https://twitter.com/SteveInmanUIC/status/1452867723596156930
Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
https://twitter.com/SteveInmanUIC/status/1452867723596156930
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
😆
According to some, it wasn’t his fault that he killed a person after he pointed a gun at another person and pulled the trigger. You see, someone else told him it was unloaded, and THAT person (who was Baldwin’s employee) was assigned the job of ensuring that Baldwin was never handed a loaded gun.
So yeah, totally not Baldwin’s fault.
I heard that actually, her job was to not only check the guns every single time, but she provided them herself as the entire reason she was hired. And that she wasn’t supposed to ever bring a real gun to the set. And that she not only brought the actual gun to set, and told him it wasn’t loaded, but actually brought the live round, which she was also never supposed to bring to the set. And which she had put in the gun herself, along with dummy rounds, so that even if he’d checked the gun, there wouldn’t have been any way for him or anyone to notice that she’d totally handed him an actual weapon that could kill someone, rather than a harmless prop gun that couldn’t even hold a live round. And she even knew that they were rehearsing a scene where it said in the script he was supposed to pull it out and point it right at the camera and cock it and pull the trigger. And that because of all that, all of which she did herself, it wouldn’t matter who held the gun, or whether they looked at it beforehand, because due to all those things she fouled up or did on purpose, whoever pulled the trigger, which was the whole point of the rehearsal, would have totally gotten the exact same result.
How much of that did you hear?
It sure sounds like someone somewhere is shading the story waaaaaay over to one side by leaving out a lot of important details if all that is what really happened, doesn’t it? Why would they do that?
I’m not saying that she didn’t fail to do her job. She didn’t. However, as the person pointing the gun at another human and pulling the trigger, you have a moral duty to check to make sure that firearm isn’t loaded. It should never be enough to take anyone at their word when they hand you a gun and tell you “It’s OK, it isn’t loaded.”
Imagine if you will that the person you trust most in the world hands you a gun several times a day and tells you “It’s unloaded.” Would you then put it against your head and pull the trigger without double checking it? Even if they “checked” it while they were cooking dinner, getting the kids ready for school, or otherwise simultaneously busy with other tasks that could possibly cause them to make an error? Why not? Now ask yourself, if you won’t put it to your own head, then what gives you the right to point that gun at another person?
Now why is it any different if this person is a total stranger who you hired? The prop person screwed up. I think no one is arguing that. What I am saying is that this doesn’t absolve Baldwin of his duty to ensure, even as a backstop, that the firearm he was pointing at another person with the intent of pulling the trigger wasn’t a loaded firearm.
So how would that work? The person in charge of loading the weapon, who has only the job of bringing the weapons, and loading the weapons, including not bringing a real gun and real bullets in the first place, and the person who’s supposed to be the most experienced firearms person on a movie, hands a gun to a complete gun moron like Baldwin or any other actor, but you want that complete gun moron in the situation to take all the bullets out after you’ve put them in, and check them, and the gun, from his fund of complete ignorance about guns, because that’s smarter and more responsible gun safety than the way it was supposed to happen? Or just look at them without taking them out, and somehow notice that the gun person screwed up, and put a live round in the gun, because he can tell so much better than them? And that’s totally safer than having them not play with it after they get it handed to them? And every actor on every movie should do that every time? Like in all the John Wick scenes where there’s like 50 guys all with guns?
And if, being a gun moron like he is, Baldwin hadn’t noticed the multiple mistakes that the gun person missed too, then it suddenly wouldn’t be his fault? Or it would be, because he should know more about guns than the weapons person does? How do you explain that plan either way?
If I took my car to a mechanic to fix the brakes, and he said it was fixed, and I follow all the normal driving rules, but I run someone over on the way home because the mechanic didn’t connect the brakes properly, and they failed, you’re saying the death is all my fault, because I was driving it, and I should have checked the whole brake system, rather than trust a “complete stranger” who I hired to fix them in the first place?
That’s the kind of law standard you think makes the most sense here? Or anywhere in real life?
Why are you trying so hard to avoid just saying that the person supposed to know better and not make all those mistakes screwed up a bunch of ways, was horrible at their job, and put a time bomb into the hands of someone who couldn’t have known better, so that what happened was the total fault of the person who screwed things up so badly in the first place, rather than the person who just touched it last?
I think if the person who had touched it last was a pro-gun actor, like Tom Selleck or Clint Eastwood or Kurt Russell, people on our side would be falling all over themselves to find ways to let them off the hook.
The more I’ve found out about this whole thing, the more it’s sounded like nothing but a witch hunt, because Baldwin is obviously a big dick, especially about guns, and people want to bring him down for his politics, instead of his actions. That’s as sickening and stupid and plain wrong on the Right as it is on the Left.
Your driving analogy is flawed. No one is asking or expecting Baldwin to disassemble a car. We are expecting him to do what every other person who handles a firearm does- check to see if it is loaded.
The standard is called due regard. It means the care that a reasonable person would take. Checking to see if a gun is loaded before pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger is reasonable.
If he is too stupid to check that a gun is loaded or not loaded, he shouldn’t be handling them in the first place, especially since he is going to be violating 2 of the 4 basic gun handling rules to begin with.
If you have read my comments and my blog, you would know that I am just as hard on pro gun people who violate the 4 rules. No one gets a pass.
Instead of us arguing about it, I say put the case in front of a jury and let THEM decide. That is what juries are for.
You really have to wonder about the f***ed up brains, or whatever passes for brains, in the person who chooses that particular moniker.
It doesn’t help that the comment is way off the mark, but even if it were on the mark I’d react the same way.
PS. Why are you pretending to be a pro-gun person (“…people on our side”)? Your ignorance of guns and gun safety rules says you aren’t. Stop pretending, it doesn’t fool us.
Miguel fixed the “that particular moniker” I mentioned.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin. I’d be crazy and stupid to stand in front of him.
Archer: until he whirled around, gun flailing….