FuglyDuck

FuglyDuck, 8 hours ago (edited 4 hours ago)

A little curious as to how you make 2-3 pounds of sword-shaped steel “safe”.

It doesn’t matter if it’s not sharp. It’s still going to brain a person if they get hit the wrong way, and any one older than a 10 yo would recognize that the moment they picked it up.

So if your hypothetical weapons master were to say “no no really, it’s safe, just hit them upside the head,” as a rational adult you kinda have to stop and think about it.

And again? My suspicious nature says they hired her specifically because she was inexperienced, and wouldn’t know to push for those more strident safety protocols. Which cost time and energy and get in the way of “artistic” shit.

Knowing that, and knowing that there were prior incidents of accidental discharges… you’d have to be an idiot for taking these people’s word that it was safe.

(Wasn’t Hutchins organizing the Union to strike because of those safety problems? I also dont think it was an accident, but I don’t have more than my gut feeling on that.)

FuglyDuck, 13 hours ago

Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death, I’m not seeing what purpose it would serve to have him stand trial. He must feel absolutely terrible as it is, and my understanding is that it was not at all his fault.

Oh yes. He’s reaaalllly sorry. so we should give him special consideration. You know. he’s rich, famous and white. this totally entitles him to special consideration…

nah. Fuck that.
leniency is to be determined during sentencing; not before the trial ever takes place.

FuglyDuck, 13 hours ago (edited 9 hours ago)

he did. You hold any weapon in your hand, and use it in an irresponsible manner, you’re responsible.

yes, even if an ‘expert’ tells you it’s safe. he had enough wherewithal to know it’s a weapon inherently designed to kill. and to be perfectly blunt, it wasn’t even necessary that he carry a real firearm with dummies. they weren’t filming. they were setting up shots, checking angles and such…

and he should have had enough professional experience to know, you don’t pass guns around like that on a set. it’s controlled by a single person whose responsible for it, and it’s either locked up, being held by that one person, or being actively used by the actor.

FuglyDuck, 13 hours ago (edited 9 hours ago)

The person who handed him the gun entire job was to make sure it was safe to use that gun as prop on a movie, to simulate danger, but in an utterly safe manner.

he was handed the gun by an assistant producer. the armorer- Gutierrez-Reed- handed Hall the firearm, who turned around and handed it to baldwin.

So no. that’s not true at all.

FuglyDuck, 9 hours ago

Gutierrez-Reed was likely specifically hired because she was inexperienced. Movie sets are chaotic, the work is fast paced and rushed, and safety protocols slow things down. As they say: Time is money. She may not have specifically been hired by Baldwin, but she wasn’t really in a position to push back against it. (she should have, and she’s every bit as negligent.)

However, Baldwin has had a long, long acting career, much of it handling firearms. He- as a professional actor- should have known what the protocols should have been, and should have said something like “hey, you’re not the armorer”, when Dave Halls handed him the pistol.

What a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding is that more than one person can be responsible. Gutierrez-Reed, Halls, Baldwin were all negligent in a variety of ways.

The simplest of ways to have prevented this was to not be using a functional fire arm. There are movie props that are near-perfect replicas (and, on film, would look perfect.) without being capable of firing. This is particularly true considering they weren’t doing live shoots. they were doing blocking, which is a process by where they set up the cameras and check for issues. One of the issues they should have been looking for is, “is this a safe direction to point the gun”.

if you need any more reason to realize you can’t ever assume a firearm, or any other weapon, is “100% safe”, I suggest you give Anna Hutchin’s family a call.

as for his “headspace” do you really think it’s normal for actors to be totally, completely and wholly unaware of what they’re doing? that in fight scenes they’re actually fighting, rather than following a script in perfect choreography? that they’re allowed to not pay attention to safety? No. Every one is always most concerned with safety. Or they should be. yes. that includes the actors.

FuglyDuck, 9 hours ago

Method acting has its draw backs and one of them is safety.

“That’s just how actors are” is a shitty, pathetic excuse for putting other people at risk.

Particularly when that risk is from a weapon fundamentally designed to kill people, and it certainly doesn’t absolve anyone of criminal liability.

FuglyDuck, 14 hours ago

Nope, he’s trying to be Moses.

FuglyDuck, 8 hours ago

It’s not the burgers fault. That’s just a really small car.

FuglyDuck, 12 hours ago

Rule one of court- don’t piss off the judge.

Dumbass.

FuglyDuck, 16 hours ago

I mean, if you’re not going to divest because it’s the right thing to do….

…… divest because it’s rapidly becoming a shitty investment.