Search results

Sure you can. He's making an argument on how to improve things in the US. Naturally that argument wouldn't be to take the bad things from other places and implement them here. It would be to take the good things from other places and implement them here.

For multiple builders I've met, it's because they don't like, in one case hates, their day job and are trying to get away from it and do something they enjoy. Not everyone is living a life only in pursuit of maximizing revenue.

Nuance got drunk, called an uber and went home a long time ago.

Given the number of people here that claim to clean their belly with avgas, I'm gonna go with "no".

I would guess that this is extremely unlikely. When I googled the other day I could only find three on set gun deaths. One in which the actor killed himself, one where the barrel had failed to have been cleared and now Rust. During the same period there were 40 other on set deaths.

Judge in Hannah's sentencing: "You were the armorer. The one that stood between a safe weapon and a weapon that could kill someone. You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you Ms. Hutchins would be alive." I wonder if Alec's team can present that statement at his trial?

Sorry, I don't get this then, "Man... twenty years? That's a long time. I'd be okay with a five year term..."

So you think Alec's punishment should be more than the armorer that was responsible for weapon safety on the set?

Should be? I think he should be found innocent. The original plea deal he was offered was a misdemeanor, six months of unsupervised probation, a $500 fine, 24 hours of community service and a firearms safety class.

Obviously *I* think he should be found innocent, based on what I understand today. But it will be interesting to see what a jury decides and what evidence/testimony is submitted beyond what has already been written about.

"When I quote a post, it creates context for my response. If you choose to ignore the context and misinterpret my post, that’s not my problem." I take it you've had this problem in the past as well?

Yep. I'm guessing that's an argument the prosecution will use. And the defense will likely counter that with something that points out that armorers exist for a reason, and it's not because actors can be trusted with weapons. And, further, even specialized staff, the armorer, wasn't enough in...

Another ad hominem. Gotta love PoA...

Sure, I did. You just didn't like it because it wasn't a "yes" or "no" answer. What I said was, "I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason...

I thought you were asking if it was the actors responsibility to follow union rules about guns. No?

I'm talking about Alec's trial. I would expect the prosecution to bring the union rules in as evidence that he should have known better.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that actors are not expected to know much about guns (or airplanes, or cars, or stunt rigging, or anything other than performing) and that the reason armorers exist is because of that expectation. That doesn't mean I can't also guess what the...

I think we're talking past each other and that I read your note differently than intended. I'm saying that I would expect the prosecution to present a case that because the union rules specific gun security, that Alec should have known better *even if* the armorer had failed at her job. Though...

Me neither, I think Alec is going to be acquitted. Though, given the judge throwing the book at the armorer, it wouldn't surprise me if he accepted a misdemeanor plea agreement if the prosecution puts it back on the table. That would be very practical compared to having a felony on his record...