Sunday, October 24, 2021

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. 


22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mea Culpa.
I had commented on several sites that I thought that the gun Baldwin fired to kill Hutchins was a cap and ball revolver, based on information from this site.
On checking the IMDB site, the movie is described as being set in the 1880s.
I have not yet seen any confirmation that the production chose to use cap and ball revolver and an earlier time period instead of the 1880s common Colt .45 or Remington .44-40 revolvers.
I'm going to shut up now.
Thanks Aesop. :-)
John in Indy

Wayne said...

“The prop twit” did not kill Halyna Hutchins. Alec Baldwin did.

Aesop said...

You're wrong Wayne.
Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger. That's not a crime.
The prop twit committed involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. That is.

Both things killed her.
But only one of them is going to prison for it, and it won't be Baldwin.

Words mean things.

Aesop said...

@John,
Assuming weapons choices will make any historical sense on any movie is a fool's errand.

They do whatever in hell they want, because they can.

I'm waiting for the official ID of the firearm responsible.

Joe in PNG said...

The use of a cap & ball revolver in the 1880's is no more ridiculous than the use of a Colt 1908 or S&W Triple Lock in 1988- or even 2018.

Just because firearms tech improved between 1873 (when the Colt Navy went out of production) and 1880 doesn't mean that there was uniform adoption of the new cartridge tech. Some people couldn't afford a new gun; some would be perfectly happy with what they had. Others might have a hard time sourcing cartridges, but could keep going with a bullet mold, loose powder, and a bunch of percussion caps.

Anonymous said...

Thanks.
John in Indy

Stealth Spaniel said...

Oh For God's Sakes! Baldwin is now a neutered mule. His career is over. He is a HAS-BEEN. He will never be in line for a major film role again. nor will Mothers for Everytown want one of his speeches. Will everybody just take YES for an answer, take bird liner with his name on it, and speak never of an exclusive interview with People again? No one wants AB on ANY tv show, producing any film, starring in any film, nor walking across the Academy's stage. He is over! Take yes for an answer and revel in the litigation to come.

Survivormann99 said...

Aesop,

My experience on the periphery of the entertainment industry pales by comparison to yours, yet, you are the one speaking the truth about the incident. The others are just A-holes with opinions who just "can't handle the truth."

Wayne said...

Aesop, there is plenty of civil and criminal liability to go around. We still don’t have all the info as to exactly what happened. I have read your voluminous posts about the movie industry safety standards. They still don’t cancel out Colonel Jeff Cooper’s 4 Rules. To me, the question is whether Douchebag Baldwin was merely negligent or criminally reckless. If there is any truth to the rumors that he said “How about if I just shoot you instead” to the director and then pointed the “cold gun” (which obviously wasn’t) and pulled the trigger, he should go to prison. Since he is a/the producer on this flick, he’s not going to get out of civil liability.

Aesop said...

Civil liability will be handled by insurance, inevitably.
Criminal liability attaches to only one person, at this point.
We don't have all the info to the last detail.
Colonel Cooper's Four Rules are incorporated into the exact Safety Bulletin on firearms. They are not the last word, nor do they apply unequivocally on production sets. The Safety Bulletins do, and have for decades. The only question in law will be were those proper procedures followed, and if not, by whom.
Baldwin was, by all reputable accounts, neither negligent nor reckless.
What you or I or anyone feels about the whole affair counts for squat.
By all reputable accounts, he did nothing untoward, nor negligent.
The rumor about "another take" and "how about I shoot you instead" has turned out to be b.s. and shenanigans, AFAIK. It went away within hours. If it reliably turns out he did do that, or anything like, he does indeed deserve prison for reckless negligence. But I doubt it ever happened, except in someone's imagination. They weren't doing "takes" they were rehearsing, so the whole premise falls apart.
And, again, his civil liability will be discharged by insurance on the production, almost undoubtedly.

Poncho said...

(Sorry if this double posted. If so, please delete and I’m doubly sorry for wasting your time doing so.)

Why are we wasting any time or energy arguing about this?

Is our desire to be “right,” more important than our desire to discuss things that actually matter?

FWIW, I find it difficult to care less about this. Especially when weighed against any number of more pressing issues that could stand further analysis.

Aesop said...

Hi Poncho.

Since you asked, I'm gonna go with "Because it's my blog."

More pressing issues? Not really.

We have a fraudulent president who stole an election. No one seems to mind enough to do anything.

We have a fraudulent vaccine for a virus that's more lethal than the flu, but far less lethal than Ebola. Most of the country fell all over themselves to get the shots.

We have a government that's printed more money in the last 2 years, with nothing to back it up, than all the money they printed in the 238 years before than, inclusive. People are more worried about the shortage of chips for cars.

I post about the happy news that Alec Baldwin has now officially killed more people with his gun than I have with an entire collection of same, and people would rather beat him over the head and imprison him for having the bad fortune of being the victim of one Millennial fuck-up's monumental incompetence, and abysmal work ethic.

What's on your mind?

Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

Been out O town for over a week.

The apostle Paul wrote, “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12 NLT)

When we can no longer disagree without being disagreeable they have won. "Dad, many years ago" He also sad "when they come for the guns, its over". Lets stay united so that doesn't happen.

A woman is dead, that is sad enough in itself. Whether we like someone or not.

Nick Flandrey said...

Ya know, I have been searching for the source that Branca mentions when he sets up his 'hypothetical' case of TBB (the bad baldwin) shooting the camera crew as a joke.

I'm just not finding it, but then my googlefu might be weak, or maybe it's on someone's social media.

Instead I find commentors repeating the 'rumor' that Branca sets up in his strawman when he says " I read such a description of the events online, but have no idea if the person providing that description has any idea what they are talking about. " I think it's pretty irresponsible of someone with standing and authority in the gun culture to put something so inflammatory into a discussion that with a casual reading looks like potential fact. But there's also his willingness to pontificate on other things he knows nothing about like what's "common knowledge" in a production workplace.

If anyone has the primary source for what doesn't match up with any of the actual statements to authorities, I'd like to see it, just for completeness sake.

And for anyone still saying "HE pulled the trigger, HE's GUILTY", what happens to your argument when it comes out that he DIDN'T pull the trigger, but that the gun malfunctioned? Remember the other stories that a stunt double had TWO ADs with that gun? The Safety Bulletins are pretty specific about that too, and it comes down on Tatgrrl, not Baldwin.

n

Unknown said...

Aesop is still right. Usually these are the people who screech about staged videos/ photos in everything. Doing a photo shoot of a US Paratrooper reenactment for a magazine? Even though everything is clear and staged. "HURR DURR BOOGER HOOK OFF THE TRIGGER!"

Doing a review of a firearm? Where you typically have to point the weapon and test the trigger pull? "HURR DURR!!!!! THAT WEAPON WASN'T CLEARED!!!! HURR DURR!!!!! DON'T POINT IT AT SOMETHING YOU WON'T DESTROY!!!! HURR DURR!!!! FOUR RULES!!!!!"

How hard is it for them to understand: Just because you were a careless idiot or did something stupid doesn't mean everyone else is incompetent.

If I clear a weapon for someone (usually in front of them) it's safe to say it's fucking clear. If an ND were to happen after I hand it off I'm responsible for that. Only exception would be if the person I handed it off to loaded the weapon or left it out of sight and unattended.

Skyler the Weird said...

The Union planted the gun on set knowing the scabs wouldn't check it

Survivormann99 said...

I don't want to be seen as carrying water for Alec Baldwyn, but it is an inescapable fact that a great deal of the early comments here and on other blogs involved hatred of Baldwin, not genuine and sole concern for the application of gun safety protocols.

Many early commenters were clearly handing out ropes and were looking for a tree, knowing nothing more about the facts of the incident than that Baldwin had shot and killed the cinemotographer. These zealots are devotees of the Rahm Emmanuel school of thought, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

In any event, if some hapless actor had to be the one to fire that pistol, Alec Baldwin was an excellent choice. Bad karma, Alec.

Aesop said...

@Skyler,

The only union people on the crew with any dissatisfaction were evidently the camera crew. Who saved one or more of their own lives by getting off the show that morning.
The entire crew are likely for the most part non-union, but the entire shoot is a non-union production, nobody there is a scab. So your underpants-pull explanation is brilliant, with no application in the real world. Sorry man, but nice try.

x said...

Fucking exactly.

-rightwingterrorist

Anonymous said...

So if I’m involved in a shooting as a civilian I’m liable for every bullet that leaves the gun it doesn’t matter if someone has me a gun I think it’s empty and I pull the trigger and it kill somebody. I am liable. But someone hands Alec Baldwin a gun he fires it, it kill someone and he’s not liable just because he’s on a movie set? That seems odd.

Aesop said...

No.
If someone hands Alec Baldwin a gun, they've fucked up right there.
They're only supposed to hand him a prop gun, incapable of firing anything but a blank.
If they hand him a prop gun, but it has blanks in it, for a rehearsal, they've still fucked up.
But when they hand him a real gun, while claiming it's an unloaded prop gun, and it's actually a real gun with a live round in the chamber, they've literally set him up to kill somebody, and nothing he does after that matters, morally nor legally.

It's not "because he's on a movie set".
It's "because they made it impossible for something bad not to happen, and lied about it, and bear full responsibility for consequences he could not foresee, nor prevent, without already knowing they had sandbagged him from the get-go."
There's not supposed to be a bullet on a rehearsal set, there's not supposed to be a real gun on set capable of receving or firing a real bullet, and no bullet is ever supposed to leave any barrel ona movie production, almost ever.

If you were handed a plastic squirt gun, and a 9mm bullet flew out of it and killed someone, because someone else unbeknownst to you had hidden a real gun inside it, should you go to prison, because "you pulled the trigger"?
If I hand you a soda can, and you pop the top, and it explodes and kills everyone within 20 feet because unbeknownst to you I had hidden a live grenade inside it, which one of us is the Mad Bomber? You, because "you pulled the tab", or me?

That's the jackassical legal standard you and 50 other fucktards are arguing for here.

It stems from the fact that you and they can't grasp the concept that a gun on a movie isn't supposed to ever fire a live round, unlike yours, and so you keep misapplying rules for real guns in a situation where there's not supposed to be real guns, real bullets, or deadly lead projectiles flying out the muzzle virtually ever.

It's like trying to apply traffic law to your kid playing with Hot Wheels on the living room floor, and sending him to actual pound-me-in-the-ass prison for violations of the motor vehicle code because he had a multi-car pile up.

It's a form of mental illness to even attempt that.
Which seems beyond odd.

Joe in PNG said...

Cooper's 4 rules are great, but they aren't the law of the USA.
Likewise, film necessitates the regular breaking of those rules- and it's inescapable. Actors have to treat guns as if they were unloaded, they have to point them at things they don't want to destroy, and they can't be sure of their backstop.

So, the prop people, over many decades, have actually developed a different set of rules that let actors point guns at people safely. And it's been very successful.

Trying to apply Cooper's rules to this situation is like trying to apply NFL rules to Soccer. It's a different sport.