Actor Alec Baldwin shoots 2 people, killing one of them.

Page 17 of 18 [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Nov 2021, 11:07 pm

Quote:
A crew member on film Rust has said actor Alec Baldwin "chose to play Russian roulette" by failing to check the gun on set before firing it.

Mamie Mitchell, the script supervisor who called 911 after Baldwin fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, is suing the star and the film's producers, alleging they did not follow safety protocols.

At a news conference, Ms Mitchell's lawyer Gloria Allred claimed Baldwin, an "industry veteran", should not have trusted a gun handed to him by anyone other than the prop master or armourer.

The weapon was given to Baldwin by assistant director Dave Halls, who is said to have shouted "cold gun", meaning unloaded with live rounds, before passing it to the actor.

Ms Allred said: "Mr Baldwin chose to play Russian roulette when he fired a gun without checking it and without having the armourer do so in his presence.

"His behaviour and that of the producers on Rust was reckless."

The film's script also never called for a gun to be fired in the scene, she claimed.

The script only specified three tight camera shots for the scene - one of Baldwin's eyes, another on a bloodstain, and a third on Baldwin's torso "as he reached his hand down to the holster and removed the gun", the lawsuit says.

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/alec-baldwin-played-russian-roulette-by-failing-to-check-gun-before-firing-it-on-rust-film-set-lawyer-says-12471097

Edit: Also covered at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/crew-member-rust-movie-says-script-never-called-gun-be-fired-hollywood-reporter-2021-11-17/ for those who like to whine about the source of information rather than discuss the content.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

04 Dec 2021, 11:01 am



I hadn't watched the interview, but from someone with a minimal knowledge of\experience with firearms, pulling back the hammer, then releasing it sounds very similar to the action that pulling the trigger sets in motion...

Prior to this, I had heard that the gun was a replica which had the same "issue" as the model it was based on (single action), in that even a hard jolt could cause a round to be fired (hence the "Cowboy load", with the chamber under the hammer not containing a round, to prevent this situation occuring) - If the chambers were all full, and he released, rather than gentle reseated, the hammer after having pulled it back, that would appear to be enough to cause a round to be fired - If he was unfamiliar with firearms (particularly single action firearms), it is possible he believed that it was the action of pulling the trigger which causes a round to be fired and that as long as the trigger isn't touched, the gun is unable to fire.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Dec 2021, 1:26 am


Certainly an interesting theory (and reasoning behind it)...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

08 Dec 2021, 7:38 pm

Brictoria wrote:


I hadn't watched the interview, but from someone with a minimal knowledge of\experience with firearms, pulling back the hammer, then releasing it sounds very similar to the action that pulling the trigger sets in motion...


Well, I was slightly mistaken on the operation of the gun in question, in that the hammer on the gun (absent damage\alteration) can not return to the point where it would cause the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled back...



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Dec 2021, 7:55 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Brictoria wrote:

I hadn't watched the interview, but from someone with a minimal knowledge of\experience with firearms, pulling back the hammer, then releasing it sounds very similar to the action that pulling the trigger sets in motion...


Well, I was slightly mistaken on the operation of the gun in question, in that the hammer on the gun (absent damage\alteration) can not return to the point where it would cause the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled back...


Additional credibility points given for acknowledging the fact. :star: :mrgreen:



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

08 Dec 2021, 8:36 pm

Yeah, old SA revolvers have a half-cock position which catches the hammer if the thumb slips. There's also a safety notch before half-cock which was used to keep the firing pin away from the primer of a round when all 6 rounds were loaded and it too will catch the hammer if the thumb slips before half-cock. There's sometimes a 3rd cock just before full-cock too. Some have less. If the firearm was fine/not modified, I'm guessing he had the trigger depressed for some reason, maybe to decock it and his thumb slipped, but since the trigger was depressed, the hammer dropped as intended. This is what you'd think anyway when it comes to the most likely reason other than squeezing the trigger for whatever reason with it fully cocked.

Anyway, the main issue is he was pointing a real firearm at someone else. It doesn't matter at all if it was unloaded. It's negligence and this is one of the outcomes regardless of intent as it can always be loaded. It's the responsibility of the one handling the firearm and he has no excuse, as his job involves handling real firearms (hence, his training should be the same as anyone else that does it for a living). He has to own this one. Even if it was a modified or damaged firearm and the hammer wasn't caught as it should have been, it was still pointed at someone.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Dec 2021, 12:02 am

Dillogic wrote:
Yeah, old SA revolvers have a half-cock position which catches the hammer if the thumb slips. There's also a safety notch before half-cock which was used to keep the firing pin away from the primer of a round when all 6 rounds were loaded and it too will catch the hammer if the thumb slips before half-cock. There's sometimes a 3rd cock just before full-cock too. Some have less. If the firearm was fine/not modified, I'm guessing he had the trigger depressed for some reason, maybe to decock it and his thumb slipped, but since the trigger was depressed, the hammer dropped as intended. This is what you'd think anyway when it comes to the most likely reason other than squeezing the trigger for whatever reason with it fully cocked.


My mistake had been in thinking the trigger's only role was to act as a ratchet to pull the hammer back and permit it to release at a given point, not realising that there were several points during this process where the hammer could safely come to a rest. This being the case, Mr Baldwin's explanation (pulled the hammer back to just before the gun was cocked for what he was doing, and released it, which caused the gun to fire) would have been what I had thought, but seeing as there are (or should be) multiple "stopping" points it does seem that either the trigger would have had to have been depressed by him, or the weapon was faulty\modified (in which case it shouldn't have been on set).

I do wonder if (given he was playing with the hammer) he was inadvertently depressing the trigger as part of his grip, without realising this.

Dillogic wrote:
Anyway, the main issue is he was pointing a real firearm at someone else. It doesn't matter at all if it was unloaded. It's negligence and this is one of the outcomes regardless of intent as it can always be loaded. It's the responsibility of the one handling the firearm and he has no excuse, as his job involves handling real firearms (hence, his training should be the same as anyone else that does it for a living). He has to own this one. Even if it was a modified or damaged firearm and the hammer wasn't caught as it should have been, it was still pointed at someone.

Agreed - Even with my (exceedingly limited) knowledge of firearms and their use that would seem to be common sense.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

09 Dec 2021, 2:49 am

It's understandable and that's generally how a "modern" double-action or double-action only (DAO) revolver goes (which most of us would think of when we hear revolver), and they were around the time of single-action revolvers all the same, and those old ones tend to be a, load 5 instead of 6 deal too as they tend to lack the modern safety features like hammers without firing pins on them, firing pin blocks and transfer bars. They have a longer heavier trigger pull that completes the entire mechanism, which is faster to shoot. They also have a full-cock if they aren't DAO where you can you manually thumb the hammer back until it hits it, and you then have a light trigger pull like any other single-action. Some have half-cock and other things too; older double-action revolvers tend to be quite diverse. Modern ones can only go bang with a trigger pull for all intents, older ones, not so much.

I really can't see much other than a faulty firearm so the hammer wasn't caught, he tried to decock it by depressing the trigger and his thumb slipped, or as you say, he inadvertently had his finger on the trigger because he wasn't paying attention and pulled the hammer back and bang. You'd think he'd know all about the 4 rules of firearm safety. If he thought it was a non-firing but functional replica, I can see him skirting those (which is a bad idea, as it's best to treat all firearm feeling things like firearms because you never want to hear a bang when you want a click as important things tend to be downrange).

It should almost always ends with the user, as the user is the one that has the responsibility (outside of manufacturing faults and so on). He thought it wasn't loaded because someone said it wasn't, but it was his duty to check it wasn't (it ended up being loaded). It'll take all of a few seconds to check that. It was his responsibility to treat it as if it were loaded and had it pointing away from others (he pointed it at someone and did something to make it discharge). He also should have kept his finger off the trigger if he didn't intend to shoot it.

Life can really suck, and it can go from everything to nothing with a simple accident (I prefer negligence here). Hopefully people learn from this one.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Dec 2021, 3:23 am

It is interesting to hear a lawyer who specialises in "use of force" cases describe how what occurred has the theoretical potential to reach as far as being a murder case (along with relevent defences related to the case\situation)... It is certainly not something I would have considered possible in the case.

Quote:
The general theme of my previous commentary is that Alec Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins appears to have been the result of reckless conduct, and that a reckless killing, albeit unintentional, qualifies as felony involuntary manslaughter. Further, felony involuntary manslaughter carries a prison sentence of up to four years under New Mexico law.

There is, however, another prosecutorial argument to be made on the facts of this case that could result in far more than merely four years in prison.

Indeed, it could justify a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of early release.

That raises the question of whether that could be why Alec Baldwin took the tremendous risk of his interview with George Stephanopoulos this past week, shortly after which he deleted his Twitter account previously used for commenting publicly on the Hutchins killing? Was it because he’s been advised that if he doesn’t pull every political and emotive lever at his disposal he could be looking at life in prison if prosecuted, and not merely a worst-case of four years?

[...]

I’ll preface this analysis by noting up front that it involves the making of inferences from Alec Baldwin’s infamously poorly-controlled temper over a period of many years.

I’ll also note that despite the plain English reading of the relevant New Mexico law on this point, the law here is complex, and Alec Baldwin would have definite defenses to a life sentence charge made on the facts here. Accordingly, in this content I’ll detail both the reasoning path favoring that life sentence charge as well as the prospective legal argument against it, on the facts of this case.

I’m also obliged to note that it was a video yesterday by the great Canadian lawyer and legal commentator VivaFrei that brought to mind the prospect of this life sentence charge argument in the case of Alec Baldwin’s shooting dead of Halyna Hutchins. I caution that VivaFrei did not make such an argument himself, at least not in that video, so to the extent the notion takes heat, please direct that heat at me.

Incidentally, I’m a huge fan of VivaFrei’s work generally, so I encourage you to watch the entirety of his video from yesterday that I just referenced, click here for that, as well as to subscribe and otherwise support Viva’s efforts on YouTube, Twitter, Locals, and elsewhere.

The essence of VivaFrei’s argument in his video of yesterday is that it may be reasonable to infer from Alec Baldwin’s infamous history of poor anger management that his manipulation of the firearm that led to its (presumably unintentional) discharge was itself an intentional act done out of anger and frustration, and not merely some kind of an accidental slip of the trigger finger or thumb.

[...]

Viva here is suggesting that Baldwin operated the firearm in a manner that resulted in a discharge out of pure frustration and uncontrolled anger, without expecting the gun to fire a live round. Whether this operation was in the form of pulling the trigger or “snapping” the hammer, I expect Viva is correct that Baldwin did not intend for the gun to actually fire.

But what if Alec’s intent was to do more than simply act frustrated?

What if Alec was specifically frustrated and unhappy with Halyna Hutchins in particular, and personally? What if he was offended at being compelled to take micro-managing direction from a mere cinematographer, and him being the lead star of the movie? Doesn’t she know how lucky she is just to have a startof his level on this dumpy little $5 million move?

What if he was thinking to himself, that rude thoughtless little pig, doesn’t she KNOW WHO I AM!

What if in that moment of anger Alec Baldwin decided he would teach that thoughtless little pig a lesson, put a little scare into her, and do it by pointing the gun at her and dropping the hammer, as if a shot were being fired? Not to actually shoot her, of course—just to make her jump, just to frighten her, as a mere corrective action so she would adjust her behavior towards him in a more respectful direction.

Well, that would be a pretty serious problem for Alec Baldwin, given the actual consequences.

Source: https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldwin-could-his-killing-of-halyna-hutchins-be-murder-life-imprisonment/



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Dec 2021, 7:31 pm

Quote:
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Authorities on Thursday issued a search warrant for Alec Baldwin’s cell phone, saying it could hold evidence that might be helpful as they investigate a deadly shooting on a New Mexico film set that killed a cinematographer and wounded the director.

Baldwin was holding a revolver during rehearsal when it fired. He has maintained that it was cinematographer Halyna Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off. Director Joel Souza also was wounded in the shooting on the Bonanza Creek Ranch film set near Santa Fe.

Baldwin has said that at Hutchins’ direction he pulled the hammer back and that it fired when he let go. He has said he didn’t know the gun contained a live round.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-new-mexico-santa-fe-4d62212c6e298b5363ffa243a9c90412



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

17 Dec 2021, 5:25 pm

↓ HERE is why I do not believe any conspiracy theories behind this tragedy.

Image


Quote:
Was the Alec Baldwin “Rust” shooting a (hoax) ritual sacrifice to usher in the Communist Overthrow of The United States?

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the 24-year-old head armorer in charge of guns on Alec Baldwin film where cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was tragically shot and killed on Thursday had admitted she ‘wasn’t sure she was ready’ for the job in an interview before filming started.

NOTICE THE ORANGE LADDER RIGHT IN THE SHOT. SHE’S 24 YEARS OLD FOR YOUR 6 or 9.
The Woman who was shot was 42 which is your 6 or 9.
You get your 66 for your dual 33’s.
They love to mirror the numbers. The chick in charge was 24 and the chic shot dead was 42 .
Alec Baldwin is 63 for your 36 or 3(6’s) 666
They tell us that the prop gun had misfired on Oct 16 which is your 10/16 for your 116 or 911 when flipped/mirrored. Zeros do not count.
In every article they mention that the prop gun had misfired on 10/16
Now why would they tell you that and what are the odds the gun “Misfired” on a date that equals 911.
October is the 10th month and the 16 day.
10/16 or 116 which is your 911.
The prop gun had misfired twice on Oct. 16
Remember that 116 is just 911 mirrored. Satanists read things backwards, mirrored and upside down.
Just flip the 116 and it’s 911. Look at it upside down. [more]

Source:  This Fullerton Informer Webpage 

Any conspiracy theory as wacko as this simply cannot be the truth.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Dec 2021, 10:17 pm

Fnord wrote:
↓ HERE is why I do not believe any conspiracy theories behind this tragedy.

Image


Quote:
Was the Alec Baldwin “Rust” shooting a (hoax) ritual sacrifice to usher in the Communist Overthrow of The United States?

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the 24-year-old head armorer in charge of guns on Alec Baldwin film where cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was tragically shot and killed on Thursday had admitted she ‘wasn’t sure she was ready’ for the job in an interview before filming started.

NOTICE THE ORANGE LADDER RIGHT IN THE SHOT. SHE’S 24 YEARS OLD FOR YOUR 6 or 9.
The Woman who was shot was 42 which is your 6 or 9.
You get your 66 for your dual 33’s.
They love to mirror the numbers. The chick in charge was 24 and the chic shot dead was 42 .
Alec Baldwin is 63 for your 36 or 3(6’s) 666
They tell us that the prop gun had misfired on Oct 16 which is your 10/16 for your 116 or 911 when flipped/mirrored. Zeros do not count.
In every article they mention that the prop gun had misfired on 10/16
Now why would they tell you that and what are the odds the gun “Misfired” on a date that equals 911.
October is the 10th month and the 16 day.
10/16 or 116 which is your 911.
The prop gun had misfired twice on Oct. 16
Remember that 116 is just 911 mirrored. Satanists read things backwards, mirrored and upside down.
Just flip the 116 and it’s 911. Look at it upside down. [more]

Source:  This Fullerton Informer Webpage 

Any conspiracy theory as wacko as this simply cannot be the truth.


Congratulations on your return from conspiracy central.

I'm not sure the best way to introduce a new conspiracy that 99% of the population had never heard of, by way of denying it is true, is the best method though - Those more likely to believe such theories are also more likely to be swayed towards believing them, if the first they hear are a denial that they are true. That said, it normally requires a person with some "authority" to be making such a denial, so we should be safe here.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Dec 2021, 10:18 pm

Quote:
The father of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins slammed Alec Baldwin for accidentally shooting his daughter dead, saying the star was at least 'partially responsible' for the killing.

'It is clear to me Baldwin fired the shot from his hand so it's hard for me to understand how he cannot be held partly responsible for my daughter's death,' Anatoly Androsovych told The Sun on Sunday.

'I can't understand the behavior of Alec.'

The 61-year-old father said he doesn't understand Baldwin's claim that the gun that killed Hutchins went off without him pulling the trigger.

'The revolver is the type of gun which doesn't shoot before the trigger is pressed and Alec is partially guilty for causing that shot,' Androsovych said.

He questioned why Baldwin, 63, deleted a string of tweets he sent in wake of the tragedy.

'Why did he sweep out his tweets when it became clear the shooting was on rehearsal?' he stated. 'And why did he fire the shot during the preparations?'

Androsovych, a Ukrainian who served as a submarine captain, also shared that he is worried his 9-year-old grandson, Anrdos, may not 'ever fully recover' from the incident.

'Andros is slowly getting back to life, but this is huge blow for all of us,' he said.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10327391/Father-Rust-cinematographer-says-Alec-Baldwin-partially-responsible-death.html



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

15 Feb 2022, 8:06 pm

cyberdad wrote:
legal advice to date suggest Baldwin is not legally responsible
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/politics- ... e-rcna3646
Based on reports so far, if he trusted the crew to hand him a prop weapon and had no reason to believe it was a loaded gun, and if he didn’t do anything irresponsible with what he believed was a non-gun, then law enforcement will likely conclude he did nothing wrong.

The most likely outcome will be civil lawsuit from the Sousa and Hutchin families alleging that the crew members, producers and companies’ conduct was negligent. Baldwin is not included in this list.


Not quite...
'Reckless and cost-cutting' Alec Baldwin is sued by family of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins as they recreate moment he accidentally shot and killed her with prop gun on New Mexico set
Quote:
Lawyers for slain Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins have recreated her death in a 3D animation showing how Alec Baldwin shot her in the chest with a prop gun on the New Mexico set as they sued the actor and the low-budget film's producers on Tuesday for wrongful death.

Baldwin was holding a Colt revolver during a rehearsal on set at the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe when he fired a live round on October 21, 2021, killing Hutchins.

He has maintained that it was Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off. Director Joel Souza also was wounded in the shooting.

The civil lawsuit, filed in New Mexico on Tuesday, is seeking unspecified but 'substantial' damages, including punitive damages.

Attorney Brian Panish, representing Hutchins' husband, Matthew Hutchins, and their young son, Andros, held a press conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday to announce the lawsuit against Baldwin and 'others who are responsible for the safety on set, and whose reckless behavior and cost-cutting led to the senseless, tragic death of Halyna Hutchins,' he said.

According to Panish, his firm has conducted an independent investigation that he said uncovered 'numerous violations of industry standards' by Baldwin and the other defendants named in the complaint, among them Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, assistant director David Halls and several production companies attached to the project.

'There are many people culpable, but Mr. Baldwin was the person holding the weapon … that but for him shooting, she would not have died,' Panish said.

At least three other lawsuits have been filed over the shooting, but this is the first directly tied to one of the two people shot.

A 10-minute video created by the attorneys showed a 3D animated recreation of the shooting during a rehearsal in a church.

It shows a computer-generated avatar representing Baldwin accepting the Colt gun from Halls, pointing it in Hutchins' direction, and firing.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10516039/Family-Halyna-Hutchins-announce-wrongful-death-lawsuit-shot-Alec-Baldwin.html



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Feb 2022, 2:12 am

Quote:
Alec Baldwin is being sued by cinematographer Halyna Hutchins’ family over the “reckless” shooting death on the Rust film set last year.

Hutchins, 42, was fatally shot while director-writer Joel Souza was injured when Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on the set on October 21, 2021, reports The Sun.

[...]

The complaint also alleges that Baldwin did not offer any help to Hutchins or Souza after the gun discharged.

“Baldwin did not offer…any help to the victims,” the complaint reads. Court filing state Hutchins cried out, “I’m hit,” while Souza yelled in pain. Crew members moved in to help, and medics rushed to the scene. Baldwin, allegedly, gave no aid.

[...]

“Industry standards required Mr. Baldwin to be trained and qualified in the safe handling and proper firing procedures before accepting the revolver,” family lawyer Kristina Martinez said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Martinez claimed the actor “refused weapons training on the set,” saying: “The first rule for safety with firearms at a production set required Mr. Baldwin to treat all firearms as if they were loaded and refrain from pointing a firearm.

Fatal accident

“The industry standard required Mr. Baldwin to remember that any person or object of which he points a firearm could be destroyed.

“Mr. Baldwin, aimed the revolver at his cast and crew within a dangerous distance. The cast and crew were only four feet away from Mr. Baldwin’s weapon,” Martinez added.

[...]

Lawyers revealed on Tuesday that Balwin last met with Hutchins’s family just after the shooting.

Source: https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/alec-baldwin-sued-over-reckless-film-shooting-death-by-victims-family/news-story/dfe60f78c68beb1d6cc4a9d2dc8f7ba9



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

19 Jan 2023, 6:12 pm

cyberdad wrote:
maycontainthunder wrote:
The more I hear about this case the more incompetent the crew sound.

Live rounds have NO PLACE on a movie set.


One little myth was peddled in the early stages of the reporting in the right wing news was that Baldwin was goofing around recklessly when he discharged prop gun.

It now can be confirmed he was handed the gun when he was demonstrating to the cast what he wanted during a rehearsal.
This was during filming and Baldwin was doing his job.

It is patently clear one of the staff responsible for the ammo/gun/props has failed in maintaining safety but that's not Baldwin's fault anymore than a mother of a baby hiring a plumber who accidentally switches the hot/colt water on bathroom taps resulting in a mother accidentally scalding their baby.

It would be rightfully disgusting for people to blame a mother in that situation. People using this accident to ridicule Baldwin need to have a good long look at themselves in the mirror.


Some would disagree with you:
Quote:
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on set of Rust

https://news.sky.com/story/alec-baldwin ... t-12789976