I see a lot of people here blaming the TX grid but not all of Texas is under ERCOT.
SE of Houston, power is supplied by Entergy Texas which also supplies power along most of the gulf coast.
Here is a statement from them, “As of 6:30 p.m. Friday, Entergy Texas crews have safely restored electrical power to approximately 199,100 of the 252,460 customers impacted by Hurricane Beryl. We expect all customers who can safely take power to be restored no later than Monday, July 15.”
These are not TX policy decisions causing these outages. It is simply economical decisions that are made throughout the national grid system to make it affordable to deliver the vast quantities of power that people need at a price they can afford. It’s simply a fact of life that when you have such a powerful storm passing through, any human built system is going to fall to the power of mother nature.
I was a electrical engineer back in college, so if anyone has any specific things they want to ask, I’ll try to respond.
I’m not an economist though so I can’t tell you why it’s more important for peoples heating and cooling bills to be closer to $100 a month instead of $300 and why the policy decisions are made to support that. And this is with modest electrical usage setting my AC to cool down to a conservative 78-80 degrees since I’m cheap and want to conserve energy.
As a Texan, the problem is we have 0 below ground lines, we don’t stage workers even when we know storms are coming, we don’t require structures to be built in resilient ways (including solar or wind facilities for new builds) and the end result is that our communities aren’t resilient.
Sure we pay less in taxes (note: if you’re wealthy), but you need a generator and an interlock kit to have the electric uptime other places have. You’re still paying a tax to live here, it’s just not going to the government to give you a nicer community, it’s going to businesses so their execs can get wealthier.
We don’t have 0 below lines. Look at downtown houston. They have below ground lines. Look at recent subdivisions in places like Fannett, TX, they are below ground there.
Are you talking about transmission lines? I’m not sure of any place that runs those below ground.
I was indeed using hyperbole. Med center also has a lot of ground lines. But the vast majority is unmaintained, extremely aged above ground infrastructure. That might be okay if we didn’t live somewhere that gets hurricanes and other severe events, but we do.
I wonder what semi-autonomous aircraft have the least impact on birds. Fixed-wing (planes) are much more efficient and, not coincidentally, often a lot quieter. For patrolling and looking for sharks/swimmers, seems like they might work as well or better.
Also I wonder if drones offer any demonstrated benefit over lifeguards.
I probably sound like a broken record, but Biden stepping down is the best way forward at this point. Regardless of what you think about his capacities, he’s lost the confidence of too many of the party’s representatives. That’s poison going into an election.
It’s too late. should he have stepped down yes. But he didn’t so now we need to push his corpse over the finish line. If we don’t then it’s a hand off to the other party because of how first past the post works.
But he didn’t so now we need to push his corpse over the finish line. If we don’t then it’s a hand off to the other party because of how first past the post works.
I would argue that it’s not too late. The two-party system, for once, works in our favor. People overwhelmingly vote for parties anymore, not candidates. As long as we have someone with decent name recognition who isn’t falling apart or perceived as falling apart, we are very capable of getting to a better position for the election this November.
Unfortunately, the most likely candidate who meets those criteria is Harris. But c’est la vie.
Harris is very unpopular with a large portion of the democratic base because of her very close ties with law enforcement and resistance to criminal justice reform while Attorney General of California.
Anyone who can’t support Harris because she was a prosecutor wouldn’t be supporting Biden because he wrote the crime bill, something that’s WAY worse. It’s still an improvement.
Unfortunately, the most likely candidate who meets those criteria is Harris. But c’est la vie.
C’est la vie? Are you serious? Have you been in the US this last 20 years?
This country is too racist and too sexist for Harris to win… It’ll never happen, no matter how much money is pumped into her campaign, you can’t change the nature of the country, it’ll never happen.
I say this as a minority myself, this country sucks and it merely tolerates people who aren’t white men. Putting Harris on the Democratic ticket is a huge tactical error, I hate that fact, but it’s true.
If you want Harris to be president, reelect Biden and wait for him to resign due to health.
I love this bizarre narrative that the country who elected Obama and majority voted for Clinton is so racist and sexist that they’d be more supportive of a white man who can’t reliably form coherent sentences. Like yeah, racism and sexism is a thing, but it’s both not worse than public cognitive impairment and you’re deploying the specter of bigotry in order to implement its goals without even putting up a fight.
We did elect Obama, and look at the reaction that caused… The tea party, a completely obstructionist Congress who refused to consider anything the president touched and ultimately the election of Donald Trump.
Obama was elected and half the country freaked the fuck out.
I remember telling people in early 2008 that racists would go apeshit and our entire political landscape would change if he win the primary/got elected, and being treated as if I was somehow racist at the time.
In hindsight, I was wrong.
Yes, what I predicted, and what you said did happen. But we’re wrong because Obama ran as a progressive, and promptly switched into being a milquetoast centrist democrat. What’s more, is that his supporters didn’t extend their support to other liberal causes.
The tea party would have died on the vine if the Democratic Party let liberals feel empowered, rather than like pawns. And if his die-hard supporters had showed up in 2010, state legislatures wouldn’t have been able to gerrymander away/suppress turnout as much as they did - rendering his next 6 years fraught and an uphill battle.
There are more liberal than conservative people in the U.S., but the Democratic Party does not engage with them, instead chasing the middle, and hoping the liberals hold their noses and cast their vote.
Yes, and those people are a minority and already fully on board with the racist that built his political identity around being racist. Obama not only won, but won reelection. These are issues, but they’re already baked into the two parties, not a prescription for automatic failure.
Yes, and those people are a minority and already fully on board with the racist
They’re a vocal minority that is managing to shift the opinions of the rest of the right, it’s a problem. If you think racism is not currently on the rise in the US, you should take another look.
They’re already with Trump. There’s not some deep additional reservoir of hardcore racists just waiting to have a reason to join the explicitly racist party. And none of this is a question of “should we run Kamala or white male Kamala”, it’s Kamala or Joe, and Joe’s problem isn’t speculative and he’s going to suffer from exactly the same racism because everyone expects him to die.
And Obama was then reelected years after the Tea Party formed and fizzled out. It’s like you’re arguing that only white men should run for president because women and minorities will wind up causing too many problems for the country.
It’s like you’re arguing that only white men should run for president because women and minorities will wind up causing too many problems for the country.
Whoa! I said nothing like that! I think you know that’s a complete misrepresentation. I’m saying that there are too many people in this country (on both sides of the aisle) with racist and sexist leanings (that they may not even be aware of) for it to be likely for Harris to win right now. I think Harris would do a fine job if she did win.
I just don’t trust the voters of this country to see past their biases. I think if Harris had been the candidate from the start we would have had time to combat those concerns and make her a viable candidate, but coming in late like this she’ll seem like a replacement, like the Democrats’ plan B. And that’s a harder position to win a campaign from, a position I don’t think is viable given America’s many biases.
Yes, Clinton won the popular vote, but she certainly didn’t win the election. And that was largely because of the systemic bias, which favors the more racist, sexist elements of this country.
And Obama had to be the perfect candidate to win. A family man, no skeletons in his closet whatsoever, with a charisma the political world hasn’t seen since JFK. And his election brought those awful elements of our society to the fore, and touched off a fascist revolution that is still going on today, which the leader of won the presidency on the back of and is in danger of winning it again.
This country does have a lot of racism and sexism. More than most would like to admit, including you, it seems. And Kamala Harris isn’t a strong enough candidate to overcome that, especially when you combine it with the other factors of having to unite a fractured party, coming into the race late, and being chosen at the convention rather than through the primary process.
Obama won reelection, and Clinton was a bad candidate that lost on the margins in the EC. This isn’t a prescription for failure meaning we all need to be racist and sexist now. The people for whom racism and sexism is a guiding light are already baked into the electoral system. They have their party, and they have their king, and apart from this contest against Biden, they’ve been losing.
And all of this is in comparison to a candidate who is visibly mentally declining. We’re not comparing Kamala to white male Kamala in talking about this transition.
You’re unfortunately right. It doesn’t help that she can be combative from her years as an attorney. Working retail with many black people for years taught me that the ignorant white world has a much lower tolerance for strong black women. I was frequently called over for conflict resolution due to a “hostile employee” complaint, to find my team member was completely calm and collected, but the old white person perceived a black woman speaking with conviction as overly aggressive.
You will never coalesce popular support around someone in the time between the convention and the election if they haven’t already been campaigning for months. And tno one has.
So basically the same thing happened to trump i 2016 but he still won, kinda funny how the news and even the people he worked with, the politicians, don’t know shit about politic.
Here’s my favorite quote: "The Republicans, you’ve got to remember, have been running for a long time. The reason they don’t win is because they don’t stick together.”
Yeah, and he lost the popular vote. I don’t think our demographics are so friendly as to let as lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, like Republicans do.
Seems like a little more than just Alec Baldwin heading an extraordinarily sloppy production. HG-R still did not do her job but if they both went to prison you’d feel like justice was done knowing evidence like this was withheld?
I don’t particularly think any kind of ballistics on the bullets is really going to change the out come of the trial. They could have easily omitted them and still had a rock-solid case.
Like, Baldwin is not disputing that he was holding the gun that killed her. Just that it was his fault.
HGR, that other producer. Baldwin. They can all share full guilt for what happened.
Hollywood movie industry doesn’t write law. New Mexico law says Baldwin was being negligent, and that negligence resulted in some one’s death. This is a crime.
If a lawyer tells you it’s okay to go 80 in a 55, and a cop writes you a speeding ticket, you don’t get to pull “advice of counsel” as a defense to get out of it, because the lawyers advice is obviously unreasonable and incorrect.
Alternatively, if you call a mechanic and describe some brake symptoms and he says it’s safe to get it into the shop without a tow, and you get into an accident because the brakes failed… the mechanic is not liable for that, ultimate liability rests with the driver. The mechanic didn’t know the full circumstances.
Similarly, even an idiot could be reasonably expected to recognize that it’s unsafe to point a functional firearm at people and pull the trigger (or otherwise waive it around like a toy.) therefore, an expert’s advice to the contrary is quite unreasonable and on its own face should have been ignored; and HGR was unaware of his actions with the weapon as she was not immediately present.
Therefore, Baldwin failed a duty of care to behave in a safe manner (aka he was negligent,) and some one died (homicide- probably invol. Manslaughter or whatever the specific term is.) It also goes out the window when you recognize that HGR was in fact not an expert. She was a laughably inexperienced neppo-baby and we all know it. (She was also hired because she was inexperienced and allowed things that she should not have. This benefitted the production by reducing slow downs in filming.
Now to the second point:
Baldwin did not receive the weapon from HGR- he received from an assistant producer (who plead guilty, too.)
The law describes behaviors/actions/stuffs that are or are not crime. Murder is defined as the unjustified killing of a human. (Usually.) there are then variations of “murder”.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
….
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
So any behavior that fits that is, by definition invol. Manslaughter.
I’ve added emphasis to the relevant bit here. Let’s break it down.
Baldwin was preparing to shoot a sequence of a western movie. This is a lawful act.
he was handling a firearm. This might produce death.
he was handling the weapon in an unsafe manner; that is, without due caution.
these things resulted in Alina dying.
This also gets into presumption of innocence. It’s a procedural presumption. It’s a very important procedural stipulation meant to protect the civil liberties of the accused. (It’s violated on a regular basis but that’s a different matter.)
Regardless, the crime happened. If you’re guilty of a thing, you are guilty regardless of if you are caught, or discovered, or accused or even indicted or they blame some one else. None of that changed that you did that thing and are guilty. The trial doesn’t magically guilty- you are found to be guilty.
Like how fossils are found. They’re always there. Just because we don’t know that they’re there, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The fact of their existence is immaterial to any one’s knowledge of that fact.
Similarly, the fact of one’s guilt is immaterial to anyone’s knowledge of that fact. (For example, a drunk driver so heavily inebriated they don’t realize they ran some one over. Or hunters plinking in the woods unaware that kids were playing behind their targets.)
The court procedural rules say he is presumed to be guilty until the fact of his guilt is found in a court of law.
He committed actions which are defined as being involuntary manslaughter.
He doesn’t get to say he was behaving with due care because there was an inexperienced, inept armorer, somewhere around there. That’s not how it works.
From an occupational accident perspective, it doesn’t matter that there was a “safety coordinator”, it’s still unreasonable behavior that lead to Alina dying, as an employee (and employer, but that’s a different set of charged ) he has an obligation and duty of care to maintain a safe working environment- and to report unsafe environments.
True. But that’s not how he was being charged. He was being charged because he was the actor firing the weapon. There is a difference.
If he was not a producer would we be talking about him being charged at all in this case?
If the issue is him being a producer, why aren’t all the other producers being charged for the same crime? What was different about Baldwin? If the issue isn’t that he fired the weapon.
I rarely comment, but your statement is factually incorrect on a few points. I assume when you stated “Alina”, you are referring to Halyna Hutchins. There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
If there is a credible source that the victim in this tragedy filed a safety complaint before her death, I will happily amend or delete my comment. I’m not trying to start a flame war or anything and this is certainly no attack on you personally, it just bothers me when I see misinformation.
I rarely comment, but your statement is factually incorrect on a few points. I assume when you stated “Alina”, you are referring to Halyna Hutchins
I apologize for a friggin typo. That’s not a factually incorrect statement, however.
There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
This makes her a whistleblower and provides (possible) motivation. Do you have any idea how much it costs for a single day of shooting? Proper safety protocols would have slowed down production, increasing costs.
I’ve been unable to find information on who actually filed those complaints, and assume the union wouldn’t tell management who did- and I would be shocked if they did (that’d make them rats.)
Something to think about when Baldwin puts on his most sincere act ever and insists it was an accident and not his fault.
Also as a side note, there’s apparently a small technical mistake that HGR was in fact not the armorer (her contract for that apparently expired a few days earlier.)(she was still acting as armorer even if she wasn’t technically designated as such,)
Failing to tell the defense they had the bullets recovered on set is a freaking stupid move. Like it’s incomprehensible how a prosecutor of any amount of experience- or even an intern at the office in their first week- could make such an abysmally stupid mistake.
To put it another way: someone threw the case, intentionally.
I think you overestimate Baldwin's current star power. These days, he's a B-lister, at best. Aside from this trial, he hasn't really been relevant in pop culture for a while now.
He's still rich, for sure. But I doubt he's still rich enough to buy a judge, if he ever was to begin with.
You need enough money to have a team of lawyers grind through the evidence and find what’s been hidden.
Compare this to having a public defender with limited resources. They basically have to trust the DA’s office.
What’s depressing about this is the DA’s office is so used to getting away with this shady shit, that they can’t do their job properly even when they know they’re under a higher level of scrutiny. Think of all the average Joes that have been fucked over by these guys.
Rich persons justice isn’t really about bribing your way out of things. It’s about having enough resources that you can force the system to behave, for you, in the way that it’s meant to.
This is instead of the usual process that just steamrolls over every poor bastard that ends up in court.
The Baldwins are extremely well connected. One of them is married to Justin Bieber. Who just got 10mil for performing at that 350mil Indian wedding. Alec is also a movie producer, which you cannot do if you have no money.
What if that judge’s daughter is a huge Justin Bieber fan? Or wants front row tickets to a fashion show or backstage Coachella passes? Or attend a movie premiere? That’s all within his scope
Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.
I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.
It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.
Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.
It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.
Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.
Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.
Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.
To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.
Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.
As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,
Baldwin had a duty of care to know. He didn’t know. And now someone is dead. Had he taken the 30 seconds to clear the firearm, “oh there’s something chambered. armorer identify these!” (Or taking one out and checking himself, cuz it’s that kind of production, I guess….”hey this doesn’t rattle!”)… Alina would probably be alive today.
While HGR does have blame as the armorer who allowed abysmally bad safety practices; she’s not alone in that blame.
And the other guy who pled out. Him too.
The only way they could get out of it is if the prop cartridges were so realistic that you can’t tell them apart. At all. And for obvious reasons no prop company will ever produce such cartridges.
According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term “cold gun”, meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls’s lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]
It’s Wikipedia, but it matches what I’ve read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what’s described doesn’t match your assertion.
Go read the freaking law. It’s pretty self explanatory. Show me where it says people are allowed to act unsafely because somebody else told them it was okay. I’ll wait.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
(snip. this section is about voluntary manslaughter)
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
Seriously Already linked it in the comments. Or you could just look up ‘new mexico manslaughter’ on google.
The movie industry has a Standard of Operations where an expert ensures safety and provides better protection than individual actors can. We cannot expect them to police the props and I sure as hell don’t want them deciding if it’s a blank or not.
He followed that process.
Now the legal system has spoken and the prosecution made such a mess of it a proper trial cannot happen.
You can state your convictions all you want. Good faith would include “allegedly.” You’re full of certanties and cast judgement like it’s your job. At him. At me. At others.
Have your certainty. Maybe that will keep you warm at night.
My link was posted on this thread and speaks directly to the events of that day. It’s easier to find than your implication that if I want a citation I need to read all the next under the OP.
I’m on vacation with family. I’m not spending hours on you. You’re just not worth it. You can feel free to read that last sentence a couple times, but I want to tell you the tone: these are events in New Mexico. We weren’t on set. There are far more important things than if some person on the internet thinks I should spend time finding out what I already know. People on the internet aren’t worth the judgement and vitriol you spew.
When you’ve re-proceszed my link, because it addresses your post (I’d think) and shows they my original metaphor works… Then we can consider contuing.
Or you can consider me not worth your time. And I’d support that. I’m just some dude on the internet. And it’s just some actor who will never get a real trial. And it’s not worth all the feels you’re putting out there…
You’d have gotten further with me by talking about how poorly he handled the situation that lead to this. Instead you’re back to checking the brakeline every time you drive.
First off there was no designated armorer (HGR’s contract expired.)
Secondly, according to that process, the armorer is supposed to be checking it in front of him, handing it directly to him, and watching him and the firearm to ensure safety.
That did not happen. We know that didn’t happen because if it did, nobody would be dead.
Further, as the person holding the weapon, it’s his final responsibility to handle it safely. If an expert tells him “this is safe,” and it’s obviously not safe… then it’s on him.
Pointing weapons at people and pulling the trigger; without at least checking its loading is unsafe, and Baldwin did not do that. He didn’t even see someone else that.
When the consequence of not being anal about something is death, you’re expected to be anal. The consequences of not following gun safety is death. And this is why.
See… Now you’re making more sense but you’re wavering between points about when he got gun and the on set practices generally.
No, they aren’t required to see the armorer load it, although that sounds like a best practice. Sounds like standard is the AD gets it from the armorer and keeps direct control until handing it to the actor is also accepted practice and allegedly used as process on set.
A expired contract isn’t ideal and, again, I agree it’s not a good look. Did she lose her skill when the contract elapsed? Is this pedantey or how does this matter? After much searching I keep seeing that she was the head armorer. None of the articles I’ve reviewed bring that up, so it reads as a possibly interesting fact that all researched people decided wasn’t germane.
I agree that a person fully trained in gun handling would go beyond the film industry’s general practices. I’d be exceptionally cautious and I’ve only fired guns a handful of times in my life. No sweeps, no bullets and act as if it’s always loaded. Never point at something you aren’t willing to obliterate.
I hope you’re checking your brake lines. Cars kill people. They see daily use and people have assimilated that risk and tend to think so little of it we see brake checkers and other offensive acts. We’d do well to always check our brake lines. The consequences of brake failures are very often severe, if not death.
I am NOT saying he’s blameless. I’m not saying HGR is. I’m saying there’s a standard to when a responsible person says that someone did x. It’s typically criminal conviction. You have no such concerns. As such, it is opinion by accepted convention.
Separately, what you described is not supported by my various searches where I attempt to find the very thing you assert. In that light, I’d say I’m softening my original SOP assertion. They have practices, but it sounds like the practices vary by armorer, state or set. They’ve been effective for quite a while, but very obviously multiple mistakes were made on the set of Rust.
To continue my analogy: We should all check our brake lines. The consequences of failed brake lines is death (I know this isn’t true, but same applies to guns - it depends on situation) . And this is why if you turn someone into pink mist, it’s your fault. You need to double check your mechanic’s actions after every service.
Or do you just kinda trust them with your life, the lives of loved ones and the lives of others in/near the roads you drive? I do.
Cars kill people. Remember, that’s where you planted a flag. They are nothing alike. Right?
And now you want to litigate, with non-lawyer me, a trial that will never happen and would need a new round of investigation in light of the new revelation. That investigation , possibly moot, so where are two nerds on the internet going to find the resources for that?
Again, have your moral certainty. I just wouldn’t act like it’s proven. It sounds like a dick move on a good day.
Not quite, you’re ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.
If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone… Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?
You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.
Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.
Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.
The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.
That’s a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?
Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I’m not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.
This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.
It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.
The problem with this statement is that prop/inert cartridges are labeled and identified as such in ways that are usually fairly obvious.
Like “loading” the cartridge with a steel ball bearing, and a used/fired primer cap (which has a divot from the hammer.) Thorough inspection would have identified them as inert.
While it’s remotely possible they were so well crafted as to be virtually identical, that kind of thing would end the props company. They are very careful to always make the marking conspicuous- as long as you know to look for it. (Another common option is a somewhat large hole in the side of the casing.)
And the indicators should have been gone over in a safety briefing so everyone knows. (And is trained in what to do on seeing a live round. “Hey! Live round! armorer!”)
In any case Baldwin had a duty of care to handle the firearm safely. Part of that includes knowing its state. He did not clear the fire arm, and did not know its state. It becomes self evident they were not inert cartridges but rather live rounds given that we’re talking about Alina being shot.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.