Re: Alec Baldwin getting away with murder

In article <usd4oo$17cct$1@dont-email.me>,
  super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
 

On 2024-03-07 17:50:50 +0000, Blueshirt said:
>

EGK wrote:
>

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:59:02 -0700, anim8rfsk
<anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>

>

https://deadline.com/2024/03/rust-movie-armorer-guilty-shooting-death-123584
7983/
>

>
Classic example of shit rolling downhill and our two-tiered
justice system.  Baldwin is "loose" with weapons on the set
and he fires the fatal shot but because he hired a young and
very inexperienced armorer, she ends up being the perfect
scapegoat.

>
It's not about who hired the armourer or who held the gun, the
interesting thing about this case for me is who put the live
round in to a "prop" gun ... and was it deliberate?!

 It was not a prop gun. It was a real gun that was being used to shoot
blanks.
 

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a gun -- especially one
that had been tampered with to neutralize it -- could go off without
pulling the trigger and just putting it in motion alone, I don't give a
shit what "the FBI says."

 Yes, some internet rando who's never even seen the gun, let alone
examined it, is a better judge than FBI firearms experts, because Alec
is a reliable leftist so he must be excused at any cost.
 'Neutralizing' a firearm consists of removing the firing pin. A gun
cannot fire without a firing pin anymore than the sun can rise in the
west.
 However, the gun in question here was not 'neutralized'. It was a
fully-functioning firearm that was intended to be used to shoot blanks.
Kinda blows your whole fantasy out of the water, huh? Sucks for both you
and Alec.
 

Sure would put a cramp in the NRA's and gun industry's style if that
was shown to have happened in a high profile case like this though.

 Huh? Accepting your claim as true for the sake of argument, neither the
NRA nor the gun industry has ever claimed that if you fuck around with a
gun and take it out of manufacturer specs that it won't malfunction.