Sunday Music: Superstition

 

Absolute perfection from Stevie Wonder, released on New Year's Day in 1972, but perfect for today.

Happy Halloween.

That's Not My Dope!

 

Speaking through her lawyers one step ahead of the criminal indictment,
 Rust armorer has total amnesia about how the real gun she provided
 "somehow" got loaded with a live round, and ended up in Alec Baldwin's hands.

It's always refreshing in criminal cases when someone with no one else within 100 yards to pin their own obvious guilt on, and looking hard at the sudden realization their fuck up has not only killed someone, but also left them looking at the ass-end of 18 months of hard time in state prison, immediately resorts to the Underpants Gnome Defense.

Because no one's ever tried the "That's not my dope!" excuse, ever, in human history, when it's pulled out of their pocket.

I guess it must've worked for her when she was four years old, so why jump off a winning horse? But we confess, magic hasn't been used as an excuse, to our knowledge, since a celebrated 1992 murder trial in Alabama.

I was honestly hoping she was going to fake a seizure, and claim she was in a coma that day. Or blame Voldemort for using the Imperius Curse on her. Or at least something novel. If only she wasn't five minutes out of puberty, she might have heard about this plan being tried and failing gloriously only about 27,000,000 times since the 1960s.

Maybe next she can tell detectives that it was Elmer Fudd who loaded the weapon in question.

It's going to get even funnier when she "has no idea" how an actual firearm got onto the prop cart either, especially since both gun and ammo were supposed to be loaded by her, and kept by her personally, until actually put into the actor's hands, every. single. time.

Just spitballing, but if/when the FBI Crime Lab finds her fingerprints on the fatal round, she's gonna shit kittens. And she'll need a better excuse.

While we are second to none in our regard for her absolute constitutional right to competent representation, it's illuminating that all the statements made by Baldwin, AD Halls, the producers, and everyone else on the crew, including sworn witness affidavits, hadn't needed to be filtered through counsel, nor wait a full week before seeing the light of day. Just hers did.

At least we've finally gotten to a point in the case where the experience of everyone in creation is finally 100% applicable. Show of hands, please: How many of you ever found different rounds loaded in your weapons than the ones you put there yourself only minutes earlier, ever (and bonus points if someone else watched you load them too when it happened)?

This twit doesn't need a lawyer, she needs a priest.

You can stick a fork in this one. Book her, Dano.

Like. We. Told. You.

When You Assume

Court TV

 

The Lynch Baldwin Posse, much like, or because of, Jackass Branca, wants to assume a lot of facts not in evidence, in order to comfortably leap to their conclusions, and thence "Get a rope!"

The first one is, they want to assume that what Baldwin's gun should have looked like would be the photo in the header.

They then go on to assume that what he would have actually seen would be this:

And then thrown the "Hey, waitaminute, there's a BULLET in my gun!" flag, and all tragedy would've been averted.

Natzsofast, Guido.

The rehearsal in question was specifically one where Baldwin was to draw his pistol, point, cock, and fire it right at the camera.

For those four days or more behind the curve, the "Another take? How 'bout I shoot you instead?" story disappeared, as the pure fairytale it was, in about 2 seconds of the incident.

They weren't shooting "takes". They were rehearsing for them. Takes are when they're actually filming, for those gloriously ignorant of the entire moviemaking process (yet somehow consider themselves competent to opine on it). So nobody, not even Baldwin in Full @$$hole Mode, is going to say that, or do that, because it never happened like that.

He was doing his exact job, as instructed by the script, his boss the director, and his whole reason for being on set.

So, where were we?

Oh yeah: Capturing a gunshot from the shooter looking straight down the barrel, which was in the script, and why he was pointing at it (and the three people in closest proximity, by default).

So, on any movie in decades, what would that gun have looked like, from the camera angle?

THIS.

Because you, me, and 100 years of cinema audiences want ever-more precise cinema verite, we won't sit still for empty guns with CGI muzzle flash, guys "firing" with auto slides locked back, or rifles out of battery, and 57 other "it's bullshit" complaints armchair weapons aficionados spew like dog piss on a fire hydrant every time there's a new action movie.

So the cylinder is loaded with dummy rounds. Not empty.

Which would look like this, when Baldwin, the PropTart, or anyone else "checked" the weapon.

QED. So long, and thanks for all the fish. And fuck off with your ignorant ravings.

"Yahbut, Aesop, the dummy rounds, the blanks, and live rounds are all supposed to be conspicuously marked, so that Any Foole, even gun-amateur Baldwin, let alone PropTart, could spot them immediately!"

Uh huh. They certainly are supposed to be.

By whom, Sherlock?

Oh yeah, the same exact homicidal PropTart that violated all the OTHER Safety Bulletin rules and regs???

Who probably loaded the very live round(s) into the chambers along with the dummies?

So Baldwin wouldn't have seen anything untoward whatsoever, having "checked" the weapon before the rehearsal.

Which brings up another point:

Who says Baldwin never "checked"?

Granted, he's only supposed to witness loading if blanks are being loaded, and only then if he's the guy in front of the muzzle, and such witnessing is completely at the actor's option. And that opportunity depends on (stop me if you've heard this one) the same PropTart Armorer.

Whereas the actual loading of the gun, every time is supposed to be done by the armorer (in this case) and her designated assistant (usually another asst. armorer, but sometimes the prop master or another prop person). So who was that guy? The 2d AD, Dave Halls, whom we'll get to in a minute.

On this set, there was no double check by a person competent in weapons,  so weapons weren't double-checked correctly, and any such check was de facto slipshod, and the Armorer never conspicuously marked anything, just like she brought a live weapon to a set where it never should have been, and live ammo to a set where it never should have been. Starting to get a picture? Spot a trend?

And after mixing up dummy rounds and live ones, there's no way anyone could have "checked", and gotten any different result than dimbulb PropTart or 2nd AD Halls did.

Baldwin didn't "check"? Prove it. How do you know he didn't?

And more importantly, what difference would it make to the final result if he had, under the circumstances - yet again - wholly and completely the sole responsibility and creation of The Armorer on the movie, which she obviously failed in every respect to prevent?

Weapons amateur Baldwin, the very guy the Lynch Baldwin Mob wants to hold responsible for such an "obvious" failure of due diligence and circumspection, would have no more chance that Stevie Wonder to spot a problem, so whether he actually did the wholly superfluous third  "check" is entirely irrelevant to the incident.

But, alas, you can't argue anyone out of a position using facts, logic, and common sense, if he didn't use facts, logic, and common sense to get into that position in the first place. {cf.: Teaching pigs to sing.}

(The proof that this whole online pantytwist is nothing but kneejerk dogma is because even this will not dissuade the Baldwin Lynchers from their sacred mission. When nothing will disprove your pet cause, it's a religious belief, not a reasoned opinion, like Evolution, Global Warming, Second Hand Smoke, Bigfoot, Space Aliens, and every other illogical, unscientific, whackdoodle tinfoil batshit crazy theory every concocted by the minds of halfwits.)

Halfwits? Which brings us to the 2nd Assistant Director, one Mr. Dave Halls.

Who

*picked the weapon in question, from among three, off of the armorer's prop cart

* brought it to set and handed it to Baldwin

* loudly and clearly shouted "COLD WEAPON!", assuring everyone on the set - including Baldwin - that it contained no ammunition, either blank or real.

Of those three acts, see if you can guess how many were

* totally outside the scope of his normal job function as a 2nd assistant director, anywhere, since ever (their job is to assist on set with production, not props, and to wrangle talent to and from set)

* a specific violation of the Safety Bulletins it's his department's job to know and promulgate to the crew, on every production since ever in his lifetime and career working as an A.D.

*  a grieveable offense between the IATSE Property Union and the Producers Guild of America, had this been a union show, or even just a union armorer, which could lead to him being fined, suspended, and/or thrown out of the industry, for cause

* pure busybody dumbassery by an amateur weapons wannabe, which got someone killed.

TL;DR: All of the above.

So per affidavit testimony, two people, per the protocol, averred the weapon was not loaded with blanks (let alone live ammo), and neither of them noticed it was a real gun (or were too stupid to know this was something not permitted on a properly-run production), let alone noticed that there was a live round in the weapon.

But Baldwin, less weapons-savvy than either of them , would have made a difference and averting tragedy by "checking"... what, exactly?

Nextly, in their hop-skip-and-jump quest to assume Baldwin right into prison, all and sundry want to hold Baldwin to The Four Rules of firearm safety. How cute.

Sorry to break it to you, but

1) They don't apply here, or a host of other places, for multitudinous reasons.

2)They aren't the law, anywhere, AFAIK, and certainly not in NM criminal statutes. You could look it up, and I invite you to do so, and tell me where they are so codified. I'll wait.

So once again, the whole legal argument to the contrary based upon them can go suck it.

As we've hammered at again and again, Hollywood has The Seventy-nine Rules Of Firearms and Ammunition Safety, and which, besides being a wee bit more comprehensive than the Four Rules, have a much better safety record. They're also a lot more applicable to prop guns and blanks than are rules designed for live weapons designed to kill people, rather than for prop weapons, designed to not hurt anybody, with people standing at both ends of the hot range.

Any number of Brancasses in the lively internet discussion have tried to point out that, having  failed to "check" the weapon in the fatal shooting, Baldwin is therefore culpable for the resultant death, because he failed to exercise due regard and diligence in the matter of using an inherently dangerous device, and was therefore grossly negligent.

1) Due regard and diligence is a fine thing for actual guns firing actual bullets, which are  inherently dangerous. The movie industry doesn't use real guns on primary sets, ever, and so the items they use are not inherently dangerous. Brancasses trying to apply the wrong standard to the wrong implement fail the basic smell test. I'll shoot 100 prop guns at the jury itself from 30', and we'll see if there's any inherent danger. (Not really, that would be wildly prejudicial to the recockulous Imaginary Prosecution, so instead, we'll just shoot at cardboard cutouts of the jury, on a closed firing range.) Then we'll repeat the test with 100 real guns and real bullets, the exact kind not used in movies, and the exact one the Armorer never should have brought, and we'll see which one of the two is inherently dangerous.

2) Then I'll call Steven Spielberg to testify to the zero gun deaths in the Normandy Beach landing scene of Saving Private Ryan, which exact body count of no one was achieved using 500 prop guns shooting tens of thousands of blanks over several days of filming. Then we can get Ridley Scott to talk about all the people he didn't kill in Blackhawk Down under similar circumstances, then Chad Stahelski can talk about the zero dead from three John Wick movies (so far), and then Michael Mann can tell us about the three-day full-auto blastfest in downtown L.A. seen in Heat that killed another zero people, then we can get James Cameron to tell us about the inherent danger evidenced by the zero people he killed in The Terminator, Terminator II, Aliens, and True Lies, combined.

The one thing absolutely true about prop weapons is the almost utter lack of inherent danger. Provided you don't leave a slug in the barrel, or put them up against your own skull and pull the trigger, which are the only other two accidental gun deaths one even hears about in movie history.

The problem arose when a live weapon with a live round in it got introduced onto a film production set, when neither one of them were ever supposed to get there.

So, for the 500th time, who was it that fucked that up? "Paging Reed and Halls."

And lastly, the entire concept that Baldwin failed to exercise any diligence is recockulous prima facie, as any prosecutor would have beaten into his cheeks like Jack Nicholson slapping Faye Dunaway around in Chinatown:

Prosecution: "So, Mr. Baldwin, did you do anything, anything at all, to exercise due caution and circumspection to see that no one was harmed with the...instrument...in your hand before the fatal shooting???"

Baldwin: " Yes, I did."

Prosecution: "Oh, really? And what was that?"

Baldwin: "I made sure that the production had hired an armorer, rather than put the whole load for everything on just a propmaster, along with all the other duties of the propmaster's job. Someone whose entire, sole job, as Armorer, was to provide the entire production the correct weapons for the show herself, ensure that none of them could harm anyone accidentally, ensure their safe functioning, hand them out and take custody of them except when they were necessary on set for rehearsal and camera work, clean and maintain them every single day, and take scrupulous regard for loading them with the proper dummy rounds, or blanks, as required, while preventing any situation where there could ever be a real gun capable of chambering live ammunition on set, and furthermore that they themselves would never bring any live ammunition on set, nor let any be loaded accidentally, and to conspicuously mark dummy rounds, blank rounds, and live rounds uniquely so that any one of them and all of them could be quickly and absolutely correctly identified by the armorer, and their designated assistant, who was to double check every weapon with the armorer every time, before handing it to myself or any other actor. That seemed to me to be a pretty specific amount of due caution and circumspection to me, based on Hollywood's 28 year history of not killing people on set utilizing the exact same system. In fact, it seems to me to be extremely foolish to depend in any way upon weapons amateurs like myself or any other actor, rather than to specifically employ a subject-matter expert on firearms and ammunition, whose job was to comply with the 79 specific rules and regulations Hollywood insists are safe practice, since decades and decades ago. That's the due caution and circumspection I employed, in this case, sir."

Prosecution: "Um...er...no further questions...witness is excused."

Followed by the shortest deliberation of verdict in history, about 15 seconds, before the jury finds, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the foreman of the jury wants to change his first name to Red, and tell the judge what he thinks about the Prosecution:

I want accountability for weapons screw-ups just as much as anybody, and maybe more so, because unlike 99% of the country, I've worked on movie sets, as well as being a "gun guy", on top of which I'm the one trying to save the lives of people who get plugged by jerks with guns, and have been doing so since before some of you were even born.

It's also why I want to make sure you go after the right dumbass, instead of kneejerk lynching the guy you don't like the most, just because of that.

Baldwin's an anti-gun fucktard (although I'll wager that tapers off a bit now, in volume if not in basic intelligence), and all that karma shitting right in his mouth now is epically deserved. Pile on with all of that you'd like. The memes and videos I've seen have been hilarious. But his criminal prosecution for any sort of negligence is simply jackassical overreach, springing from undisguised hatred, and not any rational approach to the facts at hand.

And I'll bet 90% of the people in this entire discussion haven't seen The Oxbow Incident once, and think 12 Angry Men is about last years' NBA championship losers.

Take a breath, and cool your jets.

What did happen, what should happen, and what will happen, are all up in the air. And there's no guarantee whatsoever the last two will be identical.

Besides, maybe a miracle will happen, and maybe you'll be able to have your way yet.

But I can't lose, because heads, I'm right, and tails, Baldwin goes to prison.

(And let's be serious: more than a few of you don't give a shit either way: If I told you the tide came in twice a day, you'd run down to the ocean to check it yourself, just because I said it, and that pisses you off. You don't have a dog in this fight, you've just got your panties in a twist because you're not happy until everyone else isn't either.

Get a new schtick. We're over and done with you. And we're tired of being Hoot Gibson explaining proper weapons safety to Captain Steele in the Mogadischu chow line.)

Comments? New evidence, and logic, with no more "Yahbut..." mulligans given, or fuggedaboudit.

The Society For The Protection Of Deceased Equine Critters rules are in full effect. 

BONUS:

Comedy Truth from Phil

And McThag piles on too!

Change My Mind

 

History For the Attention-Span Challenged

 

Fifty-four years ago, the US Navy nearly blew the USS Forrestal out of the water off the coast of Vietnam, at the height of the Vietnam War.

Heroic and genius-level accident investigation by Navy uncovered the fact that the entire incident started because of stray electrical energy, leaking into the weapons firing system, which caused an unintended discharge of a live rocket across the flight deck, and into fully armed A-4 Skyhawks prepped for a strike launch, carrying both full fuel tanks, and the last batch of rusted and obsolete WWII iron bombs, which resulting conflagration set off multiple rapid detonations, which decapitated the damage control crews responding, killed 134 sailors, injured and wounded 161 more, and very nearly cost the Navy its first supercarrier.

The pilot of the Phantom that launched the stray rocket, Lt. Cmdr. James Bangert, received no punishment whatsoever for the incident, despite $72 million dollars of damage to the ship, the compete loss of 21 aircraft, damage to 40 more, and the toll of dead and injured sailors, because it was manifestly obvious that it wasn't his fault, despite being the one person that flipped the switch that initiated the launch, and subsequent catastrophe. (Mirabile dictu!)

One of the Skyhawks was manned by a navy lieutenant commander named John S. McCain III, son of a full admiral (CINCUSNAVEUR), later a heroic POW, and after that, legendary massive fuck-up RINO saboteur while US senator from Arizona.

So disliked was he, that even decades after it was well-known and documented that he was nothing but a victim and unintended bystander caught right in the middle of the initial explosion and fire on Forrestal, and who barely escaped alive, people still, to this day, try to erroneously and deceitfully somehow pin the incident on McCain.

Pay no attention to how the behavior of such deranged anti-McCain moonbats exactly replicates the fervor to pin a tragic set shooting, not on the serial fuck-up incompetent weapons handler, who authored and caused the entire thing, but onto disliked and thoroughly dislikeable anti-gun fucktard Alec Baldwin.

Psychotic delusion doesn't repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.

And to prove it, with an even deeper dive in distant history, pray let us continue.

People Who Should Know Better have thrown their brains out in order to get on the "Lynch Alec!" train.

Andrew Branca, who's been hurled at us in thread after thread like J. Noble Daggett from True Grit, assumes his case all the way to a conviction, after first handwaving away about 100 salient facts, based on a total ignorance of anything that goes on at a movie set during production, including some of the most critical facts in the whole story. If wishes were horses, he could assume himself atop a mighty steed indeed. He should know better, but as part and parcel of why we call him the jackass he is, he'd rather sell his legal soul to be the White Knight predicting criminal jeopardy for Baldwin than face any facts that show the error of his own diaper spackle theories. He truly puts the anal in analysis. Unfortunately, his jurisprudence was trumped twenty years ago, by the legal acumen of Felix Unger:

And Kurt Schlichter, with whom we frequently agree, and would love to point to this time, knows that letting Baldwin off is justice, but would rather burn down the law itself in this case, to give Baldwin the same roasting the Left regularly gives people in highly publicized show trials. Schlicter, too, should know better, but we leave it to the legal acumen of Paul Scofield, in the role of a lifetime, to explain far better than we, the utter folly of sacrificing the law just to get even:

Long time readers, whose opinions I respect, would rather not hear any more about this incident, thinking it too petty to trifle with any further. But aside from being the decider on this blog, we find that when something so petty induces people who should be of far higher character than back-and-forth on this topic has revealed them to be in fact, we're right on the money, and its exactly this sort of "trivial" incident that's highlighting how deep the rot in the culture goes, and how fragile is the civility upon our own side, that they would become so frothingly deranged over so small a thing.

We can scarce imagine what fresh hells await us one and all once things begin getting actually desperate.

Don't look to the horizon, dear friends. Your problems aren't going to come from there. Look instead to your own fences, because the biggest problems you'll face in the next decade are going to come from closer than a few miles from your own front doorstep.

All Baldwin's trials and tribulations have done is rip the scab off the problems you're going to have with so-called friends and allies, because it's never an enemy who does the damage. It's the one who calls you friend - and then stabs you in the back - who's going to sell you out for their 30 pieces of silver.

Watch your six, and don't give your trust away. Make people earn it.

Dear Angus,

Maybe you'd have published some of this. Maybe you'd have thrown the "wall of text" flag.

Like you, I get electrons for free, so let's just save you the trouble and the quandary over which route to take, since apparently you apparently still want a piece of this discussion.

You accuse me of "thinking there should be an exception to personal responsibility with a firearm".

Let's nip that jackassical attempt right in the bud, shall we?

1) I haven't attempted to impute imaginary motives to you, let alone without any basis in fact, so kindly refrain from trying to do the same to me. 

2) In fact, I don't believe there should be an exception to personal responsibility with a firearm. I believe very strongly in personal responsibility.

3) What you and many others have serially failed to concede, for whatever reasons, is the Reality that on production sets, for stage, movie, TV, commercials, etc., all parties - producers, crew, actors, studios, etc., after long experience with their craft, have elected to locate the sole responsibility for all weapon safety on set with the Prop master, and/or weapons handler/armorer, as the sole best repository of expertise for that responsibility.

With a wee few decades of personally observing set operations firsthand in precisely that context, I cannot argue against their decision.

a) They've not had a fatality until last Thursday for 28+ years, over 20,000 movies, 50,000 TV shows, and countless other venues, despite making some of the most weapon-packed shoot-fests in history. And whenever I mention that incontrovertible fact, everyone suddenly finds something interesting six counties away, lest they concede the obvious reality against interest to their axe they're grinding.

b) I've also witnessed the absolute asininity of repositing any hope, whatsoever, in the idea that actors should be expected to get it right so many as one time in 10 years, where the barest requirements of safety with weapons are concerned. I have watched actors just handed hot weapons turn at the slightest provocation and muzzle sweep the entire crew. I have watched actors rehearsing lines with an empty gun walking along, while in their other non-script holding hand, they were repeatedly snapping the trigger on a revolver they were explicitly and sternly warned not to do mere seconds earlier. That's but two examples of what you're working with. Their sole job is to act, and to put any responsibility for weapons safety on their heads is to guarantee more tragedies on sets, not less.

c) Hollywood in toto agrees with that estimation, such that they've made live-fire so rare as to invoke the term unicorn as documentary, rather than hyperbole. And to require that guns on set be limited to prop guns, i.e. non-projectile-firing replicas that can, at most, fire and cycle blank rounds, and not even chamber live rounds of any kind.

d) Which last is why any suggestion that rules for actual firearms be applied unstintingly to such replica weapons that are anything but what you and I consider firearms, is but the first of several dozen errors where this entire discussion has gone into the weeds, and over the cliff.

e) The only fatality they have had, since 1993, was not by someone who followed the industry-wide standards, but rather by someone who broke damned near every single one. So since you're all up on the concept, how about you tell me, and the entire internet, how expanding the regulations and laws on using weapons in the movie industry, which apparently follows them pretty damned flawlessly already, will do Jack or Shit to force people who'll break the law into suddenly saying "Well, since you passed a law, I guess I have to obey it..." exactly like it hasn't decreased crimes and killings with guns in the outside world one single time in hundreds of years of trying that? You're a smart guy on a lot of things, so tell me how it is that  800-pound gorilla hasn't smacked you across the face yet. I'll wait. This one should be good.

f) FTR, Col. Cooper only came up with Four Rules; Hollywood currently adheres to Seventy-Nine. When last I looked, the entire entertainment industry since 1980 or earlier has had precisely three accidental firearms fatalities utilizing their rules (including the one last Thursday), while Florida, dependent on just the Four Rules, had 57 accidental gun deaths in just 2019 (which makes Florida middle-of-the-nation 25th overall) putting it at just 28½ times worse than the movie industry's 40-year death toll, but in only one average year. I could make a much better case that Hollywood should be teaching Florida how to do gun safety than you can for the argument the other way around. And I can do it for Califrutopia or Wyoming with equal mathematical precision, if you're going to demand we listen to apples-and-oranges comparisons that conflate an industry that uses "weapons" expressly designed to harm nobody with a society gleefully awash in weapons painstakingly designed to kill anyone you point them at. Concede that point, or hoist yourself on your own petard. If you put away your oranges, I'll put away my apples. Otherwise, you're going to have to take your lumps. Fair is fair.

4) That all being the case, I believe very sternly in personal responsibility with firearms. Which is why the incompetent dumbass, who rather than follow a flawless safety program, and instead who flouted, and flagrantly ignored virtually every single tenet of it, should be crucified for her role in killing one woman, and wounding another person. And I'm not speaking metaphorically.

5) I'm frankly shocked and dismayed that the pussified jurisprudence of New Mexico will have to sell the innocent life of one woman on that crew for the paltry sum of 18 months in prison, and a $5K pittance of a fine. Were I given the opportunity to make it so, the guilty party would be horsewhipped from dawn to dusk without mercy, and whatever remained would be given a fine public hanging the next day, by the neck, until dead. If you can conceive of a sterner sense of responsibility for killing someone through negligence, I've yet to hear of it.

6) What I cannot condone is trying to impute guilt to an innocent party acting in good faith, thinking that the whole point of industry-wide safety rules is that they would be followed to the letter, and then getting back-stabbed by an incompetent bimbo who followed precisely not a single one of them, with homicidal results.

7) You asked, "But why did that procedure fail on the set of "Rust?"

And you knew the answer before you asked that spring-loaded rhetorical question:

That procedure didn't "fail"; rather obviously it was never even followed.

8) Then you suggest that this was a failure of sufficiently rigorous licensure.

a) Point Of Order here, mate: You can't suggest in one breath that every jackass can do safety right, and then five seconds later suggest that "What we really need, is stricter gun laws!" I mean, at least, not unless you were going for the biggest ass-slapping guffaw in comedy history, and your idea of subtlety is dropping a house on someone.

b) You're the guy always leading the parade in saying that taking your AR-15 to the pier to go fishing is perfectly reasonable, with nary a single restriction anywhere visible even from space, but if Hollywood wants to film a shootout, they should call in the IRS, and whistle up a few feet of additonal codocils, provisos, and specifications??? Laws for thee, but not for me!" Srsly???

Let's see if this holds water: 

I've gotta tell you, you had me thinking for a paragraph or three you were serious. Now I'm going to need ibuprofen for the whiplash, and my stomach hurting from laughing so hard for so long.

But we need to focus on something important here:

Who are you, and what have you done with Angus McThag?

Thanks (no, really) for lightening the mood on this, even if it was the last thing you intended to do when you went banana-peel surfing down those three flights of stairs and did that double backflip into the glass coffee table with the wedding cake on it. That was wicked funny!

9) Word to your sooper-secret contact: as I've only pointed out, oh, half a dozen times in the last 5 days, the entire list of proper procedures for firearms and ammunition handling on set is available to anybody, free, online:

Industry-Wide Safety Bulletins

Prop Firearms is helpfully #1, and live guns and ammo is #2.

[Hint for the Thinking Impaired (i.e. Not Angus, but any number who read this): As industry-sanctioned safety rules, assented to by multiple Fortune 500 companies, and all signatory participants throughout the motion picture production industry, and in place for deacdes, these rules have the protection of state and federal labor law, and are in fact, not like Pirate's Code, merely guidelines, despite even what they say on their cover. Nor pejoitively dismissable as mere Hollywood nonsense, as certain witless wonders with law degrees have opined while knowing better. They actually have legal standing. Cooper's Four Rules, by contrast, are codified as mandatory precisely nowhere in NM state law (nor any other state's, AFAIK, but we are fully open to counter-argument with references), and while wise, and informative, have no such legal standing. They are thus, officially, no more legally authoritative, however wise and prudent they may be, than Aesop's Four Rules, or Angus' Four Rules, nor even Alec baldwin's Four Rules, in any court of law. Sorry if that's news to anyone, especially if you are an acolyte of the Holy Temple of Cooper, but that's the breaks.]

You wrote "There's proper ways to do things when playing with dangerous items. Ways that mitigate the dangers."

Yes, indeed, there are. Hence those very safety bulletins. We noticed. We've been telling you and anybody else who hasn't got their head shoved way up their ass hasn't got their fingers in their ears all about those proper ways, For days and days. Much good that it's done for the cement-heads.

10)

"At the end of the day, the person on the trigger is the one who decides that they are OK with how well the procedures have been followed and they pull the trigger, or refuse. Making them responsible for what happens in the end because they are the last go/no-go in the chain..."

Aw. And you were doing so well...

That's not how you do it. Not with nuclear weapons, and not with firearms on set. You don't wait until the hammer's cocked, the weapon is pointed, and then hope that Billy Joe Dumbfuck with the great smile and hairdo decides to drop the hammer, or suddenly thinks "Sorry, C.B., I'm just not feeling my motivation for this scene, baby..." 

Just, no.

What you do is, you plan the scene. then you get the experts you need to make it work. Then you block it out: where the camera goes, where the lights are, where the actor stops, moves, points, shoots, and what's someplace it shouldn't be, and what needs protection, or moving, or changing from concept to reality. Then you walk everyone, including the actors, through it, to rehearse it. With nothing but finger guns if necessary. you get all the permits and permissions up front, and you have everyone poised to do it, and ready to do eleventy things if anything goes wrong, while you plan eleventy-squared was to make sure nothing goes wrong. The actors have already talked through it, and walked through it, and rehearsed through it so many times before you actually do it, you aren't worried about whether he's going to pull the trigger. Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. You're ready to do this thing at least 10-20 times, in case everything goes wrong on the first take. And even if you bottle lightning in one take, you still do it twice, for safety, in case the film gets dropped off a cliff, or the messenger's truck gets hit by a meteor. Yes, really.

I've worked on sets here we shot people. Over and over again. Where we shot live gatling guns. Where we had full-auto fire going on for 2-4 minutes, for take after take, for a dozen guys. And on and on. Big stars on big shows, nobodies on cheesier schlock than Baldwin's non-union out-of-town p.o.s., and everything in between.

Total number of dead, from firearms, in all that time? Zero, of course.

Because prop guns aren't REAL guns 99% of the time, and are inherently NOT dangerous, because they're designed and intended to NOT kill people, unlike every REAL gun you, me, and 200M other people own.

Because of those exact industry safety rules. Right up until some bimbo airhead moron ignores every single applicable rule put in place for everyone's protection, and brings a real  gun with a live round of ammunition to a set rehearsal designed and intended for nothing of the sort. 

Firearms injuries in that time that i personally saw? One.

(Blackpowder flintlock pistol, pointed well off-line with one actor, but which shot the World's Smallest powder Cinder out of the edge of the pan, 15' away, which hit the guy's lower eyelash for a fraction of a second. Five seconds with some simple saline eyewash, no damage, let alone anything permanent, back in the game a minute later. That's it. because some things are unpredictable.)

But the last person in the chain, the final go/no-go, is the prop master, Armorer, and/or their assistants, who load weapons, pass them out moments before we roll film (or electrons), and collect them within seconds of hearing "Cut! Take after take after take.

because just as wars are far too serious a matter to leave to generals, loaded weapons, even just blanks, are far too serious to leave with actors.

And actors are fine with that, because they care about their co-workers, their crewmembers, and frankly, their jobs. They have far too much other b.s. to worry about to be expected to master any and every firearm and every other prop they're handed, and it's obviously much better to insure safe weapons, properly loaded or properly empty, by having actual weapons experts check that, who can focus on their "one thing". The cameraman isn't checking the safety of the lights. The makeup artist isn't over there with a spirit level making sure the camera dolly track is on the level. the director isn't checking that the grips strapped the camera down securely to the hood of the picture car.

The director directs. The camera operators operate the camera. The sound guys do sound. the lighting guys run the cables, plug in the lights, tur them on and off, and point them where the gaffer and the DP want them pointed. The makeup people do makeup, the wardrobe people do wardrobe, and the armorers worry about the weapons. All so the actors can just act.

Just like it works at hundreds of companies, factories, businesses, and jobs all over the planet, 247/365/forever.

Because everything isn't everybody's job.

Not even gun safety.

That's why there are rules at ammunition companies, and firearms companies, and ranges, and when hunting, and when shooting, and they all have some liability if they aren't followed, which is why every bullet that flies and every firearms accident, is not always, 100%, no exceptions, the fault of the guy with the gun last.

Don't believe me, ask 500,000 trial lawyers. Everybody knows this, but they want to pretend it's different, because "Lynch Baldwin! Get a rope!"

Their job is their job.

And that demands the utmost dedication and responsibility there is.

And an actor who "doesn't care about safety"? They'll get dropped - off a cliff. (Maybe only enough to get them to soil their shorts, but the message will be delivered, and received.) Sandbags or lights will fall on their heads. (Ask Mike Meyeres how many sound takes he needed on his next movie after he made the crack on worldwide TV "And the Oscar for Best Sound goes to...WHO CARES?! yuk yuk" Inside word was it took about 40 takes to get scenes in the can, instead of 2-3. Until he apologized. Profusely. After the producers offered him the option of unemployment. Hollywood is the world HQ of "Fuck me? No, fuck you!") So you work safe, or they'll snatch that gun out of your hand in the middle of the take, and walk the whole weapons cart back to the prop truck until you pull your head out of your ass. And they'll tell the producer to either straighten you out, or fire you, or else they'll just go home with all the weapons props, and bone the company out of $500K/day. Been there, seen that, got the t-shirt.

See if you can guess who gets stuck with that bill before they get another check from the producers.

The system isn't broken.

There was one flagrant fuck-up in this incident. She's going to prison (for not nearly long enough, but that's NM's fault) and she'll literally never work in The Biz again, daddy being a legacy notwithstanding. With a felony record.

She really should be horsewhipped.

But Alec Baldwin having anything to be blamed for, for her dozens and dozens of cock-ups on that single day alone?

Yeah, as if. It should never happen, unless we're in Bizarro Opposite World.

That's not giving him (or anyone else) a "free pass".

It's keeping the experts responsible for their expertise, rather than having amateurs fingerbang the whole machinery, and getting busloads of people, instead of single digits, killed or injured, because no one is ever going to be good at everything, or good enough at multiple things. Hell, if you're really lucky, actors are good at acting. Out of 160,000 SAG members, you'd be hard-pressed even to find a few hundred of those.

But I only worked in the industry in question for a couple of decades, and you for not a minute, and the weapons expertise you bring to the table has no bearing on "weapons" and situations designed to only appear to hurt people, while actually being rather stringently required not to hurt anyone, because we need that guy tomorrow for his big scene. And, oh yeah, that would be a felony.

I can push cardiac drugs safely, which you can't, and you can change transmissions, which I wouldn't know the first thing about even starting, let alone safely or properly. We all have different skillsets.

And all that's why people who think they've got a handle on this simply don't know how much they don't know. And should probably be content to let the dancing monkey dance.

Think about it: How do you feel when you hear Alec Baldwin tell anyone how the Second Amendment should work?

And now you think you should be telling him how motion picture production and safety should work? 

Cluebat, Inbound

We pointed towards this info. Then we linked to it. But cementheads need a 2x4 to properly get their attention. (This magnanimously assumes they can both read, and comprehend. We are generous enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Once.)

Safety Bulletin #2

SPECIAL USE OF "LIVE AMMUNITION" 

THIS BULLETIN SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED IF "LIVE AMMUNITION" WILL BE UTILIZED 

These guidelines are intended to give recommendations, special guidelines, and conditions for the safe handling of firearms utilizing "LIVE AMMUNITION." 

On controlled second units, there may be a very rare occasion when "LIVE AMMUNITION" must be used to obtain an effect. 

In those very special circumstances, "LIVE AMMUNITION" may be used only if the following criteria and special conditions have been met. 

 The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) will be the individual acting in the interest of the producer for obtaining, maintaining and handling all firearms for the production. He/she will work in conjunction with the production's designated Safety Representative to assure that the following standards are adhered to. 

 1. The Director, Producer, Director of Photography, First Assistant Director, Special Effects Technician and the licensed Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) have jointly determined a situation exists in which there is no other practical alternative but to use "LIVE AMMUNITION" to achieve the effect. 

 2. "LIVE AMMUNITION" should not be used under circumstances where a desired special effect can be achieved by using conventional special effects techniques by a qualified and licensed Special Effects Technician and/or by computer generated means (computer generated images [“CGI”]). 

 3. This special use of "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall only be performed at a site that is suitable for the use of "LIVE AMMUNITION" (i.e., a military, police, or private gun range, the deck of a vessel, or in an area deemed safe for this procedure). 

 4. Additionally, the permission and/or a permit shall be obtained from the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) (sheriff, police, county, city, township, military base, or agency having authority to issue this type of permit).  

5. The insurance company providing insurance for the production should be notified of the intention to use "LIVE AMMUNITION" and the circumstances surrounding the special use and conditions. Approval must be obtained for the use of "LIVE AMMUNITION." 

6. The Studio Safety Department and/or Safety Representative shall be notified prior to the use of any "LIVE AMMUNITION." 

 7. Notification of this type of activity shall be made on the call-sheet. If the call sheet is not available before the date the "LIVE AMMUNITION" is to be used, advanced notice is to be given. 

 8. Before any use of a firearm and the loading of "LIVE AMMUNITION" in a rehearsal and/or for an on-camera sequence, all persons involved shall be thoroughly briefed at an on-site SAFETY MEETING where the firearms will be used. 

 9. The SAFETY MEETING shall include an “on-site walk through” and/or “dry-run” with the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production), Range Master (if applicable), designated production representative, and anyone that will be using and/or handling the firearms. An understanding of the intended action, possible deviations, plans to abort, emergency procedures, and chain of command should be made clear. 

 10. Cast and crew members shall be limited to those members absolutely required to capture the effect. No minor(s) may be present in any scene or in the vicinity when "LIVE AMMUNITION" is being fired. 

11. The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) with the appropriate licenses required by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), shall procure and maintain the proper firearms to achieve the effect and determine that the firearm is in good and safe working condition. The firearms will be kept in the control of only the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). SUCH FIREARMS WILL NOT BE USED AS PROPS.

12. On days where the production will be utilizing firearms for "LIVE AMMUNITION" firing and have replicas and/or a “prop firearm,” the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) shall identify the "LIVE AMMUNITION" firearms by color or some other easily recognizable means of identification. These types of firearms shall never be kept together and/or stored together. 

13. All "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall be kept in the control of the licensed Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). Additionally, it shall be stored in a manner to keep it safe and secure and in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the storage and use of "LIVE AMMUNITION." 

14. "LIVE AMMUNITION" will not be kept on the set for any longer than is necessary to complete the scene in which it is being used. "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall be secured in a locked box and clearly marked in a manner to differentiate it from blank ammunition. 

 15. "LIVE AMMUNITION" will be transported in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations to and from the set on the day of its use. 

 16. While on a gun range and/or military base, the Range Master shall have overall control and final authority of the range and every person present, including the production cast and crew and the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). 

 17. All safety procedures and requirements shall be strictly followed. There shall be no deviation of the intended sequence without the permission of the Range Master or Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) depending on who is in charge of the specific location to be utilized. 

 18. Immediately prior to the firearm discharge, a rehearsal shall be held to ensure that all who will be present know the assigned location, the safe zones that have been identified, and to ensure that no one is down in the range area. Upon completion of the rehearsal, a formal announcement shall be made to all those present that "LIVE AMMUNITION" will be fired.

19. Particular attention shall be paid to the line of fire. Ensure the area is clear of all personnel and be aware of possible ricochet hazards and/or the ejection of hot shell casings.

So let's see how many specific regulations were violated here, and by whom.

1) Rule 3. The studio lot where the fatal shooting occurred is not a suitable range for live firing.

2) Rule 1. There was no such joint determination that there was any need to be doing live firing.

3) Rule 11. The Weapons handler did not keep firearms capable of live firing in her possession.

4) Rule 11. The Weapons handler used a firearm capable of chambering live ammunition as a prop.

5. Rule 4. No such permit to conduct live firing was issued to this production, for this location.

6. Rule 5. No notification was made, nor approval obtained, from any insurance company for the presence or use of live weapons and live ammunition.

7. Rule 6. No notification was made to the Studio Safety Department nor Safety Representative of the use of live ammunition.

8. Rule 7. No notification was made of the planned use of live ammunition on the call sheet, which is passed out to the entire crew the day before each day's activities.

9. Rule 8. No Safety Meeting concerning the use of live ammunition was made prior to the rehearsal where the live round was fired.

10. Rule 9. No such walk-through briefing nor dry run was held at the non-occurring Safety Meeting, to discuss the particulars of what would take place.

11. Rule 10. Cast and crew members were not limited in any way to capture a live firing effect.

12. Rule 12. Weapons capable of firing live ammunition were not distinctively marked in any way by the Weapons handler.

13. Rule 12. Weapon(s) capable of firing live ammunition were not kept separate from prop guns by the Weapons handler.

14. Rule 9. At the Safety Meeting which never happened, no discussion of emergency procedures ever took place.

15. Rule 13. Live ammunition was not kept in the control of the Weapons handler.

16. Rule 13. Live ammunition was not stored in a manner to keep it safe and secure.

17. Rule 14. Live ammunition was on set despite being completely unnecessary.

18. Rule 14. Live ammunition was not secured in a locked box.

19. Rule 14. Live ammunition was not clearly marked in a manner to differentiate it from blank ammunition.

20. Rule 15. Live ammunition was not transported in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

21. Rule 16. There was no designated Range Master.

22. Rule 17. All safety procedures were not strictly followed.

23. Rule 18. No rehearsal for live firing was conducted.

24. Rule 18. No formal announcement was made that live ammunition was to be fired.

25. Rule 19. No attention was paid to the line of fire, and multiple personnel were located down range.

Violations 3, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22  were all violations solely and completely the exact job function of the Weapons handler.

Violations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 occurred entirely and solely because of Violations 4, 12, 13, and 22 by the Weapons handler. 

This led to a situation where no one was aware, nor could be aware, that the designated Weapons handler, the sole firearms expert on that set, and the one person hired and designated as such by the film's Producers, had hijacked a rehearsal with non-firing prop guns, and turned it into a live firing exercise.

And even she didn't know she had done this, because she was so overwhelmingly incompetent, she didn't even know what she didn't even know. And, by the conspicuous lack of mention in the lead up to the fatal incident, was, in all likelihood, not even present when the sabotaged weapon was handed to the actor in question.

This came about because the weapons handler also violated all of the following rules

GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS 

Specifically:

5. The Weapons handler should inspect the firearm and barrel before and after every firing sequence. 

6. UTILIZE all safety devices until the firearm(s) is ready to be used.

7. NEVER lay down a firearm or leave it unattended.

9. Once the firearm has been loaded with the "LIVE AMMUNITION" the firearm is to be considered “hot.”

Additionally, the Weapons handler completely failed to faithfully discharge most of the specific job responsibilities laid out herewith, particularly the ones marked FAIL:

The Weapons handler is responsible for the following: 

1. Ensuring the control of and distribution of all firearms on the set. FAIL 

2. Ensuring that all firearms which will be used on the production (whether company owned, rented, or privately owned) are given to and are in possession of the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). 

 3. The designation of experienced persons working under his or her immediate supervision to assist as necessary. FAIL

 4. Their own qualifications for working with the type of firearms being used, the knowledge of their safe handling, use, and safekeeping, and familiarity with the "LIVE AMMUNITION" to be utilized. FAIL

 5. Seeking expert advice if he or she is not familiar with the firearm to be used. 

 6. Ensuring current licenses and permits have been obtained for the possession and use of production firearms. 

 7. The knowledge of the applicable laws governing transportation, storage, and use of firearms and be in compliance with those laws. 

 8. The knowledge of and adherence to all manufacturers' warnings, expiration dates, storage, and handling procedures for "LIVE AMMUNITION" and firearms. 

 9. Ensuring that a sufficient amount of time has been allotted for training and rehearsal. 

 10. The ability to demonstrate prior knowledge of the safe handling of firearms and "LIVE AMMUNITION." 

11. The personal loading of firearms or the personal designation of an experienced person working under his or her immediate supervision to load the firearms. Firearms are to be loaded just before they are used in a scene. FAIL

 12. Ensuring that any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms.

13. The possession of all firearms except during actual filming or rehearsal. Afterward, the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) will immediately unload the "LIVE AMMUNITION" from the firearm. FAIL

 14. Ensuring that all firearms are cleaned and checked at the close of each day's shooting. 

 15. Ensuring that all firearms and "LIVE AMMUNITION" are accounted for before any personnel is allowed to leave the area. 

16. Ensuring that an inspection is made of the set (location) and all spent "brass casings" and unspent "live ammunition" have been picked up and disposed of properly

That's just one of the two specific Safety Bulletins applicable to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's FIVE specific overwhelming failures, ELEVEN specific personal violations of the Safety procedures for live ammunition, and the FIFTEEN resultant production violations, all entirely and solely caused by her gross negligence in bringing at least one operable weapon and one live round onto a set, where they were mistakenly placed into an actor's hands completely beyond the knowledge or suspicion of the actor, director, production staff and crew, production management, the studio lot, the production insurance carrier(s), or any of the local authorities.

Those THIRTY-ONE SPECIFIC PERSONAL FAILURES constitute gross negligence suggesting the total inability of Ms. Gutierrez Reed to even supervise weapons at a Nerf Gun shootout, let alone a low-budget motion picture, and calls into serious question whether she even possesses the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

She is the sole, direct, proximate, and entire cause of the subsequent fatal and non-fatal injuries to two members of the crew, where the only action contemplated for the moment was rehearsal of a scene utilizing only prop guns incapable of firing anything but blanks, which rehearsal was only to be accomplished with a completely unloaded prop gun.

Anyone looking at the totality of those deliberate and flagrant failures to perform the most basic and minimal due diligence and competence in her job, and suggesting that anyone else bears any legal or moral culpability whatsoever in the fatal shooting that followed, has to have their head shoved so far up their ass as to be able to describe what they had for lunch by watching it splash into their own stomach.

Alec Baldwin absolutely killed the DP and shot the producer, because the weapon was in his hands when he fired it.

That is not what constitutes legal nor moral guilt, in this incident.

That blame appends solely to the person who put a live weapon, loaded with a live round, in contravention of every rule, act, utterance, and behavior of the person entirely entrusted with ensuring such could and would never happen, into his hand.

Empty prop guns don't kill anyone, nor ever can.

Criminally negligent weapons handlers manage to kill people with just one round, in just one attempt.

Alec Baldwin never injured or killed anyone with firearms in a film career spanning 41 years.

Trained and proficient actual Hollywood armorers have managed to not kill anyone with firearms accidentally for 28+ years.

One untrained incompetent jackhole masquerading as a competent armorer managed to kill someone in just 12 days.

See if you can figure out where the fault lies in this incident.

Her Homicidal Fucktard Batting Average stands at 1.500. Which is over 4 times better than Ted Williams' lifetime major league batting average of .344. Gutierrez-Reed doesn't deserve a Darwin Award. She deserves to be inducted into the Order Of Darwin, for spectacular contributions to Darwinian Culling, Above and Beyond The Call.

Argument along the line that Alec Baldwin, or anyone else, was going to undo this dipshit's homicidal incompetence, simply by violating every rule of cinematic safety, and hurdling the exact system that made such an event impossible for nearly three decades, by clairvoyantly and heroically wrestling her tools and entire job out of her hands, because reasons, constitutes admission of severe mental retardation, or overwhelming and profound psychosis.

And BTW, Producers don't hire weapons handlers.

Their hiring (and firing) are solely the province of the Unit Production Manager, sometimes with and sometimes without the advice of the Property Master for the production.

So you can't pin anything to do with that on Baldwin either.

And unless her contract specifies breaking every single industry safety rule regarding her job performance, he's pretty much untouchable on that account too.

As at least one of this ill-fated movie's producers, his sole point of responsibility is going to be when the movie's insurance company pays out the settlement on this colossal clusterfuck.

The overwhelming likelihood is that this piece of low-budget shite was conducted as an LLC, like even multi-million dollar blockbusters are, and the only asset they have is the ownership rights to a script and a half-finished movie, an empty bank account, and a bushel basket of ghost turds. Good luck getting so much as a penny beyond what the maximum insurance coverage is, most of which would be eaten up by lawyer's bills long before a settlement is reached. If the victims want a sure-thing payout, which they absolutely deserve, they should take the first offer they get, and run to cash it while the check is still good.

Personal civil liability on Baldwin's part, in light of the overwhelming collection of calamitous catastrophe Ms. Gutierrez-Reed brings to the table?

Pfft.

Shit in one hand, and wish for a civil judgement in the other, and see which hand fills up first.

Try to Andrew Branca your way out of that predicament, soopergeniusii.

And realize that every day you try to push the "Get Baldwin" narrative, you make him into a bigger martyr to everyone sane, in every way. Way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory!

Take some advice from Will Rogers instead:

Soopergenius Achievement: Unlocked

 

The longer some people talk, the more they make Baldwin's jackassical anti-gun arguments sound reasonable.

People like them are why Alex Jones and George Nouri still have paying gigs, why Nigerian scammers still send e-mails, and why the tags on my shirts say "Remove shirt before ironing".

FFS, you lot, Just. STOP.

I'm begging you.

Think of how it pains me that you're so unbelievably stupid, I have to defend Baldwin for killing someone with a gun, because he's literally morally and legally blameless, and those baying for his head on a platter are literally dumber than a bag of hammers.

Man. I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Psst! Your Hypocrisy Is Showing, Dumbass!

STFU, idiots. They're not all clueless, and they're going to boomerang your jackassery back on you, three times as hard, if you don't pull your heads out of your asses right quick.

Learn a lesson from Napoleon.

And no, you really shouldn't have had to be told. 

Alec Baldwin Day

 

We should have thought of this sooner.

Let's end the rancor over this @$$clown's clowncarnucopia of fail, and instead unite over something we can all agree upon.

As even his schlocky cheapass movie title proves, Rust is the enemy of guns. We must therefore keep this chowderhead from killing anyone else with them. There's only one solution for that: Buy them yourselves, to protect them from him. Or vice versa.

We therefore happily proclaim now and henceforth, in perpetuity, October 21st shall evermore be known and celebrated as Alec Baldwin Day!

Go buy a gun to celebrate Alec Baldwin Day! Save a life! Keep another gun out of his hands forever.

And hurry up, because you're already three days late on this.

Give until it hurts.

Descriptions or hog pics of your acquisitions welcome in comments.

Sunday Music: Hazy Shade Of Winter

 

As noted last week, it's a tough gig to take someone else's music and steal it for your own, because you do it better. I was raised liking Simon and Garfunkel's music (and the proof of that pudding is that their music has held up far better than a lot of 60s crap), but when the Bangles took this song, and plugged it into an electric amp, they turned it up to 11, with - by faaaaaar - the better version.

Anything but just a "girl group", we loves us some more of them, so you get a two-fer bonus today, in this case, some Halloween candy, specifically a video from when there was actual music on MTV, in particular a hat-tip from the Bangles to the 60s they barely knew. Absolutely deliciously groovy. O, for a Time Machine.

Where it stands with the tragedy of Rust

For the love of sweet baby Jesus, before you offer any further commentary on this, prior, or subsequent threads, go read these two Motion picture Industry Wide Safety Bulletins:

1) Safety With Firearms 

2) Special Use Of Live Ammunition

They are quite literally the BIBLE on set operations on their respective topics. period. paragraph. Motherf**king WORD.

If you don't read them (FFS, they're about 4 short pages apiece, and it takes about 2 minutes, even if you need Hooked On Phonics to get through them), and aren't competent to comment based on them, you are, as has become manifestly obvious, not tall enough for this ride.

They make it abundantly obvious, by mentioning the specific duties of the armorer twenty-seven times, while mentioning any activity or responsibility by the actor only twice, in just the first bulletin, where the actual job responsibility, as well as legal, ethical, and moral culpability for safe use of weapons on any production lies.

Bummer for a thousand internet harpies, it is 0% with Baldwin, in any capacity, and nearly 100% with the armorer, in this case grossly criminally negligent and legally culpable for involuntary manslaughter.

That's 18 months in the NM State Prison, and a $5K fine. Call, raise, or fold, Sport.

What happened, per best information available:

A scene was being rehearsed.

Allegedly with a Civil War era/style muzzle-loading cap-and-ball black powder Colt revolver like this one.

The DP, 1st AC, and director were all grouped around the camera, where they could best see the shot they were planning.
Baldwin pointed, cocked, and fired a supposed "COLD" weapon at the camera, which turned out to be not only wrongly loaded, but loaded with a live round, which flew over the 1st AC's head, punched into the DP and through her, and then struck the director behind her. 

"One shot, one kill." 

Utterly tragic.

QED.

The number of fuck-ups that requires of Baldwin is zero.
The number of fuck-ups either actually performed, and/or actually neglected, by the armorer, by the numbers:

1) Failure to maintain possession of the weapon and put it in the actor's hand before the rehearsal.
2) Failure to remove a live round from the weapon before even bringing it to the set for rehearsal.
3) Failure to check that it was empty before rehearsal.
4) Failure to have someone else double-check to ensure it was completely empty before rehearsal.
5) Failure to ensure the actor witnessed the check and double check before handing it to them.
6) Failure to account for all live rounds previously loaded, and keep them, and/or any powder and ball materials for live shots completely separate from rehearsal weapons.
7)Failure to keep weapons capable of firing live rounds entirely segregated from weapons for use on sets where firing live rounds was neither practical, advisable, permissible, legal, nor discussed beforehand.

And probably

8) Failure to have a full and proper Safety Meeting before the rehearsal, to discuss the plan of events, identify danger areas, discuss emergency procedures, and go over chain of command on the rehearsal and the shot therefrom.

That last would be on the 1st Assistant Director, who runs all operations on set until the director says "Action", and after he says "Cut", and who, along with the Key Grip, is directly and legally responsible for the safe operation of the crew on the set at all times.

Being that this was a non-union low-budget ($6M, which is chump change for a movie these days) production, I'll wager dollars to donuts the production also did not have

9) a trained and equipped on-set medic (EMT, EMT-P, RN, or anything like) standing by in direct proximity to render aid in the event of the exact emergency that occurred, nor any other, which for any union production, and even most non-union ones where firearms are in use, is a requirement.
That fuck-up is laid at the feet of the Unit Production Manager, whose exact job it would be to hire or contract for such services, and who evidently failed to do any such thing, probably for budgetary reasons.

It was reported "the crew" rendered aid after the accident.
Not "the Medic/paramedic/nurse".
(We haven't even gotten started on that sub-topic, kids. Stay tuned.)

That's nine open and flagrant violations of standard set operations protocol, either stone-cold certain, or overwhelmingly likely.
Gonna be a lot of red asses by the time this gets to trial.

Now go back, and re-read what I wrote Friday morning when this news had just broken.

Everything I wrote in that post is batting 1.000, and that low-hanging curveball not only sailed over the center field bleachers, it still hasn't landed.

Don't be a hater.

Believe me, the fact that out of all the serial fuck-ups necessary to kill someone with a weapon on a movie set, exactly none of them tracks back to @$$hole Baldwin (mirabile dictu!) pisses me off too. But facts are stubborn things.

And maybe allow that after pissing away a couple of decades making feature films and TV shows, I know WTF I'm talking about regarding The Biz.