I bet it still doesn’t upset him as much as the time he got thrown off a flight for refusing to stop playing Words With Friends for ten minutes.
Fucking amazing. Him, as a producer of the movie, could have done that before this whole incident ever occurred. Legally was something stopping him from hiring an officer for his production of this film?
Idk if I'd feel guilt. I mean I'd feel bad but not sure I'd label that guilt if I thought I hadn't done anything unscrupulous
People will bash him for that coming off as selfish and passing blame. But can’t hate on him at all. None of us would want that label, and more importantly, he’s right.
actor alec baldwin shouldn’t feel guilty but it sure sounds like executive producer alec baldwin should feel pretty guilty
Only 2 options for not feeling guilt in that situation. 1. Narcissistic psychopath 2. Positioning for incoming civil suit Actually a 3rd option is viable. 3. All of the above
if i am an actor and someone hands me a gun for work and says it’s safe, i am not gonna feel guilty for their fuckup. these people are (presumably) paid to (presumably) make these movies safe. you shouldn’t feel guilty when you literally did nothing wrong (which doesn’t appear to be the case here)
If I'm going down the road at 65 mph and a squirrel runs out and I hit it, I feel bad for hitting the squirrel. I don't feel guilty though
It is a normal human response when one holds the implement of someone’s death in one’s hand, whether the act is intentional or not.
Did I say he was guilty? I said “feel.” I can hand wave the fuck out of it. When your actions cause the death of another human being, normal people feel guilt. Even if they did nothing wrong or illegal.
You also cant hand wave away you watching someone die from a gunshot you administered. If I saw someone cross the fucking road and get hit by a truck I would probably feel guilt about something. Saw it coming and didnt yell, saw they were on the phone and werent paying attention, etc.
Yeah if someone on a set hands me a gun that I presume is safe or whatever they call it, then I don't even pull the trigger and it discharges and kills someone. I would feel bad but that's different then guilt
how does it make you a psychopath to not feel guilty (while still feeling bad) about someone dying due to something totally out of your control? do you feel guilty if the state of texas executes an innocent person?
its no worse than saying someone is a psychopath for not feeling guilty about a situation where they literally did nothing at all wrong
You guys are confusing “guilty” with a feeling of guilt. “guilt is a feeling of remorse or sadness over a past action” I never said he was guilty or felt guilty.
I don't think it makes you a psychopath for not feeling guilty, but it is weird to not feel a tinge of guilt when you literally shot someone to death. No matter who's at fault, a person is dead because you shot them. Edit: As a.tramp said, Tobias and Redav are getting hung up on the legal vs. moral definition of guilty.
i thought redav differentiated what he was saying between guilt vs feeling bad/awful i guess i associate the word guilt with feeling some sense of culpability which is where the disconnect is
i think the hang up is on if feeling guilty is feeling sad about something or feeling responsible about something. i view it as the latter and i think atramp the former
Usually a prerequisite for remorse is intent. Like if you could change your own actions. I don't think expecting him to know a gun is live when he's been told by experts that it's not is a reasonable expectation. There's nothing he personally could have done differently if what the story that's being told is true. I mean if you don't like the semantics of it all that's fine but it's ridiculous to call people abnormal or psychopaths because they make that distinction
I think it s a very valid point and I think that’s where a lot of people want to throw blame and hate at him for. My question though is how much of a producer role actually mean for him in this? I thought a lot of people have their name attached with exec producer but don’t necessarily have hands on control of production.
I never said he had or should have “remorse.” And it does not matter if there was or was not something that he could have done differently. That is not the issue. A person died by his hand. If his hand was not on that gun and he did not pull the trigger at the exact moment he did, that person would most likely be still alive. It does not matter that it was someone else’s job to ensure safety. It does not matter that he did not intend to hurt anyone. He pulled the trigger. As a direct result, a person is now dead. A normal human response to that is guilt. Intention has nothing to do with it.
He said he didn’t not pull a trigger. The gun was cocked for the shot then he went to reset it and the hammer dropped and it fired.
It literally changes nothing. I am not saying he did anything wrong. Any normal person that was holding that gun when the incident occurred would feel guilt. It is an involuntary coping mechanism for humans to process events such as these. It has nothing to do with actually being guilty or doing something wrong. On the other hand, if someone went through this incident and could not process and let go of the feeling of guilt once the rational brain works it all out, that is another thing altogether and a problem of its own. A feeling of guilt is a moral compass, not an indicator of intentional wrongdoing. But let’s play that out a little. The hammer dropped when he went to reset it. You think not a single time since the incident he didn’t have questions like this in his head? “If I could have only actually reset the hammer instead of letting the hammer slip?” “Why could I have not been a half a second faster or slower in my motions so that when the hammer slipped, the projectiles would have went safely elsewhere?” That is a second-guessing of one’s actions, actions that unintentionally resulted in a lost life. That is a feeling of guilt. It is not an indicator of wrong-doing.
One does not "reset" a trigger. If the gun was handed to him cocked, you have to pull the trigger while holding the hammer back to lower the hammer down from cocked against spring pressure. No other way to do it, period. Colt, Colt replica, Colt copy, makes no difference.
Edit : Greybeard hit the nail on the head. That's the only way to "reset" a hammer. By pulling the trigger. Greybeard , I have never tried to "force" a hammer down on a gun, is that even possible? "Resetting" the hammer without pulling the trigger) If not, not only is Mr. Baldwin lying, he's going to lose whatever civil case is filed against him.
There was a Twitter thread that showed yes it's possible for the gun to go off without pulling the trigger
You'd literally have to break internal parts and/or hit the gun hard enough and "properly" to rip it out of your hand. Neither scenario is likely, neither is plausible. The chances of it happening without the trigger being pulled are one in a million. And we're dismissing the "loaded with five" empty chamber rule that's been in place for literally 125 plus years for original single action revolvers. Edit- The above video shows an uncocked, non transfer bar safety revolver. Those were the basis for the "load five" dictum. From cocked hammer, my above break parts rip from hand statement stands.