h/t WRSA
Behold another classic violator of Rule One of Comedy, and by extension, memes:
Comedy requires Truth + Humor
Somebody thought they would take a found picture of a convoy fail and jack it into their idea of brilliant commentary on the ongoing New Mexico clown show related to the shooting on the set of Rust.
Two problems, Lackwit: you failed to make a meme that was either funny, or true. That's like taking two swings at the same pitch, and getting charged with two strikes by the umpire: a rare feat indeed, for anyone not in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Yes, we know they didn't actually shoot up a truck with a loaded tank in the pic. It was just a truck that had an epic meltdown.
But we'll spot you taking something that didn't happen and pretending it did as comedic license.
So, let's flesh it out, and fill in the cast of characters, to make it at least true, and see if it's funny.
In the scenario you imagined, Baldwin would be the actor playing a tank gunner. Experience with actual tanks: zero.
The scene calls for him to pull the trigger and "send it", on a tank with no live round loaded.
The loader, in this scenario you've concocted, would be blue-haired millennial retard and half-assed armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who (oopsie) accidentally-on-purpose put a live tank round in the breech. (Haw Haw! How droll!) And then Second AD Dave Halls, who's already admitted being a criminally negligent fuck-up, plays the part of the tank TC, who tells Baldwin, from a dearth of any tank knowledge himself, "It's cool, Alec. The tank isn't loaded. Go ahead and pull the trigger, chief." to Baldwin.
Which Baldwin then does, and in your meme, blows away the truck pulling the load and blows a tank-round-sized hole in the driver, played in real life by former DP and newly-surprised see-through sieve Halyna Hutchins.(Ho Ho Ho! What an absolute scream!).
So even when we give our memetard a mulligan on the Truth part, all that's missing now is the Funny.
Bummer.
Okay Slick, this is a burn on total tank rube Baldwin...how, exactly?
What you've really done is illustrate in one bonehead balloon how utterly retarded any case against Baldwin is in real life. Mad props for making the defense case in one picture, but we're guessing that wasn't your intention in any way, shape, or form.
How do you do this the right way?
Let's consult maestro John Landis for a few moments.
Comedy master-class, right there.
And no, no horses were actually killed in the making of that scene. Which is the whole point.
But if one HAD been, the culpable party wouldn't be Flounder, Shitforbrains Meme Fuckerupper.
It would have been the person who loaded the gun, even with blanks. And possibly their assistant. And probably Director Landis, not the actor someone handed a nominally harmless prop to.
Doubt that?
Check out who was put in the dock when the same director dropped a helicopter onto Vic Morrow and two kids on Twilight Zone: The Movie a few years later, and turned them into filet-of-actor sushi. (And yes, Landis unfortunately got off, and he got away with manslaughter times three, and the bulk of the blame was shifted onto the SFX guy, for "just following orders", despite the fact that TPTB on that shoot deliberately broke about twenty safety rules (stop me if you've heard this one), and deliberately set the scene up to kill people, which it did. But it would have been beyond retarded to try and pawn the blame onto Morrow, for doing what he was supposed to do, as an actor, in the script, and per the director's instructions. That's what prosecuting Baldwin is equivalent to.)
Proving yet again why all the "Get Baldwin" frothing is exactly nonsense spewed by ignorant assholes. Baldwin's a great actor, and a total piece of shit as a human being. And the karma and career suicide, not to mention carrying around the guilt for life because he was still the one holding the weapon that shot two people and killed one, this whole tragedy has and will cost him is epically well-deserved. Only Shakespeare himself could write a better comic tragedy. But the one thing Baldwin isn't, is criminally culpable, in any way, shape, or form, no matter how annoying and distasteful that is to anyone. Facts are stubborn things.
Lastly, nota bene, the original meme in this instance is unsigned. Wisely so.
Come on down, Anonymous Dumbass, own this Masterpiece of Meme Fail, and proudly claim your Biff Tannen "Make Like A Tree" Award, for spectacularly stomping on your dick with golf cleats while attempting comedy. Tom Wilson would be proud of you.
And you've earned it.
17 comments:
Aesop,
The tank meme _would_ have been funny IF it was a couple of ME rag heads with their heads poking out of the tank. A variation of -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hk600G5DYA&pp=ygUcdGVycm9yaXN0IGJsb3duIHVwIGJ5IG1vcnRhcg%3D%3D
I was wondering if you would ever acknowledge that Baldwin has been indicted again. Under NM law, he IS guilty. Maybe Hollyweird/Krazyfornia law is different, but New Mexico has no special exceptions for the film industry regarding involuntary manslaughter. The applicable case law is State v. Gilliam (1955)
"It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted."
https://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-gilliam-288-p-2d-675-nm-sup-ct-1955/
And yes, the link is to Attorney Andrew Branca's website. He is an attorney, has thorough researched the law, and knows what he is talking about. You are a very experienced ER nurse somewhere in SoCal.
Wayne,
This has been covered and explained to death, times beyond counting, on this very blog. You're quite simply wrong, and Branca is still an under-informed jackass with delusions of competence. Adding pig-headedness won't change any of that.
This is a complicated manslaughter case, not a simple soccer call looking at who touched the ball last. Branca is in waters over his head, and opining about things far outside his expertise. It seems to be his specialty.
And this "very experienced ER nurse" has also worked on about 100 films and probably twice as many TV shows on set, many, many of them with prop weapons in active use, for every major studio and network in Hollywood, and intimate firsthand and practical familiarity with the Production Safety Bulletins was a large part of my job every single day on set and off. Which is probably only about 300 more sets and 20 years' more experience than Branca has ever been on or around for as much as five seconds. He's the rookie in this field, which is the entire problem with his anal-ysis. It's also why everyone who works in Hollywood could tell you who is at fault in this incident, since about a week after the particulars became well-known.
Of course Baldwin's been indicted again. He's the Albuquerque D.A.s White Whale in this farce, after they fucked up his first prosecution so bad they had to do it all over two years later with an entire new trial team, and squeeze it in under the wire before the statute of limitations expires later this year. Being bumpkins and chuckleheads, I would have been surprised if they'd just let the statute expire without trying for one more bite at a rotten apple of a case.
This isn't about any no-existent exemption for movie people in CA law or any other state.
If a cook puts poison in someone's food, and a customer dies, do you arrest the waiter who unknowingly served it??
That's the level of jurisprudence you're trying to practice here, and it's difficult to go too far in characterizing such jackassery as far beyond the pale of common sense.
You have to have culpability to be guilty.
Negligence requires a duty which was failed.
Baldwin had no such duty, nor any such failure, so pinning the death of Hutchins on him is as recockulous as blaming the pilot of a jetliner for the engine which fell off the wing at altitude and crashed into a house, or arresting a driver who runs someone over for a faulty brake job by a mechanic.
Not their job to check, fix, nor find, just as there was no way Baldwin was going to, nor supposed to, ascertain the status of rounds loaded into a prop.
Director Souza, DP Hutchins, and actor Baldwin all trusted weapons handler Gutierrez-Reed and AD Halls to do their job, diligently following safe weapons customs and practices, and not to be total fuckwits with guns and ammo. They chose poorly. That choice doesn't absolve the guilty pair of all blame, nor shift any of it onto someone using a prop according to the script in good faith.
(cont.)
(cont.)
There were two people on the production of Rust directly, solely, and entirely responsible for that job, one of them expressly hired for the purpose, upon representations of illusory competence. Neither one was Baldwin. One of the two (Halls) already pled guilty to failing entirely in that duty, and the other one (Reed) is looking at the ass end of 5 years in a NM prison, a term well-deserved for getting someone killed through gross incompetence and criminal negligence. She is where the duty of "due caution and circumspection" lies, of necessity, custom, and practice, going back decades, with a flawless record of safety when those rules are followed diligently.
Baldwin didn't act without any due diligence: the weapons handler and her already confessed guilty incompetent assistant flouted that duty. You might as well indict the CEO of the company who made the gun as Baldwin, or blame God for the physics of it; it would be as jackassically stupid and wrong.
Baldwin, at worst, owes a 1/12th share of any civil damages awarded against the entire production, as one of twelve producers, and which duties as such in his case were entirely fulfilled by
a) working for SAG scale,
b) providing the story, and
c) and showing up for work as an actor every day at call time.
That's what he did, and all he's guilty of doing. None of those are criminal acts, nor negligent ones.
He was not responsible for interviewing anyone on the crew, hiring anyone, firing anyone, paying anyone, nor any other wild thing except showing up and acting.
It's not only not his job to load and check weapons, it's something he's not even permitted to do by union rules, which are labor law, and therefore - lest ye forget - have the force of law as long as they don't require criminal conduct, which they do not.
If the witless jackasses in the Albuquerque D.A.'s office had brains big enough to figure out that the other culpable parties were
1) the incompetent prop master who acquired live unaltered weapons and used them on the film instead of neutered weapons incapable of chambering live ammo;
2) the UPM/line producer who hired all these other ass clowns;
3) the cheapskate non-union no-budget production company from Buttfuck, Georgia, who tried to get ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag and pay half price for it; and
4) the 1st AD, whose job function is safe operations on set 24/7/365, I'd cheer them on.
FFS man, the camera crew didn't walk off the shoot because Baldwin was unsafe; they quit because the whole production team and prop crew was a bunch of fuckwit incompetent unsafe morons. That was flawless judgement on their part, obviously.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Indicting Baldwin instead of those other assclowns is like indicting a guy who got hit by a careening bus and thrown into another person, who then died, and blaming him because he touched the victim last, instead of the drunken bus driver.
You could have put the same weapon into any actor's hand, and you would have gotten the exact same results.
Or worse.
They were scheduled to do a big shootout in the church set that same day, and there were five other live rounds found all over the set, on prop carts, actor's gunbelts, etc., and all completely unbeknownst to Dipshit Weapons Mishandler Gutierrez-Reed, who brought the live rounds to set, loaded them, and handed them to people every single day. Without any effing clue she'd done so.
This could have been a massacre, rather than a single gunshot.
Culpability belongs with the two people who broke 60+ out of 77 specific safety regulations with regard to handling firearms and ammunition on movie productions. Baldwin broke none.
Game. Set. Match.
With the state of kangaroo justice in this country, he may nonetheless be convicted by the local yokels, but that wouldn't be justice, it'd be simply a travesty.
So that puts the state of NM in the position of punishing the innocent, instead of the guilty, when there's a firearm death.
Like we haven't seen that anywhere in the U.S. a thousand other times.
So quit beating the last few molecules of a dead horse.
And be careful what you wish for.
It's going to bite you in the ass.
Who pulled the trigger?... Thinking YOU had done it, you wouldn't be under the jail, right now? Fool.
Tanks for the clarification.
Couldn't resist.
@lol no,
The fool is the one who can't see the difference between "everywhere else in life, with real guns, intended to fire real bullets" and "on a movie set, where hundreds of thousands of people have pulled millions of triggers, with zero casualties, because no live rounds ever, by requirement and design".
To put it in terms you might understand:
"♫One of these things is not like the others♫"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8
Unless you have overwhelming evidence Baldwin himself brought the live rounds to set deliberately, loaded one himself knowingly, and concealed those facts from everyone else until you cracked the case, you've got nothing. And that would make it murder, not manslaughter. Even the hardcore tin foil hat brigade isn't floating that level of horseshit.
Seems you allow others to control your emotions, it's a sign of weakness. Insisting on being right about everything is indicative of an inferiority complex. You are way overcompensating. It's only a meme, bro.
My question is this: given that Hollywood can make absolutely anything look real on screen, why was a live firearm on set in the first place? With the capabilities of Industrial Light and Magic,.et al, why would you need anything but prop guns and blanks?
@Anon 11:57P
1) You mistake yourself if you think any of this has anything to do with an emotional response.
2) Leave psychoanalysis to professionals.
3) It's sheer stupidity, bro.
Stupid of that magnitude should hurt.
I'm simply - and quite dispassionately - swinging The 2x4 Of Knowledge.
If it hurts you to watch, avert your eyes.
@The Wraith,
A) That's the exact question asked and answered by several thousand trained, professional, and competent union propmasters and weapon handlers in Hollywood, none of whom would have brought a straight-up unaltered live firearm onto set, let alone not known which rounds were dummies, which were blanks, and which were live (which last answer would have been "not a single effing ONE of them, anywhere in this time zone").
Hollywood knew, to a metaphysical certainty, and within hours, what had gone wrong, and whodunit.
Only the halfwits in New Mexico law enforcement have thus far shown a pinheaded inability to grasp the obvious. Gutierrez-Reed's trial and conviction could have been obtained two years ago, and been the end of the whole affair. And they never should have offered Halls anything but prison time for his part in the tragedy.
B) ILM-level effects cost money. This production had none. But even low-budget-hell production propmasters and weapons handlers know enough not to bring live weapons and rounds to sets. Blanks are hazardous enough. (Written in the blood of Brandon Lee and John-Erik Hexum.)
C) Bringing so much a one live round to set brought a whole new level of criminal negligence to this production. It's the kind of thing that literal never happens. Until Cheapskate Productions hires Inexperienced Blue-Haired Drug Addict for a job, instead of finding someone with a modicum more competence than "well, my daddy worked in the movies".
D) If the Albuquerque D.A.'s Office didn't have their heads so far up their asses they can see out their navel, they'd have indicted the Line Producer/UPM who hired Reed, the clueless also-inexperienced prop master who acquired the wrong weapons, and taken a hard look at the 1st AD whose actual job responsibility is that of overall safety from first call to wrap, every day of production.
They're all co-negligent and culpable in this, as was plea-bargained Dave Halls, and should all be indicted, together or separately.
Baldwin, world-class jerk IRL, is simply the unlucky schmuck handed a murder weapon by a team of incompetent halfwits. It could have been any other actor on set, and given the scattering of half a dozen other live rounds all over that set (discovered after the fact), it could have been several of them, and the scene turned into a multi-way massacre.
When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
True on every set I've ever worked on, and every production since Edison invented the movie camera.
This is why the first two Industry-wide Safety Bulletins deal with guns and ammunition.
So, weapons grade stupid pretty much across the board. Gotcha.
@Aesop. I have neither the time nor the patience to thoroughly fisk this, so I will point out just a few of your errors (in no particular order):
1. It's not the Albuquerque or Bernalillo County DA, it's Santa Fe. You've had this pointed out to you before, but I guess it didn't stick.
2. Your cook/waiter example is a pathetic strawman. While some food (e.g. McDonalds) is not that healthy, food is not expected to be lethal when prepared and served correctly. The very purpose of guns is to inflict wounds and death.
3. When Jensen Ackles was interviewed by Santa Fe law enforcement after the shooting, he said that when he was handed a revolver on the set and told "cold gun", he would point it at the ground away from anyone and pull the trigger six times so he would KNOW there were no live rounds in it. Makes sense to me.
4. I agree that Hannah Guiterrez Reed bears guilt and liability for Halyna Hutchins' death. She was criminally negligent and incompetent. The Santa Fe jury agreed. This does not absolve Alec Baldwin.
5. You had previously posted industry guidelines claiming that Col Jeff Cooper's Four Rules of Gun Safety do not apply to the movie industry. Ironically, Safety Protocol #11 of Guideline 1 "Recommendations For The Use Of Firearms, Blanks, And Dummy Rounds" states:
"Anyone handling the firearm will refrain from pointing a firearm at any person, including themselves. If it is necessary to aim a firearm at another person on camera, the Property Master will be consulted to determine available options. Remember: a firearm, including one loaded with blanks, can inflict severe damage to anything/anyone at which/to whom the firearm is pointed."
Last time I checked, "Anyone" includes professional actors, even Alec Baldwin.
6. It's downright ludicrous that you continue to libel Andrew Branca. He is an expert on use of force law and makes it his business to know what the law is. You are a nurse who has moonlighted (you never stated what your role was) on movie and TV sets. You are not an expert in any area of law.
Baldwin broke safety guidelines and the law of the state of New Mexico. As I have previously pointed out, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled 69 years ago that it doesn't matter who loaded a gun, the person who pulls the trigger (in this case, Alec Baldwin) is responsible. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with the New Mexico Supreme Court. I suggest that if you do, you use more temperate language than you do here.
I've demonstrated that you are in error. This is not your area of expertise. If my family member or friend needed emergency care in Southern California, I think they would get excellent care from you and maximize their chances of recovery. Need legal advice related to a shooting incident, not so much.
As far as "bite me in the ass", I am not involved in this case in any way, shape or form other than being a New Mexico native and resident. It's your blog, all you can do is refuse to post this comment or ban me from commenting. I'm not losing sleep over that.
Wayne,
1) You're right, it's Santa Fe. Mea culpa. Frankly, you're lucky I care it's in New Mexico. Bumfuckistan qualifies across the board, for both the caliber of movie crew that showed up to work on low-budget hell, and the caliber of legal authorities thereabouts.
2) You couldn't be more wrong. The entire point of weapons experts on set is to ensure that any prop item is less harmful to anyone than a Big Mac.
3) That's fine for Jensen Chucklehead. Oh, wait, except it's unfortunately a) stupid, for a host of reasons, but effective (to the same degree as testing dud artillery rounds with a hammer is, provided I'm in another zip code) and b) a violation of the same safety rules, specifically the ones for prop weapons unless either the propmaster or weapons handler tells someone to do it, AND it's been discussed, covered, and briefed in detail at the daily safety meeting.. It's also something you can't do when you get to using blanks, for reasons which should be obvious. And had he fired a live round doing that, would you advocate charging him for a reckless negligent discharge on a place not designated for shooting live weapons, and kick him off the movie, for breaking both New Mexico law and industry safety guidelines? Why or why not...?
And manifestly, the prop tart on Rust had neither the experience nor common sense to do anything like that in the first place. If she had done so, while pointing the guns at her own head, we could perhaps find a single point of agreement on best practices.
4) Yes, it does absolve Baldwin. Fire Reed, hire a competent armorer, and...wait for it...NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.
Swap Baldwin for any other actor, and somebody else shoots the DP and director.
QED
Reed had an unquestionable duty to inspect the props she was in charge of, and she failed it. Baldwin, as an actor, not only has no such duty, it's actually a grieveable violation of labor law [Hint: That makes it federal, and material to any case.]
5) Your brilliant misanalysis is undone right here: "If it is necessary to aim a firearm at another person on camera, the Property Master will be consulted to determine available options." Which concedes the entire point that it is, in fact, frequently necessary to do exactly that. Thus undermining the entire caveat as some imaginary blanket proscription against ever doing that. To the contrary, it simply means you plan your shot, both for the camera, and the prop weapons. I've got 100,000 pieces of evidence going back to silent movies on record showing this. You've got gas, and zero seconds on a production. Your point is moot, and in fact, contra-factual. Weapons are pointed at hundreds of people a week on productions, in fifty states, seven territories, and 180 countries, give or take. No one dies, and there are only 2 deaths anyone can name since Edison invented the movie camera. Funny, i'n'it? Almost like when you follow the rules, nothing bad happens (unless you want to count things like Ishtar or Heaven's Gate. There's no safety bulletin about not making stinkers and epic flops).
(cont.)
(cont.)
6) Branca is, indeed, a legal expert on Use Of Force Law.
That's probably the root of his problem.
This is not a Use Of Force case.
It is a misuse of force case, a criminal liability and negligence case, and a labor law case with criminal consequences, where no force, no live round, and indeed, no dangerous weapon were ever supposed to be. Unless Baldwin brought the gun and ammunition, loaded it, and fired it knowingly, he's out of this, top to bottom.
One of these things is not like the other one.
My role on set was as the medic, on literally hundreds of productions, including dozens upon dozens where prop weapons and ammunition were in use. That means I'm there for the Safety Meeting, I'm sitting 10' behind the camera when the shot happens, and I'm there for any necessary first aid afterward, or any other time, when needed. And that's happened. Branca has never spent one minute on a production, and has never heard of the safety regs for this, and hence has been talking out of his ass since this happened. He's been out of his depth, and it shows. You and he can huff and puff about that all you want, and still be wrong.
And you both are. There's no way to sugar-coat that.
Baldwin exercised due diligence, in that there were two designated firearms experts on set, both employed to make sure what happened never could. One pled absolutely unequivocally guilty to being totally incompetent, and criminally derelict in that duty; the other has been convicted by jury trial in less time than it took you to type your response of being even more so, since weapons and weapons safety on set were her entire job on that production.
Baldwin was responsible for showing up at call, ready to work, and taking direction from the director and DP. Not checking firearms outside of and directly contrary to 90 years of custom, practice, and settled labor law in his profession, and the entire industry. To do otherwise would have literally been an offense that could get him fined, fired, or worse.
The fact that this was a shooting incident is the entire problem here. It's not a mugging gone wrong, or a case of any sort of self defense. That's why Branca has his legal head up his own ass. There's only two precedents for this case (Brandon Lee, and Jon-Erik Hexum), and neither of them have been adjudicated in US courts nor spawned any binding legal precedent, AFAIK.
Dragging in case law of real firearms use and real bullets, when everybody in the industry knows those things should never have been there, isn't just wrong, it's recockulous.
The only things that were supposed to be shot that day were film, and blanks.
Not live rounds, and not people.
That they were was in NO part Baldwin's job nor responsibility, and entirely the specific reason for a weapons handler and assistant on the production, as I've laboriously explained for two-plus years.
Baldwin did everything he was supposed to do that day. He broke no safety guidelines.
He was rehearsing a scene where he was supposed to draw and fire while pointed straight at the camera. He was doing that.
Halls and Reed self-evidently failed to do anything they were supposed to do that day. And as Reed's trial pointed out, on many other days.
Yet you want to drag the guy literally handed 60 different safety violations, and lied to to his face, into the line of legal culpability.
It simply won't wash, for the 25th time.
You can't hand a guy a potato, and then blame him when it turns out the person who handed it to him concealed a live grenade inside with the pin pulled.
Doing so puts legal and moral responsibility on its head, and ass-rapes about three millennia of recorded jurisprudence and common sense, going back to at least Hammurabi.
Another ridiculous comparison, Aesop. Potatoes are designed to provide calories (and potassium). Nobody would reasonably expect a potato to explode and cause harm. Guns are DESIGNED to inflict wounds and death. Everybody above grade school age knows that. Alec Baldwin was handling a functional weapon, not a dummy prop incapable of harm unless he clubbed someone with it. I think it's true that he did think it didn't have live rounds, although everyone else on the set seemed to know that there were safety problems on this B-movie dumpster of a movie. Still, had he been responsible to ensure that the muzzle wasn't pointing at anyone, the worst that would have happened would have been some wet and brown underwear and probably a mass walkout by the cast and crew. But he didn't. He pointed it at Hutchins, pulled the trigger, and a woman tragically lost her life. Baldwin shares responsibility for that.
(By the way, it's possible to strongly disagree on this topic without being arrogant and condescending)
No Wayne, it's not a ridiculous comparison, because prop weapons on movie sets, despite your serial refusal to acknowledge that obvious fact, are supposed to be no more harmful to anyone than a potato. This has been true for 100 years.
And it's the propmaster/weapons handler's job to make them exactly that.
Scrupulously so, every single time.
Nothing permits them to delegate that responsibility to anyone else, ever.
The entire chain of responsibility for that fact begins and ends with the prop department, on this show personified solely by Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and her 2d AD flunky Halls, who never should have even been touching weapons. He "retired" after this latest fuck-up, because he would have been thrown out of the DGA for cause anyways, after a second screw-up in his career involving playing with props department's bailiwick, and unlike Gutierrez-Reed, he was actually in a guild, subject to following all the union rules, even on a non-union show, and would have been kicked out if he'd stuck around.
That Alec Baldwin was handling a functional weapon loaded with a live round is completely an indictment of the criminal negligence of the prop master for getting real guns, and the armorer for failing to scrupulously and exactingly load them with dummy rounds.
You keep trying to ignore the exact reason Baldwin isn't culpable, and pretending you don't realize you're just rubbing in Reed's guilt. Clinically, that's called "delusional".
"Everyone else" can Monday Morning Quarterback all they want, but the only people who walked off set on Rust were the camera department folks (that's about 4 persons, tops), out of a crew of 50-75 people.
You also keep trying to pretend Baldwin could be responsible to ensure the muzzle didn't point at anyone, when the exact sequence being rehearsed was a scene where he was to draw and fire pointing straight at the camera. Everyone knows this but you apparently, because neither the director nor DP dove for cover when Baldwin did this. Nobody yelled "Cut!" No one anywhere on set had any reason to think there was any problem with this, and it was only two people's job to ensure weapon safety on set. One of them pled complete criminal negligence, and the other has been convicted of it.
Game. Set. Match.
You cannot vicariously slop their criminal negligence onto a person with no responsibility to do their job for them, simply because he pisses you off.
Baldwin is responsible for nothing more than being an actor on a set on a production that had hired criminally reckless and incompetent weapons handlers.
That's. It.
Put any other actor in Baldwin's spot, and the same thing happens.
Put any other weapons handler and assistant into Gutierrez-Reed's and Halls' job, and this was just another rehearsal, no bullet flies, and nobody dies.
That's why any further prosecution of Baldwin is not only pointless, but maliciously evil.
You can bark at the moon or moo nonsense to the contrary until the cows come home at night, but you can't argue against those facts and reality, yet you continue to try and pretend they don't exist, just as the D.A's office is doing.
Telling you that, time and again, with the same effect as throwing tennis balls at a tank, isn't arrogant and condescending, it's simply painting your denial of reality in the proper light.
Post a Comment