I was banned from r/politics for saying I hoped Rupert Murdoch got a nasty staph infection in an article about him being in the hospital. What the fuck?
Unfortunately, so will that of Trump, in spite of how he’s been treating it for almost 80 years.
He really should have keeled over decades ago. Because of his unhealthy lifestyle choices and because that would have been much better for the entire world.
He was really looking like he finally had one foot in the grave and then some military hospital jumps in and saves one of the world’s worst people with some sort of wonder treatment not available to regular people!
As if there wasn’t already enough reasons to detest the US military!
Thanks for succinctly and precisely explaining why I really dislike her.
I’ve tried to explain why to my wife, but I feel like I’ve always missed the mark and she has implied it’s probably a mixture of misogyny and/or racism. Which still may be true I don’t really know. However, next time it comes up, I’ll point out that I dislike her for the same reason I dislike rogan.
You really didn’t need to admit that you probably don’t like her because she’s a black woman. If you don’t say this to your wife when adding the joe rogan bit, then you’re being dishonest.
Edit: Look. OP said that. It’s right there in the comment. I’m not making it up. Oprah sucks? Sure. She’s like Joe Rogan? Okay. My wife said my comments are sexist and racist, and it may be true… dude. That’s all I pointed out. Sorry, but that’s not okay. I’m fine with the downvotes, though I’ll make sure to better portray my point next time.
You really didn’t need to admit that you probably don’t like her because she’s a black woman.
What do you mean? I don’t believe this to be the case, I believe I don’t like her for the same reason I don’t like rogan, and the last I checked he isn’t a black woman. Recognizing that I may have internalized biases that fall in a blind spot of mine is not an admission of anything nor is it something anyone should be shitting on.
But you did say “my wife thinks my comments have a mix of racism and misogyny, which is still maybe true.” How does that paint a good picture in any way?
But I stand corrected and I admit I had a knee-jerk reaction.
I am being honest with myself: I may have internalized biases that I’m not consciously aware of. There’s nothing to reconcile here as these two statements are not mutually exclusive or even contradictory in any way.
I understand what you mean now, and I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying, friend, and sorry for being so quick at judging you.
You’re right. Even myself may have some internalized misogyny due to the culture of the country I grew up in. It’s a constant battle between what has been shoved into me as a kid vs. what I’ve later learned or discovered.
I am so looking forward to a Lemmy user who is black and a woman to tell you that Oprah sucks. Whoever you are, please do us that favor. And if there aren’t any black women on Lemmy… well, there should be anyway.
Which is fine. I probably gave it more emphasis on the side point that the main point. But OP did admit that his wife pointed out that his comments have a misogyny and racist tone, and OP said that maybe that’s true. That’s it.
“Oprah sucks because she’s like Joe Rogan”
Ok.
“And if someone thinks it’s racist and sexist, it maaaaaay be true.”
wife pointed out that his comments have a misogyny and racist tone
First you’re putting words in my mouth. She never said anything about my tone making her believe that, but that my dislike might be misogynistic and/or racist. I believe this is because I wasn’t explaining my position well, so without a good reason, it opened the door for that possibility.
Second,
“And if someone thinks it’s racist and sexist, it maaaaaay be true.”
Not ok.
It’s a good thing that I’m open to the possibility that I’m biased. This is not something to shit on. I don’t get why this is such a bad thing. Bring open to being wrong is how you grow.
Your original comment was not clear enough, at least not to me, but now that I have the full context, I see that you’re not some racist/sexist asshole. But of course, it was wrong of me to accuse you of that in the first place without asking you to clarify. I’ll do that from now on.
Unfortunately, sexism and racism is so rampant from men (conservatism is ingrained into many men as a form of masculinity) that well-intentioned men who criticize toxic and exploitative capitalist women (esp women of color) are immediately lumped into that group of degenerate men. The reality of it is, Oprah is a toxic influence on women and gets off on creating FOMO among her impressionable fanbase. She created Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, the former of which has had disastrous effects on women’s health esp nutrition because he’s a quack and pretends to be an expert on all things medical, and the latter of which oversimplifies most psych concepts to the point where laypeople think they’re qualified psychologists now.
It’s worse than that. Vaccines are not 100% effective and some people have legitimate reasons why they can’t get a vaccine…and those kids are getting fucked by other parents’ poor decisions.
Influencer or not, however, those who stream videos of themselves being fired from their job risk facing repercussions, such as violating severance agreements, the BBC reported. Job termination videos can also backfire on those who post them if viewers find the post vindictive or unprofessional.
“Generally speaking, such moves are a double-edged sword. The literature on whistleblowers, a more extreme form of publicly sharing bad practices, shows that people get stigmatized for doing so,” Ben Voyer, an ESCP Business School professor who founded the Gen Z Observatory, told Business Insider in a recent article.
“Generally, society doesn’t reward people that engage in behaviors that some may see as a betrayal. Pushing such content online is a way to get moral support on the one hand, and a little revenge on the other hand,” he said.
If you’re confused about who to blame, remember that one side debates on whether they should purchase a mega yacht, or have a more reasonable “support” yacht trailing the main one for their helicopter/staff.
Company loyalty when you are getting fired is something really weird. What would it even be based on? I understand parting on good terms etc, but loyalty? There wouldn’t be any space for loyalty in such a situation even in feudal contracts.
I was watching Wendover’s billionaire social calendar last night. They have ships whose sole purpose is to transport their yachts from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean so they don’t have to deal with actual transoceanic sailing. Like they literally load the yacht onto the ship like a big cargo rig.
I’m still partial to dragging them into the street since it worked quite well a century but this is a good step towards lighting that powder keg.
What exactly worked quite well? The USSR and other “socialist” countries worked well only for those outside their territory, acting as some kind of counterbalance, I’ll admit that.
What was inside was an even more extreme form of what you call “corporate overlords”, because there wasn’t even an illusion of choice, your path changing employers would be similar to transferring between places in a military, the new employer would see every shitty thing the previous one decided to write about you, and they wouldn’t care what you have to say about that generally.
You seem to have taken this comment in some random direction that is pro-capitalism
I am not going to take the time to go through all the scenarios as to how violent uprisings resulted in the standards or work we have today simply because you can’t understand a common idiom.
How would it even occur to you to compare climate science to child molestation? Unless you just think that everything you don’t like is child molestation.
Hey now, let’s be fair! He was also visiting Thailand a lot, and we all know the singular, only valuable thing in the entire country is young twink boys you can confuse for a girl.
Russia stopped being a communist state with the fall of the USSR (and Gorbachev loosened that up even before the fall). It’s more of a right wing kleptocracy today.
I mean Russia stopped being communist within about 5 minutes of beccoming communist, which is generally the problem with communism. Its a system that only works in a theoretical world where everyones nice and the first strongman to show up doesn’t sieze control and turn it into an autocracy.
Yeah, even without the strongmen or cults of personality that can completely upend things, communism is a system that just breeds resentment, I think even more so than capitalism plus social safety nets (as inadequate as they might be).
Conservatives really do build up this whole terrible world in which they are the only heroes and anything they do is ok. They don’t think he is a child molester, they said it for shock value alone and are now giving us the shocked Pikachu face.
An agenda is a plan or program, often ideological in nature. If your ideology is that children should be taught the truth, then acting in accordance with that ideology is following your agenda. And if you act to teach children the truth in defiance of the prevailing agenda to teach them falsehoods, then that is inherently activism following said agenda.
The concept of an agenda is not inherently good or bad. It is simply following what you believe in through pre-planned actions. Buckling your seat belt is part of an agenda. You take action in line with the ideology that a seat belt will prevent you from flying through the windshield in the case of an accident, because you believe that becoming a lump of meat on the asphalt is worse than whatever injuries you could get from wearing the seat belt. Other people may have opposing views (maybe they want to be crushed into lumps of meat, idk), and not wearing a seat belt is part of their ideology.
The belief that somebody having an agenda is inherently a bad thing is yet another part of the anti-intellectual agenda to bully people into obedience by taking words with important meanings and rendering them into useless fear mongering that can be used as a lash against anybody who dares to speak out. The same thing that happened to “woke” and “politically correct.”
It was also done explicitly within the bounds of the law.
As school policy demanded, she had gained permission to teach “Between the World and Me” from Chapin High School’s new principal, a Black man. She had given every student’s parents a chance to review her curriculum. She had offered to opt out any child whose family disliked Coates’s book. And she had assigned a conservative voice pushing back on Coates.
School policy isn’t “law” and can be threatened and changed given a shift in who holds power over the school system. Just because she currently has “protection” doesn’t mean she isn’t taking a risk with her actions. Policy and law also does nothing to protect her against an individual or group who may decide those regulations don’t go far enough and take “justice” into their own hands.
What do you think making this distinction achieves? Cause it sure as shit doesn’t help spotlight courageous action taken in the face of adversity. What we don’t need is people dismissing the problems and dangers people like this face, trying to ignore them in the name of some perverse “neutrality”. That isn’t helping.
When someone else is actively trying to hide or obscure it? It absolutely is activism. You insisting this shouldn’t be noteworthy only serves to dismiss the risk to their financial and/physical well-being that people like this willingly take on.
In short, you’re not in anyway benefiting the truth, and are in fact diminishing the efforts being made to preserve it.
If you try to get any supervisory position in the federal government, they do a thorough background check, including checking on your debts. It’s important to know whether someone at any level of management is susceptible to pressure or bribery. This goes for a LOT of non-management federal positions, too.
But the president? No, we’ll just trust him. What’s a political candidate going to do, get up on a stage and lie?? Don’t be ridiculous.
Articles like this are so disingenuous. UK news has been reporting things like this for several years now, always trying to make it sound like it’s us mean old continental Europeans who are forcing our evil rules on the poor blameless Britons. As opposed to being the exact thing they themselves voted for. Hello and fuck you from sunny Portugal, dear Brexit voters!
As a British person who spent several years living and working in EU countries before brexit and is now unable to - I don’t think I’ll ever stop being furious at the ignorant bigoted fucks who voted away the wonderful freedom of movement we shared with our neighbours. Useless slack-jawed gibbering wankers.
LOL I actually had someone do that to me on Reddit. Saw some random post of mine they didn’t like and permanently banned me from a sub I never once heard of.
Spain did this first and most certainly idiots living in Spain voted against their own needs because they really didn’t think that there would be consequences.
This from the start has seemed to me like a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by taking down a famous person.
If you’re doing a scene where you throw acid on somebody is the person throwing the acid supposed to check to make sure it’s not actually acid before they throw it?
Should they check to make sure the knife they’re about to stab someone with is actually a prop?
If you get to the person who’s been told to “do this action convincingly” and you want them to double check all the safety work you’re doing it wrong. Their job isn’t making sure they’ve been given safe tools, it’s using safe tools to make someone that’s fake but convincing.
Everyone in the armoring company should be charged with murder … but Alec Baldwin did not put live rounds into a gun. He went into work, did his job, and because other people screwed up someone got shot. Maybe the industry itself needs to change but that shouldn’t be Alec Baldwin’s problem. That’s not justice.
Even as an actor, if you are handed a replica of a deadly weapon you have a responsibility to make sure it is functioning properly and safe. And every actor should know that those firearms they get handed are most often real and can fire real ammunition. In such an environment, (particularly if you are also a producer - aka management), YOU are the final safety step before the director yells Action!
The “I didn’t know it was loaded” is never a legal excuse for anyone at any time.
Proper procedure is for the prop master and armorer to be responsible for making sure the weapon is safe. They will then hand it off to whoever, and will loudly announce "cold gun".
The gun can be handed to an assistant or the actor, if it is passed to an assistant first, when they hand it over to the actor they, too, must announce "cold gun".
This lets everyone on set know that the gun has been verified safe by the armorer.
Baldwin was handed a gun, and the person handing it over loudly announced "cold gun". He was then expected to treat it like it was not loaded, because he was loudly told.
The reason why you hire an armorer in the first place is because you don't want your actors to think they know how to handle weapons. You want positive control of every weapon on set.
That broke down on the Rust set.
The story of how that broke down on the Rust set is actually quite interesting. It was a combination of nepotism (the armorer was the daughter of a famous armorer, and got the job through her dad's connections) and the complete failure on the part of a prop company.
See, the live rounds were reloads, loaded into the exact same casings as the dummy rounds normally used. The reason the reloads were made was actually valid. A different armorer on a different film shoot made them to let the actors of that film get an idea of how the guns they were using would actually kick.
At the end of that film, the live rounds got co-mingled with the returned dummy rounds, and then those co-mingled rounds were rented out to the Rust production.
The armorer for Rust should have caught these rounds. They were not completely identical to the dummy rounds. But this was her second film, and she had never actually worked with live ammo.
When questioned by police after the shooting, she didn't even know the brand name on the dummy rounds.
Anyway, she had prepped the gun for filming, and then the assistant director took it from her cart and handed it to Baldwin, announcing "cold gun". The assistant director did not check the gun either, he just grabbed it and handed it off.
As a note, there were not supposed to be any live rounds, or even any blanks on set. Just dummy rounds.
The other failure here was actually sort of on the victims. Industry standards for filming scenes like that is to use a monitor, and not have anyone standing in the potential path of a bullet, even if there are no bullets. The cinematographer and director were both standing behind the camera. Mostly because setting up a monitor takes time, and they were under a bit of a crunch to get the scene filmed.
In the US, “I didn’t know it was loaded” is not a legal excuse. Try it in court yourself and see how far it gets you.
The VERY first rule about firearms is that 'All guns are treated as if loaded at all times". And you NEVER trust anyone when they tell you it’s unloaded. You check yourself to be sure. This includes a prop gun handed to you by a prop person who announces “cold gun!” It takes mere seconds to check it yourself. No excuses…
Your last paragraph shows even more negligence on the part of Baldwin. He broke another cardinal rule of gun safety by pointing an assumed unloaded gun at something he wasn’t intending to destroy or kill. And coupled with supposed rush to film, added to the complete breakdown of basic common sense firearms safety rules.
There was negligence all around that ended at Baldwin. And no one else gets away with that much negligence, (remember he was also a producer - The Boss), in a fatal “accident” and doesn’t get tried in court. Because Baldwin is famous and rich should not prevent his day in court.
You're confusing the firing range for the movie set.
There are different rules, and in fact, there have been court cases saying that responsibility for the weapon being safe or not is completely on the armorer.
Baldwin was told "cold gun". That's how movie sets communicate a safe weapon. Full stop.
The great example is if an actor is supposed to throw acid on someone for a scene, do you expect the actor to check that it's actually water? Or do you expect the person who is paid to check it to make sure?
Baldwin followed industry procedure of accepting a weapon that was declared cold. It was handed to him by the Assistant Director, the person normally tasked with ensuring safety on set.
Again “I didn’t know it was loaded” is not an acceptable excuse in a court of law when someone dies. And as a producer, Baldwin was also a boss of the movie. He also shares a responsibility to make sure competent people are hired to do dangerous jobs. He also broke your industry protocol when he pointed that gun directly at other people when he pulled the trigger during a break in filming. He very much appears to culpable for a good amount of the negligence that got someone killed.
He needs to be charged and go through the legal process like anyone else would be, (hence the involuntary homicide charge). He should get no pass because he’s a rich and famous actor. If the court says it wasn’t or was his fault, then fine. The evidence was heard and the court rendered a legal decision and it’s done.
It was loaded with dummy rounds, and one real round.
Can you tell the difference with a glance? No? And you expect actors to be able to tell?
He wasn't just fucking around with the gun, either, he was working with the director and cinematographer for a camera test.
The three of them were walking through the motions that would be used for the actual scene, complete with costumes and props. They were trying to get the positioning and lighting right.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand for you.
And again, he doesn't need to go through any process, because the precedent here is clear. The armorer is the person with the full responsibility for making sure that the weapons on set are safe. She was the one who loaded the gun.
If this happened in any other state, Baldwin would never have been charged. But it's New Mexico, and Baldwin made fun of Trump. The prosecutor is trying to make a name for himself by going after someone Trump hates.
Yes, I can. And anyone who is going to handling dangerous items needs to be trained in properly handling them safely at all times. Even a complete novice can easily tell the difference just by looking, particularly after being shown how - it ain’t rocket surgery. And it takes mere seconds to make that check. Being an “actor” is NOT a valid excuse. Job safety is a real thing. And it runs from the top down to the end users. And Baldwin failed the safety part on two counts - being a boss on the movie by making or allowing a bad hire for an important safety job and as the end user.
He STILL broke a rule about safety on the set. Don’t point guns directly at people - even movies sets have rules about that according to you.
And yes, the set armorer has primary responsibility for firearms safety on set. But that responsibility doesn’t end there - it continues down the line of EVERYONE who is involved with the scene.
Nor do I understand the fear of Baldwin being charged. If, as you say, there is precedent for his innocence, then his money and fame should guarantee a not guilty verdict.
As far as the “political witch hunt” goes - maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. That’s another topic IMO. Perhaps those other states that wouldn’t press charges against a famous actor just value the money that a movie production brings in more than the life of any person. The entertainment industry as a whole gets by with a lot of shady shit that simply would not fly in any other industry. And all because of the money it brings in. California is probably the worst transgressor of this. There is billions of dollars riding on looking the other way in Hollywood. And that’s NOT a political statement - that’s just a lot of cold hard cash talking.
The live round was loaded into a Starline Brass casing. It had the Starline Brass logo on it.
So a complete novice would look at it and the other Starline Brass logos on the dummy rounds and say, they all match, so they must be dummy rounds, just like all the other dummy rounds on set, because until Baldwin pulled that trigger, he and everyone else on set would have said that there were zero live rounds on set.
Baldwin wasn't trained to tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round. The armorer was (saposed to be) trained to do that.
As for you claiming to be able to tell at a glance, that's also a lie.
The only way to tell is to hold the round up and shake it. A dummy round has a BB in place of the powder. It will make a rattling noise when shaken.
Dummy rounds for movie sets will sometimes even come with a fake primer, because they're props and meant to look real.
The way you tell is by looking for the logo, and shaking them. That's it.
The Set was cold, i.e. there were not supposed to be any live rounds at all. Baldwin was handed his prop, and told it was a cold gun, This would have felt like a formality, only done to keep up the practice. Because there were no live rounds, and the prop was not loaded with blanks. It was loaded with dummies.
Except someone on a previous film had reloaded some dummy rounds with live ammo, and some of those rounds made it back to the prop company and were re-issued to the Rust set.
Well my understanding is that he was an executive producer on the film, which is a leadership position that impacts decisions on hiring staff like armory/weapons consultants.
As an actor he’s probably not responsible but as EP he is .
There are 14 producers on this movie, and bdwin was not the executive producer according to IMDB. None of the other producers who were actually most likely responsible for those decisions are facing charges. It’s simply because Baldwin is an opponent of trump and the prosecutor wants to gain political influence and notoriety.
If you’re doing a scene where you throw acid on somebody is the person throwing the acid supposed to check to make sure it’s not actually acid before they throw it?
Should they check to make sure the knife they’re about to stab someone with is actually a prop?
I think any reasoning person would say the answer is “yes”. Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions.
Think about it like this, remove the context of this being a movie. Your friend hands you a gun and says it’s not loaded, should you check before firing the gun at someone? Your friend hands you a bucket of “not acid” and tells you to throw it on someone. Do you check that it’s really not acid first?
It seems like the suggestion is that the film set is removing these base line responsibilities for our own actions and I don’t think that’s very reasonable.
There’s a specific reason the actors aren’t supposed to check the gun. They cannot do anything that might fuck with a prop and fucking kill someone. They are to only use the weapon they’ve been given as instructed. It’s the job of the master armorer to ensure that all weapons, prop or otherwise, are properly handled.
This is protocol so it’s clear who’s at fault when an incident like this happens because they can just trace chain of custody. If Baldwin had checked the gun or handled it in any way other than instructed, he would be liable.
In a commercial situation like a monster truck exhibition, there is president that the operator can be held liable for foreseeable mechanical failure that injures people.
This wasn’t a kid playing with his mom’s gun. It was a commercial production.
Say you’re an actor, and I hand you a revolver, assuring you that it is not loaded. The scene it’s involved in requires that the hammer is already pulled back (as the character in question is threatening someone at gunpoint).
Should you, the actor, check the chamber? With the hammer back and the cylinder locked, doing this would require a complex maneuver of blocking the hammer with your finger, PULLING THE TRIGGER, and then rotating the cylinder to look at the one that was chambered - then rotating it back, and re-cocking it.
Now imagine, being an actor that is a novice with revolvers, you mix up which spot you’re meant to block with your finger. If, as you suggest, there is any chance at all that there’s a live round in the chamber, aren’t you introducing further risk with this maneuver?
Sounds like a great argument for the actor first receiving a gun where the hammer is not pulled back.
If you get the gun in a state where safety checks cannot be done safely, someone has fucked up.
It’s far better for the actor to know how to cock a hammer, have them go through the safety checks to make sure everything checks out, and then cock the hammer.
Basic gun safety involves handling guns as if they were loaded, so a gun should only be passed to someone without the hammer cocked and also with the safety on, because the gun will be assumed to be loaded by whoever receives it, and handing someone a gun that’s loaded with the hammer cocked is a monumentally stupid idea.
The cinematographer wasn’t an actor. They weren’t rolling. Why would you aim a (ostensibly prop) gun at somebody during a time when the cameras weren’t rolling and they’re not an actor?
Because they were doing a camera test. The gun was drawn and pointed in the direction of the camera, which had people behind it because there weren’t supposed to be live rounds in the gun.
I thought this had been settled that it was the fault of the master amorer who was wholly unqualified to be doing the job.
There is blame from the armorer for sure, but I thought I heard something about real guns being on set to shoot for practice. Don’t take my word on that. If that was the case I do think Alec should take part of the blame, because real weapons have no place on a set. If you want actors to have target practice you take them to a gun range.
The set was not meant to have any live ammo. It was a "cold" set.
The live ammo actually came from the prop supply company, co-mingled with dummy rounds.
The live rounds were re-loads into casings that would normally be dummy rounds, because a previous film used them to train the actors how to react to live fire from their guns.
The live rounds were then turned over to the prop company at the end of that film, and at some point became co-mingled with dummy rounds and then sent out to the Rust film location.
The armorer should have checked every dummy round. But didn't even know how to do so. The re-loads were also slightly different looking than the standard dummy round. (red paint in the logo vs blue for the dummy)
As a note, when questioned by police, the armorer didn't even know the name brand of the dummy rounds.
I’m sorry. I don’t mean to sound rude. That didn’t address my question. I do appreciate all those facts gathered concisely.
My question was more to the tune of: Did Baldwin have any reason to doubt the common assumption
The set was not meant to have any live ammo. It was a “cold” set.
It seems if the first Baldwin ever heard of this rule being broken was at the moment of the accident, then I can’t see how anyone argues that he should be accountable. But I was asking is there any paper trail or something where he was complaining about the armorer or something?
Who was hired by Baldwin, and who complained to Baldwin that he wasn’t letting her do her job. She was unqualified and she still identified the dangerous situation. The biggest problem for her was not resigning in protest.
Yeah her family connection got the producers, including Baldwin, to hire her. That doesn’t mean he had no control. It means he put nepotism over safety.
Baldwin didn't hire anyone. He was one of 10 producers, and was listed as being in charge of funding and script changes.
And yes, family connections did play a big role here, the armorer is the daughter of an armorer who has worked on hundreds of films and TV shows.
And she didn't even know the brand name Starline Brass when questioned by police.
That alone is a major red flag, because Starline Brass is the company that makes all the dummy rounds used on movie sets. They do not make live rounds, and yet, the round that Baldwin shot, was in a Starline Brass casing.
They do not make live rounds, and yet, the round that Baldwin shot, was in a Starline Brass casing.
Yeah, see that? It shouldn’t even be possible. Unless you’re talking about blanks and not dummy rounds. Dummy rounds should be completely unable to fire, or be made to fire without a metal shop involved.
And yeah. Nobody is saying she was qualified. But the fact that she wasn’t replaced after the first 2 negligent discharges on set is a leadership problem. The fact that people walked off the set because they felt unsafe and even the unqualified armorer herself raised concerns about how leadership was using the guns is a leadership problem.
And Baldwin being that leadership, is responsible.
It walks through how some Starline Bass casings were loaded with live ammo, and then ended up on a film set where there should not have been any live ammo at all.
As to the armorer, yes, she was incompetent. That's the whole point here. The hiring director (who was not Baldwin) took a chance on someone who had past safety issues on her only other film, because she was the daughter of a well respected armorer.
She didn't know how to check the bullets to see if they were dummy rounds (completely fake, but realistic looking) or live rounds.
I know the article says blanks, but from everything I've found online, there weren't even blanks on the set of Rust. Just dummy rounds, and a few live rounds that snuck in via a coffee can full of co-mingled rounds from a previous film.
That literally shouldn’t be possible with dummy rounds. They should be a solid block inside so it’s impossible to load with powder. If that’s true then Starline deserves to be sued into oblivion.
I think you’re mistaking blank rounds for dummy rounds. Also a quick look at their website shows they sell brass. Brass for reloading, for live, for blanks, or for creating your own dummies.
Again, there is no way to test a round to see if it’s a dummy short of attempting to fire it. Normal ones are a completely different color or even transparent for this reason. Obviously that doesn’t work in filming.
As to which producer is culpable, Baldwin absolutely could have fired her and was part of violating safety protocols by ignoring complaints he could have addressed directly and immediately.
Starline is not involved here. Every dummy round used in Hollywood has the Starline logo, but that's just because they make the brass that everyone uses to make dummy rounds.
No, the company that fucked up before the armorer fucked up was PDQ Arm & Prop, LLC. They sent out the co-mingled rounds.
A search warrant executed in 2021 found live rounds mixed into their supply of dummy rounds.
There weren’t supposed to be any ammo capable of fire. The round was even a fucking reload of a dummy casing that went untested because the armorer was an incompetent idiot who got someone killed.
But you’re right, and the management who kept ignoring problems is going to be tried here. It just so happens that the producer was also an actor and happened to be the one given a bad prop. Alec was the manager of everyone: he hired people, and decided they were doing a good enough job. After employees complained about safety problems, he ignored them. After people QUIT over those safety problems, he continued ignoring them. Alec the producer is the one on trial, not Alec the actor.
He’s being charged for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Him being an executive is an argument against the “I was told it was unloaded” defense. NM law is clear on criminal negligence with a firearm and there is no movie production exemption. Being handed a gun by someone else who says it is safe does not negate liability under the law. His failures as a producer with prior safety lapses and incidents leading up to the tragedy are important as well, but at the end of the day he pulled the trigger and that’s what he is being charged for.
Make no mistake, even if he loses the popular vote, Trump is going to take getting reelected as some kind of mandate to act as a dictator and do whatever he wants with the full power of the US government and military behind him.
Democracy will not survive another 4 years of this increasingly unhinged husk of a moron.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.