Look, if you're not going to bother to note the obvious, just have a hissy fit, own it as such, and get it out of your system.
Nobody, least of all me, has gone any sort of "teary-eyed" over Baldwin. I was damn near, if not the, first one to meme-tag him online for the shooting. He's the same insufferable jackass he's always been. The problem for some of you is that he's a legally innocent jackass, in this case.
Pisser. I get it. Content yourself with his karma, and that being such an egregious jackass, he's going to jump on his tiny wedding tackle again (and again), with cleats on, until the day he dies. We will see no end to our epicaricacy over that, each and every time, and even long after he shuffles off his mortal coil and becomes a Good Progtard.
But if you're going to go full-on tetanus-rabid, go the rest of the way, and just say "To Hell with the law, fuck law itself, because laws are for other people!" and then own that.
Another actor, the great Paul Scofield, has a few words to you on that score:
Baldwin was a producer on the flick, not the producer. There were, according to varying reports, 6 to 12 such persons.
He was gifted with that credit in return for writing the story. He wasn't the line producer, or the supervising producer, and thus had no - none, zero, nada, zip, bupkus - hiring/firing authority on that movie, which pretty well craps all over the whole narrative to the contrary. The LLC for the whole bunch will eat the liability shield, and that will be that, and that pisses some people off.
He's innocent of negligence because he was doing his job, as directed by one of the victims, when the incident occurred, while both the armorer/weapons handler, and the person designated on that production to double check her, failed in every single respect to do theirs.
|So, maybe not being the insurance adjuster trying to |
prosecute Flounder for auto theft might be a better move...
Had they shown the circumspection of a true professional propmaster/armorer outlined in comments at the OP by pkoning, you wouldn't have the long-past-dead carcass of this horse to beat, but it wasn't a Robin Williams movie with a real budget, it was a low-budget p.o.s., and they took who they could get for the wages they were paying. In this case, a criminally inept and wholly ignorant second-time armorer (Gutierrez-Reed) trying lamely to follow in daddy's footsteps, without the first shred of knowledge or capability to do so, let alone time in actual occupational apprenticeship, necessary for the job. And she got two people shot, and one killed. Max her out for that. She bears the entire responsibility for the incident. If it's shared at all, it's to a small but significant degree, by the assclown 2d AD (Halls) who had no business being a prop assistant for weapons safety, but nonetheless was, and screwed that pooch as well. If you take one or both of them out of the equation, and replace them with competent people, the incident never happens. Baldwin, OTOH, no matter how much vinegar it pours in your mouths to say it, could have been replaced with any 50,000 other members of SAG, doing the exact same thing, and it would have made no difference to the death toll on the day. Only to the degree of frothing rabidity of the subsequent reactions. And that's the rub, isn't it?
That it was Baldwin, Satan's Own Spokeshole, and that despite holding the gun in his very hand, that the entire blame can be seamlessly and correctly laid at someone else's feet, exactly as justice demands, is what so upsets your fondest hopes and wishes.
Well, boo effing hoo. As an excellent lawyer once pointed out in a similar case:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
So all I've got is Thomas More and John Adams on my side of the argument, and you've got your spleen, digestive juices, and endocrine system. I like my odds.
You can huff and puff about that, and gainsay that no end with apples-and-oranges fallacious logic, but you can't disprove it, no matter how long you hold your breath, how blue you turn, and how long and hard you jam your fingers in your ears and shout "La! La! La! I'm not listening!"
Do that all you like, because it means nothing in the grand scheme, except to expose what you're using in substitute for facts and logic. You won't be argued out of your faulty position that Baldwin is a negligent criminal, because you didn't use facts and logic to get you there. You used only bile and animus, which is the difference between a legal system that has stood the test of time for over 900 years, and a simple rabid mob.
Be careful what you wish to use for your standards, because you'll get your wish.
And rue the day.
The D.A. in this hugely meaningless case will do what she will do. Your only hope lies in hoping that twelve people too stupid to avoid jury duty will share your animus for Baldwin, rather than my love for the standard of law and justice. It may yet happen, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Ignoring entirely how wrong those frothing for Baldwin's punishment are, or how right the argument for his acquittal will be, considering how little this case means in the grand scheme, including doing nothing whatsoever to break your legs nor pick your pockets, let alone bring back the dead nor recall the bullet fired, the amount of dyspepsia some people are investing in this, only to endure a steady diet of vinegar, is quite simply fascinating, in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way. You decry Rittenhouse forced to legally fight for his life, but in the same breath want to visit the same thing on our juiciest enemies, which is to at once condone both cases. You can't have it both ways, and you won't, but you can have nothing that you want in both cases (which is the likeliest outcome, because the D.A. isn't a frothing lunatic), and be forced to eat the whole party-sub 20-foot-long sh*t sandwich you'll get served.
Why not, instead, learn the only wisdom that comes of beating your head against a brick wall:
And let's be serious here. It's one thing to get all raw and butthurt because injustice is being done to someone. But it's seventeen kinds of asinine jackassical to get all twisted into a pretzel because it's not, and to be out at the barricades, shouting for the blood of an innocent person.
Especially when there's a bit of history involved with being on the wrong side of a trial.
|Suck it up, buttercup, and move on to more important things.|
Compared to this incident, that would be...anything else.