Jump to content

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The interviewer asked if he felt any guilt. He is in a no win situation there. His lawyer has undoubtable told him NOT to admit guilt.  But he comes across as a grade A Jack A** for not taking some responsibility.

He shouldn't be doing interviews. But he's in fact doing damage control. 

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

On the set several things led up to the fatal shooting.

1. Some one loaded a live round in the fire arm.

2. Some one did not do a proper safety check to make sure live ammo was not loaded.

3. Poor safety rules with the fire arm pointed at the victim. Who was the safety officer?

4. The actor (Baldwin) pointing the fire arm at a person and pulling the trigger.

Before Baldwin ever had the gun if any of the first three safety checks were in place tragedy would have been averted.

But those safety checks should in fact also lie with the person holding the firearm unless there's a safety person there with them the whole time, and I mean standing RIGHT there. Baldwin isn't a child learning to shoot for the first time.  He's an experienced actor AND the producer of the production, so this is all on him. 

I'd probably trust these two girls who's parents are probably friends of Oleg's to be safer than the overgrown child actor that Baldwin apparently is. 

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/56593-2/young_marksmen_DSC0678web.jpg


I've been at shoot's at Oleg's studio where we are putting a muzzle dangerously close to Oleg for the photo. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE in the room participated in the, this is unloaded, right? Magazine empty, unloaded, chamber clear, everyone, including Oleg, then we moved into posing people for the photo and Oleg going in front of the gun (front 180°) for the photo. I don't see how a Million dollar production with someone experienced like Baldwin SHOULD be cannot do this, but clearly they did not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ivanhoe

    1036

  • rmgill

    1042

  • Murph

    1602

  • Mr King

    1494

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

51 minutes ago, JWB said:

I wonder if the revolver has a defective mechanism. He claimed the weapon discharged after he took his thumb off the hammer. Not supposed to happen.

It is supposed to happen when the trigger is pulled.
He says he didn't pull the trigger.  He might sincerely believe that to be true, he might also sincerely believe that Hollyweird needs that lie to latch onto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JWB said:

I wonder if the revolver has a defective mechanism. He claimed the weapon discharged after he took his thumb off the hammer. Not supposed to happen.

Could be that it does not have a hammer safety. It' was supposed to be a cowboy film, maybe they had some period replicas with such limited forms of safety. But then there's still the issue of why is he pointing the gun at the other two staffers and why did he not check the firearm himself. He was the person holding the gun. Why did none of the other folks involved on set ALSO have awareness of the gun's status? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an ND once in 1996. I was loading my PT92AF and put a round into the concrete at my feet. When I did so, I safed and cleared the gun and even let the nearby cops that heard it know what happened.

I think it was a slam fire but I very well have been sloppy with my trigger finger and gross muscle control.  The gun was pointed at my feet, everything about it was habit and a deliberate action except where my trigger finger may have been. The bang was a very substantial surprise. I had to stand there and goggle at the gun wondering if I'd really done what I just did. I even filed a report with the nearby police so that if I caused any damage I could take responsibly. Nothing ever came of it. 

My drill afterwards was a bunch of loading/unloading drills at home with snap caps and making DAMN sure my finger wasn't on the trigger. I also slowed down any loading actions and made it a habit that any administrative manipulations are entirely deliberate actions and not on autopilot.  I also made a point to strip down the slide to be certain that there was not anything amiss with the firing pin and it's passage or the springs involved. It was a bit dirty but nothing that positively pointed to a slam fire as far as I could tell. 

Ultimately, where that gun was pointed was on me. The condition of the gun was on me. And where I put that round after it bounced off the pavement 2 feet in front of my size 10s was on me. Everything about what I did up to that 9mm leaving the barrel contributed to the final landing point not being into a person or something else of value. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

...actor is also responsible for checking the status of the firearm...

I can only say how it was done locally (at least was for "Coriolanus" movie...), there was no expectation from actors that they should check guns since there was no reasonable expectations that actors actually knew how to really handle one (vs basic safety they were briefed about). Especially if those are some not so common guns.

 

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rmgill said:

... But then there's still the issue of why is he pointing the gun at the other two staffers...

Fact that he had real gun in his hands in the "shoot the public" scene lies only at the hands of the prop master. Such gun was not even supposed to be on the same set in any circumstances, in such cases only disabled firearms/replicas/airsoft w/o batteries are used. Whatever was the case prop master fucked up badly.

Cases from best to worst for Baldwin:

- Followed agreed script with prop master.

- Did not follow agreed script.

- Did not consult with prop master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately though it falls back on the management of the movie production. That Baldwin specifically was a member of. The choice to hire the young prop master fell on him. The failure to clamp down on people using the production guns for live shooting was on them. They may have been cutting corners to save money. 

Heck again, Oleg to use an example doesn't have prop guns for most of his photo shoots, everything is just very deliberate as he doesn't have the $$$ to make/obtain prop, non firing versions of everything, let alone dummy ammo that's obviously dummy ammo. But he does have experienced gun owning/using friends and there tends to be a high degree of care in how everything is handled especially when there are new shooters present. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Ultimately though it falls back on the management of the movie production. That Baldwin specifically was a member of.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see circumstances where a safety check for a firearm might be difficult to manage - a "pick up" weapon in the middle of a long-ish shot could leave an actor with no time to check it immediately. One would have to organise the shooting sequence to minimise the risk - a cut between the pick up and the need to point the gun anywhere and management of the danger space around the gun before the end of the pick-up scene, or a non-firing prop gun for that bi, whatever. Not something you'd perhaps be thinking of *as an actor* but something that the person responsible for overall control of the firearms should manage. 

Of course, the actor's responsibility is as a minimum to do what they're told by the competent person. At this point, we don't even have that person in place and managing the firearms before the scene - given that the gun was handed over by some random flunky with an inflated job title, who also didn't check the firearm, one has to suspect some "corporate" negligence contribution here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With film shoots having limited time and budget to work with, most can't spend a day or two training the actors in weapons handling.  Not to mention, no one is going to fire a lead actor, especially one who is a producer, because they failed the course

That's why most shoots have strict protocols for weapons.  That this seems to be the first fatality on a Hollywood film or tv shoot since the early nineties seems to indicate the protocols work.

Of course if you don't follow the protocols . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat it like forklift or condor training for the IATSE crew, You get gun training as an endorsement on your SAG card. No gun endorsement, no gun handling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Treat it like forklift or condor training for the IATSE crew, You get gun training as an endorsement on your SAG card. No gun endorsement, no gun handling. 

And as soon as a star like Baldwin doesn't want to take the course, that idea will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, R011 said:

And as soon as a star like Baldwin doesn't want to take the course, that idea will die.

During the Stephanopoulos interview Baldwin said they spent an hour and a half shooting target practice, he glossed over any safety instruction he may have received.  In the context of what had happened just weeks prior, it tells me exactly how much regard Baldwin had for gun safety then and now.  Not much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R011 said:

And as soon as a star like Baldwin doesn't want to take the course, that idea will die.

The good thing is Baldwin was at best a border line A lister years ago. Now a B list star.

If the big name action stars get on board it will happen. I can see with the current climate it happening. And since actors like virtue signaling, they can virtue signal by taking a pledge to only work on sets that are safety certified. 

IF the recent tragedy costs big dollars which is most likely, there will be a financial incentive to tighten up safety standards. If you can't get a production Insured it's not going to get made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or movie shoots can just continue with their current protocols with this case being an example of why they need to be followed religiously.  Three fatalaities in a quarter century  involving some thousands of movie and tv productions mean they actually have a good handle on this.  The civil and possible criminal consequences will certainly encourager les autres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't fix gross negligence at the management level. That's why there's a legal system to deal with it.

2 hours ago, R011 said:

The civil and possible criminal consequences will certainly encourager les autres.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, R011 said:

Or movie shoots can just continue with their current protocols with this case being an example of why they need to be followed religiously.  Three fatalaities in a quarter century  involving some thousands of movie and tv productions mean they actually have a good handle on this.  The civil and possible criminal consequences will certainly encourager les autres.

There is a lackadaisical sense of safety in some movie sets. There will be shots that will be dangerous, those should be approached carefully.

Then there's the criminally incompetent and negligent. There was an incident here in Georgia a few years back where the movie producer or director decided to shoot a scene on a rail road bride. An ACTIVE bridge and stationed folks with handheld radios to warn of the approaching train. The movie production had twice asked CSX if they could do this and CS said "NO." They did it anyway. They moved a metal bedframe onto the bridge and setup for the shot. A crewmember of the production was killed when the train struck the bed and sent fragments of the metal into the crew as they bailed from the track onto the bank of the Altamaha river. 

Interestingly, a Jury decided that CSX was partially responsible. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/18/jury-railroad-to-pay-39m-for-train-death-of-film-worker/103790804/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Failure to follow their own good practice makes the jury decision look reasonable enough. The blame share might have be questionable, though. I wonder whether the movie makers insurance paid out the production company's share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

You can't fix gross negligence at the management level. That's why there's a legal system to deal with it.

I was at a lecture years ago given by a hand surgeon. Our area use to have a large amount of hand injuries in the machine tool industry. In recent years there had been a dramatic drop in hand injuries. Here is why. 

In Ohio most large companies are self insured for workers compensation. So they pay for a workers lost time and medical costs. And disability costs if the injury is sever enough. Smaller firms workers compensation rates go up with injuries so injuries cost them also.

At some point the machine tool industry got very serious about injury prevention. The cost of prevention is relatively low. The cost of an injury is very high.

The big studios will most likely see this as an unacceptable risk and will stress safety. Money is a serious motivator. The problem will be with the smaller productions that are operating on a tight  margin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DB said:

Failure to follow their own good practice makes the jury decision look reasonable enough. The blame share might have be questionable, though. I wonder whether the movie makers insurance paid out the production company's share.

I don't know the facts of the case.

A lawyer will typically include every party conceivable in the suit. Not knowing the facts at first glance it does seem strange the CSX was found to share some responsibility if they had told the production company no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument was that that CSX had two trains pass through the crowd of movie folks who were gathering to do their thing on the bridge. The argument of the dead film crew's family was that the CSX crews were supposed to have called the rail police on the trespassers that they didn't indicates that the Railroad was responsible. This is why RailRoads in the US have become draconian when they see people trespassing on their property. 

Here's the location of the shoot. If I was the attorneys for CSX, I'd have asked which directors hadn't seen Stand By Me and why they thought it was remotely sane or wise to walk across a long railroad bridge with a bed. 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Altamaha+River/@31.6543831,-81.8288839,319m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88f07079303058bf:0xf5b6e7ccb1cd6bf4!8m2!3d31.667734!4d-81.8520219

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first video assumes there was nothing wrong with the revolver involved in the accident, and that Baldwin, or any actor, could be trusted to complete trading or carry it out correctly.  That's why the protocols.  It also assumes that Baldwin would be able to tell the difference between a live and a dummy round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R011 said:

The first video assumes there was nothing wrong with the revolver involved in the accident, and that Baldwin, or any actor, could be trusted to complete trading or carry it out correctly.  That's why the protocols.  It also assumes that Baldwin would be able to tell the difference between a live and a dummy round.

As for the second, other lawyers I seen posting on this subject, including ones who hate Baldwin, disagree  as a movie shoot is not the same as normal handling - hence the protocols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...