature of that ammunition.
So that's strange, right?
That seems very strange to me, that you're shooting a Western, sorry, you're filming a Western, and you have an enormous number of actual bullets on the set.
Like, that makes no sense to me.
I mean, you would want to keep all of the guns and the bullets approximately 500 miles apart, at the very least.
There would be no reason that I could think of that you would need an actual bullet on the set, and yet this enormous number is pretty wild, right?
It follows reports, the article says, that the gun a 63-year-old actor used to accidentally kill Hutchins, again, we don't know if it's an accident, We don't know if it's an accident, because accident doesn't mean no intention.
If Alec Baldwin was drunk driving and plowed down a nun, you couldn't say he accidentally killed her because he was drunk driving.
If he was careless, if he didn't follow protocol, if he didn't follow gun safety, if he hired the wrong people, if he ignored safety protocol violations, if he ignored safety warnings, then it's not an accident.
It's not... This language bothers me, because it's really, really important to be precise in this stuff.
So, the reports that the gun, the 63-year-old actor used to accidentally kill Hutchins, was used by crew members to shoot at beer cans just hours before the incident.
What the unholy living hell.
What the... I mean, this story...
This is one of the reasons I find this absolutely...
This story is just wild!
It's genuinely insane, this story.
So the gun that someone is going to point at someone else and pull the trigger, we assume, that gun was used by crew members to shoot at beer cans.
In other words, we assume, was loaded with live ammunition just hours before the incident.
Man, I think I can see why the crew just walked off.
According to an insider with knowledge of the set, several crew members on the set had taken several prop guns out the morning of the incident to go plinking, a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time.
Now, I get it. Movie sets can be really boring.
I made a short movie and it's slow.
Slow, slow stuff, right?
But holy dear God on a stick.
I mean, what kind of insane...
Safety violation is this, that a gun that is going to be used to point at someone with the trigger being pulled is being used to shoot at beer cans.
To pass the time! I mean, the woman, I don't have any proof of this, the armorer, this 24-year-old woman with the weird t-shirt, the hypersexual t-shirt...
She looks, because of the multicolored hair, the makeup, the look in her eyes, it screams, obviously, child abuse to me, and, you know, potentially use of drugs.
I mean... That's mad to me, that people are just going to...
I mean, isn't the armor supposed to be in control of the guns and have them absolutely locked down to make sure that there's no mixture of bullets and blanks?
Or, I mean, how on earth is a gun just out there wandering around with real bullets in it being used to shoot at things when someone in a couple of hours is going to point it at a human being and pull the trigger?
Oh my god. Just mad.
The weapon was one of the three prop guns that the film's rookie armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, 24, had set up outside the set location on a gray cart in the desert near the city of Santa Fe.
So apparently they were really, really scared of COVID, right?
Because, you know, airborne stuff is really, really bad.
You know, bullets would seem to fall into that category.
But nonetheless, this is what was done.
So, according to a search warrant executed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office, Gutierrez Reed was the last person to handle the gun, leaving it along with the two other revolvers unattended on the cart at the early hours of October 21st.
So she didn't check to see, apparently, right, if this is the case, she didn't check to see that there were no bullets in the gun.
Did she know that it had been used for target practice?
Did she know it had been taken by the set?
Was this, like, because from what I talked about before, some of the film crew had left, had bailed, had abandoned the shoot because of safety concerns.
Was this the new people who were just recently hired?
Did nobody have any control over the most dangerous things on the film set?
It's crazy. It was at this point, the insider reveals, that a group of crew members took the weapons without the director and first director's knowledge and forgot to unload the firearm in question.
Now, the representatives for the production of Rust, a previous statement said, the safety of our cast and crew is the top priority of Rust Productions and everyone associated with the company.
Though we were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set, we will be conducting an internal review while production is shut down and so on, right?
What does it mean when they say official complaints?
You always look at this language, right?
What does it mean when they say, okay, we were not aware of any official complaints.
What does that mean? Official, does that mean from the police?
Does that mean from a lawyer?
Does that mean from a formal union?
But that doesn't make any sense, right?
An actor on the film set directly contradicted the company's statement, revealing to TMZ Tuesday that filming often felt life-threatening, a sentiment that was then echoed by other members of the production.
The actor, Ian A. Hudson, told the outlet that he felt particularly terrified filming a scene where his character was gunned down by a crowd of other actors using nearly a dozen guns, all of which were real.
He said, You know, I got to tell you, people should be not in greater danger on a film set than I was getting tear-gassed by the cops in Hong Kong in 2019.
Crazy. So I'm going to skip over the death of the woman, and it's just terrible.
Terrible, terrible, terrible. So an electrician said, Gutierrez Reed, who was named on Friday as the person who loaded Baldwin's vintage cult pistol, was too young to be doing her job.
He said the negligence from the person who was supposed to check the weapon on the site did not do this.
The person who had to announce that the loaded gun was on the site did not do this.
The person who should have checked this weapon before bringing it to the set did not do it, and the death of the human is the result.
I'm sure that we had the professionals in every department, but one, the department that was responsible for the weapons.
He said there's no way a 24-year-old woman can be professional with armory.
There's no way that her more or less the same age friend from school, neighborhood, Instagram, or God knows what else can be a professional in this field.
He said, to save a time, sometimes you hire people who are not fully qualified for the complicated and dangerous job, and you risk the lives of the other people who are close to you and your lives as well.
I understand that you always have to fight for the budget, but you cannot allow this to happen.
There should always be at least one professional in each department who knows the job.
It's an absolute must to avoid such a tragedy like the tragedy with Halina.
Oh, my God.
A call sheet obtained by DailyMail.com names a 24-year-old, this woman, as the film's assistant prop master and armorer overseen by prop master Sarah Zachary.
That's two females in charge of these guns.
Oh, my God. According to a police warrant, the cult was one of three pistols left on the table handed to Baldwin by the British assistant director Dave Halls, who told the veteran actor it was cold, not realizing it had been loaded with live rounds.
That is messed up, man.
That is messed up. Like, what the hell is going on with this set?
What is going on in this set where you can't say, well, I need to check, right?
Was he saying, we've got to get the light, hurry?
Like, was somebody hurrying along?
What was the reason why you couldn't take 10 seconds to check whether the gun was loaded?
Oh, my God. So, yeah, I talked about what happened with the guy who was just told, you know, go shoot a gun at a hill, whatever, right?
So, here we go.
Rust, this movie, was only the second movie Gutierrez Reed had worked on.
And sources on the set described her as inexperienced and green.
According to her LinkedIn page, she most recently worked as a videographer in Synthfire, a California-based news media company, and as a documentary filmmaker for the city of Flagstaff in Arizona.
She worked as an armorer for Yellowstone Film Ranch between March and June 2021.
But according to the page, stopped working there three months before filming for Russ started in October.
And of course, she had studied creative media and film between 2017 and 2020.
Creative media and film.
Yeah, loading blanks was the scariest thing, blah, blah, blah.
She didn't even know how to do it.
It's not great. So, Gutierrez-Reed, and I reported on this the first time, Gutierrez-Reed thought that the job that she'd done had gone smoothly, the Nicolas Cage film.
But sources told the Daily Beast that the rookie armorer was unsafe and had handed a gun to an 11-year-old.
Actress Ryan Keira Armstrong handed a gun to an 11-year-old.
The source said she was a bit careless with the guns, waving it around every now and again.
There were a couple of times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.
The insider added that they had seen her loading a gun on pebble-strewn ground, which has the potential to be dangerous, before handing off the gun to Armstrong.
The source said she was reloading the gun on the ground where there were pebbles and stuff.
We didn't see her check it. We didn't know if something got in the barrel or not, right?
Because a blank can propel things out of the end of the gun pretty fast, right?
Meanwhile, sources on the Rust set have said the fatal incident was the result of production failings from top to bottom.
Zack Knight, a pyrotechnic and special effects engineer who is a member of Local 44, told DailyMail.com on Friday that Hutchins' death was caused by a, quote, cascade of failures, end quote, by multiple people.
Quote, there should have never been live rounds on a movie set.
That's number one. Number two is every single person on a movie set has a right to inspect a weapon before it's fired.
And number three is there's no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing.
It's not a multiple shoot like a sitcom.
It's like a single camera usually.
And they only had one camera at that particular time.
They only had one camera working at that particular time.
So, no reason. Right?
No reason. In this case, of course, if the gun was being pointed at the camera, as I talked about originally, okay.
But then you make sure that nobody's there.
You turn the camera on and you get out of there.
Oh, you're behind some big heavy plexiglass and nobody's in the line of sight, all this kind of stuff, right?
Sources added that the assistant director, Halls, who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was safe, should have checked the weapon.
One of the sources said, he's supposed to be our last line of defense and he failed us.
He's the last person that's supposed to look at that firearm.
Not true. No, no, no.
Alec Baldwin is the last person who's supposed to look at the firearm, right?
Because he's the one pulling the trigger.
A Rust production source told the Daily Beast that there were at least two previous incidents of guns being accidentally discharged by other crew members on set before Thursday's tragic incident.
So, Rust crew members claim that there were several complaints made against the armorer on the set and that at least six fed-up people had walked off the set prior to Guterres Reid handing Baldwin the gun that killed Hutchins.
Boy, didn't they make the right decision, eh?
They spent the last five years in court.
The crew made their complaints directly to Assistant Director Dave Hall, who was named in the search warrant affidavit as the person who handed Baldwin the gun that killed Hutchins and told him it was safe and demanded all the discharges were documented.
All of us yelled at him.
The source said, that better be on the production report.
These guys are irresponsible and shouldn't be here.
That should be automatic grounds for termination on a union film set.
You should be gone. The first time that gun went off without telling anyone, that whole department should have been replaced.
Immediately, clearly production thought better of it, decided to roll the dice and pay the ultimate price.
So I mentioned this before.
A gun had two misfires and a closed cabin.
I don't know. What does misfire mean?
It went off without the trigger being pulled?
Come on. Wouldn't the armor check that that would be first and foremost?
So, in addition to the criminal probe, New Mexico's Occupational Holt and Safety Bureau is investigating Hutch's death and could impose civil penalties even if no charges are brought in the case.
So, what else have we got here?
I'm just ending up here. The 911 calls, terrible, terrible stuff.
So, yeah, safety gun.
If there were indications that the set was unsafe, if there were indications that the armorer was not competent, which of course would have occurred before, if she handed a gun to an 11-year-old child, I assume that's not good.
That's not the way you're supposed to do things.
So, we'll see.
We'll see what happens.
It seems to me that charges would be warranted.
Again, just my amateur opinion, of course.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
But it seems to me that there was enough evidence there to know that there was a risk on this set in particular, as there is a risk with every—because it was not a prop gun.
It was a gun that could fire actual bullets.
From what I've read here, right?
So it was an actual gun that could fire actual bullets.
You don't ever, ever, ever point that at someone and pull the trigger.
Unless you're in an extremity of self-defense.
So you point a gun at someone, assuming the trigger was pulled.
Assuming Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.
I don't know, but his fingerprints be on the trigger?
I have no idea. Point a gun at someone and you pull the trigger.
Well, isn't that negligence?
It's more than an accident.
It's more than an accident.
The accident is the example of the floor beams are rotten and something falls through.
There's no way to know. There's no way to know.
Point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.
How is that not negligence?
Ah, well, but I was told that the gun was unloaded.
Did you check? Well, no, but I pay people.
Did you hire them? Yeah. Has this guy had issues before?
I think so. I think so.
If he's an executive producer, he chose to hire, he chose to continue, even when people were telling him directly that it was unsafe.
This is an unsafe environment.
Guns are being discharged randomly.
There are bullets all over the place.
He hired the person who let the gun out of her sight to the point where the crew was shooting cans with live bullets hours before it was being used, apparently, to be pointed at someone and the trigger being pulled.
Right? And Oh, my God.
So, okay, what's going to happen?
I mean, nobody knows. Maybe he'll get charged.
Maybe he'll get charged. And, you know, this is not California, right?
So maybe he'll get charged.
But in a way, I kind of doubt it.
I think he may end up with some civil stuff.
But I'll tell you why.
I think very, very powerful forces are going to be working very hard to make sure he doesn't get charged.
The basic reason is this.
That Trump may be running in 2024.
Now, I'm not doing politics.
I'm just pointing out a cause and effect here.
Trump may be running in 2024.
If Trump is running in 2024, who do they desperately need to make fun of Trump, to mock Trump in the vicious, ugly way that he does?
They need Alec Baldwin.
So because they need Alec Baldwin to mock Trump, if Trump runs, I believe very, very strong forces will be at work to make sure that he's available for that.
And that's why I have some doubt that there will be any potential justice in this situation.
But we'll see.
We'll see. This is Van Molyneux from Freedom Aid.
▲
Export Selection