Things Not Going Well for Alec Baldwin

[RomaVicta 30606]

On 5/1/2022 at 9:10 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

You lost me here. How is it hypocritical?
 

you could argue that the hypocrisy is being for gun control and then not ensuring adequate, industry standard gun control on a set for a movie he is producing.  I could buy that. But not just being involved in telling a story that has guns. 
 

that’s different than, say, smoking in movies where the smoking isn’t part of the story and is just there for no reason (or because of funding sources).  

All women or men who have taken part in rape or murder scenes are hypocrites if they don't staunchly support rape and murder. Of course, don't try this irony with the current Trumpian right. They're really really bad at it.

[B00M 6735]

41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I've never ascribed to the broad "it's movies and videogames" explanation of our highly problematic gun culture.  That's not because it's not a huge cultural problem; rather, it's because the cultural problems are much more complex and deeply rooted.

My hypothesis is that guns are power, or proxies for power.  Thus, they are subject to becoming the object of affection/carrying for people who feel frustrated by their relative feeling of being powerless.  For example, imagine yourself living in Ukraine, subject to violent attack and invasion by a large army of evil shitbags, who are more numerous and powerful than you, and who can destroy your cities (and have done so).  Oh yeah?  Well fuck you, I'm an old fart, but I'm picking up a rifle and will shoot your ass you Rooskie fuck.  I mean, maybe I'm not the best equipped guy to do it, but grabbing my AK makes me feel a lot less powerless.

Well, now do that exercise for a gang in the hood -- minorities, poor, zero respect from society as a whole.  Shit, damn near invisible to society as a whole.  Cops can do what they want to them, because who's gonna believe a shitheel from the hood over a cop?  Oh yeah?  Well, now I'm strapped.  Makes me feel a lot less powerless.

Do the exercise again for America's white males who are (and this is empirical, undeniable truth) more depressed, seeing their lifespan go down, seeing their economic prospects decline, and inevitably wrapping those events and feelings up into a bundle that reeks of powerlessness.  We're losing power.  Hell, everyone talks about how bad we are.  Our job prospects suck, and are getting worse daily because of shit the elites are doing.  My job got taken by a Chinese dude in a factory overseas.  Etc. etc.  Well, I've still got power.  I just picked up a new AR, and nobody better fuck with me.  The government that's fucked me over?  Maybe I'll go fuck THEM over.

What guns are, and have become, is a medicine to treat our feeling of powerlessness.  But it's a shitty medicine -- it barely even treats a symptom.  And the side effect is.....a bunch of frustrated and angry people (remember, people who feel powerless are rarely happy about it) are now armed.  They just want power.  They want to be respected.  And many think that a quick and easy way to get that is to use that gun.  Cut me off in traffic?  I'll show you, you disrespecting asshole - bang.  Etc. etc.

We're an unhappy, shat upon, heavily armed people.  That's.....not good.

Hey these are all good points. I don't think there's anything here I can disagree with. 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

33 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

All women or men who have taken part in rape or murder scenes are hypocrites if they don't staunchly support rape and murder.

Dominique Francon and Dagny Taggart, the heroines in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, respectively, both desired to be raped by strong, creative men. They couldn’t wait to submit and thought that it was virtuous, good, and right to give in to their animal desires. It was a tribute to be taken by them.

[burntorangebongos 10826]

Just goes to show how fucked up Ayn Rand was in the head.

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

4 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Just goes to show how fucked up Ayn Rand was in the head.

She definitely must have had a rape fantasy.

But the central premise of Atlas Shrugged, as summed up by John Galt after a monologue that went on for dozens of pages (57 pages in my paperback copy) is, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” is a philosophy that no so-called libertarian who claims to be inspired by Ayn Rand actually adheres to. It’s that “nor ask another man to live for mine” that they always forget when they shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and loosen regulations preventing industries from polluting our air and water, forcing us to bear some of their costs while not benefiting from their profits.

But those are both good books. So is Anthem which was my introduction thanks to the band Rush because it was their inspiration for 2112.

Sometimes it seems to me that neither the Ayn Rand critics nor those who claim to be inspired by her have ever really read much of her writing. 

[Nivek 17417]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She definitely must have had a rape fantasy.

But the central premise of Atlas Shrugged, as summed up by John Galt after a monologue that went on for dozens of pages (57 pages in my paperback copy) is, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” is a philosophy that no so-called libertarian who claims to be inspired by Ayn Rand actually adheres to. It’s that “nor ask another man to live for mine” that they always forget when they shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and loosen regulations preventing industries from polluting our air and water, forcing us to bear some of their costs while not benefiting from their profits.

But those are both good books. So is Anthem which was my introduction thanks to the band Rush because it was their inspiration for 2112.

Sometimes it seems to me that neither the Ayn Rand critics nor those who claim to be inspired by her have ever really read much of her writing. 

Just like with the bible and most other religious texts, no one gives a fuck about the content, just how they want to content to read and how they want to use it as a cudgel fuck someone else over.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Bullshit on the “violence in media” deflection.

Does the rest of the world not have the movies, internet, or television?

They see the same shit we do - worse in some places - but only this country has the gun problem we have.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Bullshit on the “violence in media” deflection.

Does the rest of the world not have the movies, internet, or television?

They see the same shit we do - worse in some places - but only this country has the gun problem we have.

This

[Hornius Emeritus 12806]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

Sometimes it seems to me that neither the Ayn Rand critics nor those who claim to be inspired by her have ever really read much of her writing. 

That is because her writing --- her actual prose ---- is so bad.  Tedious beyond belief. Wooden characters, formulaic dialogue.  Take the idea you spelled out fairly succinctly in Anthem and then stretch it over 600+ pages in The Fountainhead. Talk about belaboring a point! Good Lord.

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

That is because her writing --- her actual prose ---- is so bad.  Tedious beyond belief. Wooden characters, formulaic dialogue.  Take the idea you spelled out fairly succinctly in Anthem and then stretch it over 600+ pages in The Fountainhead. Talk about belaboring a point! Good Lord.

‘Waaaaa, her books are too long!’

I think that’s a tired criticism. I’ve read The Fountainhead twice and Atlas Shrugged three times. I enjoyed them. I don’t think they drag. Maybe a little when Hank Rearden is dealing with his family but I didn’t let that bring me down. I agreed with some of her points, not with others. But the basic storyline of both books was compelling even though it didn’t reflect actual reality. Neither did The Lord of the Rings. (Which I only read twice, The Hobbit and The Silmarillion each just once; they don’t exactly reflect reality either and they’re all pretty long too.)

What’s funny is that the dysfunctional governments in Rand’s writing much more closely resemble that of the Trump administration than those of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. And is there a more perfect parallel to Ellsworth Toohey than Tucker Carlson? They’re the same character. 

[B00M 6735]

On 5/2/2022 at 3:02 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this is bullshit. i watch the most violent movies on the planet and have no urge to buy a gun and go on a rampage. would you say the same about video games?

Bill Maher did a decent job making this argument. Even if you disagree it's at leadt funny

 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

13 hours ago, B00M said:

Bill Maher did a decent job making this argument. Even if you disagree it's at leadt funny

 

Wrong. Not funny, not informative. Neither Hollywood nor video games nor rock music are responsible for gun violence.

That had to be Bill’s worst episode of Real Time. He had Kellyanne Fucking Conway on the panel. The quality of his show is generally related to the quality of his guests and he was scraping the bottom of the barrel there. Who gives a fuck what “Alternative facts” Conway has to say?

His opening interview was with Dr. Cornel West. I like him. But even he was acting sort of unreasonable. Bill listed some things that Biden has done for minorities.

And still Cornel bitched that it wasn’t enough. Have you forgotten Trump already? JFC, man, perfection is a road, not a destination. I’m so sick and tired of the Republicans getting away with being total scum and then watching the Democrats take shit because they’re not just exactly perfect, however you define “perfect.”

[Red Five 41758]

39 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And still Cornel bitched that it wasn’t enough. Have you forgotten Trump already? JFC, man, perfection is a road, not a destination. I’m so sick and tired of the Republicans getting away with being total scum and then watching the Democrats take shit because they’re not just exactly perfect, however you define “perfect.”

There was some "that's how you get presidents like Trump and Biden", which makes me violently angry. 

His show sucks now. 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

20 minutes ago, Red Five said:

There was some "that's how you get presidents like Trump and Biden", which makes me violently angry. 

His show sucks now. 

It’s occasionally good depending on the guests. But the quality of his guests has deteriorated greatly. He’s never been more than a B-list comedian, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But he’s always been a little bit of a flake. Still, he’s done a lot of good comedy. Not as much as the great ones, but enough to earn some aplomb.

He hasn’t responded well to the pandemic at all. And I don’t know what the backstory is with his writers but I suspect that some of his better writers have left for better opportunities since the start of the pandemic. He’s getting up there in years and is definitely on the decline. And, starving for guests, he’s trying too hard to be “politically incorrect” by inviting right-wing nut jobs like Kellyanne Conway onto his show in order to show how open he is to ideological diversity.

I remember when he had P.J. O’Rourke on the panel. How times have changed. 

[B00M 6735]

Damn you're hardcore about Maher. I've maybe seen a few episodes worth of his show over the years. I'm almost afraid to ask, do you like Last Week Tonight? 

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

5 hours ago, B00M said:

I'm almost afraid to ask, do you like Last Week Tonight? 

Don’t you?

[B00M 6735]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Don’t you?

It might be my favorite show 

[maninblack 7975]

15 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

That whole graphic is hilarious. Only a wonk dipshit would post that and think any of those things matter to normal people.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

2 minutes ago, maninblack said:

That whole graphic is hilarious. Only a wonk dipshit would post that and think any of those things matter to normal people.

From a guy posting in a thread about a worried nation watching with bated breath: Whatever will happen in that Alec Baldwin situation?

[maninblack 7975]

1 minute ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

From a guy posting in a thread about a worried nation watching with bated breath: Whatever will happen in that Alec Baldwin situation?

Got me

[Fletch 5817]

9 hours ago, B00M said:

Damn you're hardcore about Maher. I've maybe seen a few episodes worth of his show over the years. I'm almost afraid to ask, do you like Last Week Tonight? 

I’ve watched both damn near weekly since each of them aired. Shit I used to watch his show “politically incorrect” on abc back in the day

Shit I saw him live at the paramount downtown when I was like 10

Edited June 17, 2022 by Fletch

[elfenix 34754]

wasn't politically incorrect on comedy central?

[VivaNaranja 466]

13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

wasn't politically incorrect on comedy central?

I believe it originally on ABC late on a Friday or Saturday night. I know for certain that Maher was cancelled because he said the 9/11 terrorist bombers weren't cowards.

[ConferenceRoom 6214]

They weren’t bombers either.

[Patron 230]

4 hours ago, maninblack said:

That whole graphic is hilarious. Only a wonk dipshit would post that and think any of those things matter to normal people.

This phrase has been embedded in right wing propaganda in this cycle. Echeese has added to his template and of course posts it over and over.

[WhatTheBuck 28934]

4 hours ago, VivaNaranja said:

I believe it originally on ABC late on a Friday or Saturday night. I know for certain that Maher was cancelled because he said the 9/11 terrorist bombers weren't cowards.

This is correct. 

[Herpa Derpa 6344]

7 hours ago, maninblack said:

That whole graphic is hilarious. Only a wonk dipshit would post that and think any of those things matter to normal people.

Define what normal people means to you.

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 947]

4 hours ago, VivaNaranja said:

I believe it originally on ABC late on a Friday or Saturday night. I know for certain that Maher was cancelled because he said the 9/11 terrorist bombers weren't cowards.

Originally on Comedy Central, then ABC took it to late night.  Cancelled in 2002 like you said. 

[Red Five 41758]

I went to a taping of that show circa 1997. Steven Wright was one of the guests. The only reason I remember that is because when we left and went out to our car in the parking lot, Wright was parked right next to us. He was getting in some very dirty very old Toyota or something. “That checks out.”

[Gil Bang 26247]

Fatal shooting today on the set of a Law and Order spinoff.  Not an accident, it seems.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Gil Bang

[Incredulity 11879]

Things not going well

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/alec-baldwin-to-be-charged-in-fatal-rust-shooting.html

MEDIA

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

If convicted, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed, could face five years in prison. Baldwin vowed to fight the charges.

[Guest]

Serious question, what exactly is involuntary manslaughter? How can you be charged with something that is said to be involuntary?

If I'm speeding because the car's accelerator was stuck, would I be charged with involuntary speeding? How does that work?

[Foosters 18286]

12 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Serious question, what exactly is involuntary manslaughter? How can you be charged with something that is said to be involuntary?

If I'm speeding because the car's accelerator was stuck, would I be charged with involuntary speeding? How does that work?

The below is lifted straight from California jury instructions on an Invol manslaughter. Just for reference:

When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.  The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk tolife that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder.

An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.

The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:

1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an

unlawful manner);

2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal

negligence;

AND

3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.

 

[The People [also] allege that the defendant committed the following

lawful act with criminal negligence:  Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death

or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.

[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without mthe act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If convicted, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed, could face five years in prison. Baldwin vowed to fight the charges.

Prepare to be disappointed

Edit: I don't know why much of the text is set to strikethrough and it won't let me change it.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Foosters

[Guest]

Thanks for posting.
 

The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:

1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an unlawful manner);

2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal negligence;

AND

3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.

 

Point 3 is obviously cut and dry. But 1 and/or 2? What crime did he commit? And/or would he be considered negligent when there is a person whose job is literally to make sure the gun is safe before handing it to the actor?

 

[Foosters 18286]

5 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Thanks for posting.
 

The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:

1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an unlawful manner);

2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal negligence;

AND

3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.

 

Point 3 is obviously cut and dry. But 1 and/or 2? What crime did he commit? And/or would he be considered negligent when there is a person whose job is literally to make sure the gun is safe before handing it to the actor?

 

Here is the meat. They need to prove BRD that he acted with criminal negligence, which means:

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act

 

I haven't been following the facts of the case, but my understanding was that he was handed a prop gun? Regardless, it's a tough hill to climb for the prosecution.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Foosters

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Here is the meat. They need to prove BRD that he acted with criminal negligence, which means:

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act

 

I haven't been following the facts of the case, but my understanding was that he was handed a prop gun? Regardless, it's a tough hill to climb for the prosecution.

I'm in the same boat, just really followed the headlines. Was my understanding there was an armorer that handed him a gun.  

[Incredulity 11879]

23 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Prepare to be disappointed

It wouldn't disappoint me if Alec wasn't convicted.

I think he is a talented actor.  He can be a loudmouthed asshole and I don't see eye to eye with him politically.  

This situation is horrible and I can't imagine being in his position.  just awful.

[Red Five 41758]

He claims that he didn't pull the trigger, which is odd. Could that have something to do with the charge? 

[hornmpa96 2669]

I think the criminal negligence issue will come into play by having live ammo on the set. If you’re producing a movie involving guns, then live ammo should never be allowed anywhere near the set. 

[Laxtonto 13323]

50 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I haven't been following the facts of the case, but my understanding was that he was handed a prop gun? Regardless, it's a tough hill to climb for the prosecution.

This one will get a bit weird because he didn't shoot her during a scene but instead as he was "rehearsing" a shot where he is pointing the gun at the camera. He was handed a gun by a producer or director (not the armorer) and never checked the gun. Then pointed the gun at the camera and did not make sure that there was no one past the camera and a shot was fired.

Where this gets worse is that he is the executive producer and hired the armorer (it is now coming out that she really might not be qualified and was hired in a cost-cutting measure) and that the crew has been using the prop gun for regular target practice on the set.

None of the real protocols for how guns on the set were being strictly followed and someone died.

So the question is where does the line of accident/negligence lie and how does this change with him being the executive producer? I got tons of questions about the whole thing, so this is one of those trials I will follow closely.

[hayden_horn 11402]

48 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I'm in the same boat, just really followed the headlines. Was my understanding there was an armorer that handed him a gun.  

 

41 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I think the criminal negligence issue will come into play by having live ammo on the set. If you’re producing a movie involving guns, then live ammo should never be allowed anywhere near the set. 

i ain't no law dog, but i heard someone on cnn say as i was passing through the living room that the charge was the cost of the title of executive producer. 

if he was just an actor handed a gun, culpability is pretty low. but when you are in charge of the production, then the buck has to stop somewhere.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

 

i ain't no law dog, but i heard someone on cnn say as i was passing through the living room that the charge was the cost of the title of executive producer. 

if he was just an actor handed a gun, culpability is pretty low. but when you are in charge of the production, then the buck has to stop somewhere.

Ah, I see. 

[hayden_horn 11402]

5 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Ah, I see. 

i stand corrected. i have come into the living room for a nap and heard the da say she is sure that he pulled the trigger and he's culpable as both producer and actor

[hobbes2702 13492]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

I think the criminal negligence issue will come into play by having live ammo on the set. If you’re producing a movie involving guns, then live ammo should never be allowed anywhere near the set. 

But Baldwin didn’t have anything to do with that correct? I’m not a lawyer but I’m just not sure how he’s getting charged.

[hobbes2702 13492]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i stand corrected. i have come into the living room for a nap and heard the da say she is sure that he pulled the trigger and he's culpable as both producer and actor

Can you explain that? Why would pulling the trigger make him culpable? He’s an actor being handed a “prop gun” and rehearsing a scene that involves his character pulling the trigger. 

[Laxtonto 13323]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

But Baldwin didn’t have anything to do with that correct? I’m not a lawyer but I’m just not sure how he’s getting charged.

He is the man ultimately in charge, as executive producer. So the question is if he didn’t fire the gun, but someone else did would he get charged? It gets compounded because as the executive producer he is obligated to know much more about set gun safety than if he was just some random actor. Would his actions be enough to charge him if he was not executive producer and just an actor? I don’t know. I am real curious how the gun laws work in this case.

Did he get charged because he is both the hand holding the gun and the ultimate decision maker, probably. Makes it an easier argument for negligence because he was in charge, hired the armorer, let them be lax on the gun rules, and was also the one holding the gun when it was shot.

I am not sure that there is a way to really separate one from the other and ultimately why I think they did charge him.

[chainsaw 10298]

Finger slipped on his schwety balls

[Laxtonto 13323]

So I am also curious how by not following the guild guidelines for set use of firearms work with all of this. The standard expectation is than any gun on the set to be visually cleared by the armorer, with the actor present and then give directly to the actor. In this case it sounds like it was just sitting on the table and someone not the armorer handed him the gun and nobody verified anything. 

By not following established guidelines does that make him negligent in the eyes of the law? I get it from the civil suit side, but I don’t know how all of this is intertwined for criminal law.

He shot someone on accident and they died. That seems to be no longer really up for debate. So what/where is his negligence? Trusting someone else? Not checking the gun himself? Not verifying that someone was not in his firing range? Hiring an unqualified armorer? Not enforcing the guild rules on set? 
 

This will be real interesting because I don’t know how negligence is determined in New Mexico law and I have no idea if they need to separate the acts of negligence or just show they all add up to being negligent. 
 

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

46 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

So I am also curious how by not following the guild guidelines for set use of firearms work with all of this. The standard expectation is than any gun on the set to be visually cleared by the armorer, with the actor present and then give directly to the actor. In this case it sounds like it was just sitting on the table and someone not the armorer handed him the gun and nobody verified anything. 

By not following established guidelines does that make him negligent in the eyes of the law? I get it from the civil suit side, but I don’t know how all of this is intertwined for criminal law.

He shot someone on accident and they died. That seems to be no longer really up for debate. So what/where is his negligence? Trusting someone else? Not checking the gun himself? Not verifying that someone was not in his firing range? Hiring an unqualified armorer? Not enforcing the guild rules on set? 
 

This will be real interesting because I don’t know how negligence is determined in New Mexico law and I have no idea if they need to separate the acts of negligence or just show they all add up to being negligent. 
 

 

i dunno either. 

nap was good though. 

i do find it slightly funny that negligent use of a firearm is even a charge in new mexico given that i think their state law stipulates that three out of every four non interstate street signs must have at least one bullet hole or shotgun blast marking it in some way

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Can you explain that? Why would pulling the trigger make him culpable? He’s an actor being handed a “prop gun” and rehearsing a scene that involves his character pulling the trigger. 

yeah but he's also the boss of the production

edit: but even so the da said he's charged both ways because actors should know firearm etiquette as well. also he had to have pulled the trigger.