Re: Alec Baldwin hit with involuntary manslaughter in death of Halyna Hutchins, facing up to 18 months in prison

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:39:21 -0800 (PST), -hh
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 3:55:35 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> > But what I see as unacceptable was that there were means by which the prop
>> > gun(s) could have been positively engineered to have been nearly incapable
>> > of harming others, but were not employed.
>> >
>> > Why this occurs, can’t say for sure, but I’d lean towards the industry being
>> > cheapskates, as well as incorrectly assuming that LE/MIL armorers are
>> > the correct subject matter expert.
>>
>> I expect it depends on the details of the law and production.
>
>Of course.
>
>> I would expect the armourer to have complete and thus final
>> responsibility. Unless the production decided to hire an
>> incompetent at lower wages.
>
>Agreed on both...but only to a degree. My point is that the assumption being
>made by the industry appears to be that the job of 'Armorer' is sufficiently
>fungible for knowing the design details for how to build/maintain firearms
>which intended to throw slugs and kill things, as opposed to the mechanics
>of firearm replicants which are intended to *not* throw slugs to kill things.
>
>This is perhaps a more esoteric point, but IMO an important one, because
>there is no fundamental requirement in Hollywood to have props which
>have the capability of 300+fps heavy metal slug throwing to cause such
>a hazardous environment to then try to mitigate through *procedures*.
>
>To illustrate by analogy, if it was a murder mystery that used a bottle of
>cyanide, there's no good justification to have a REAL pint of cyanide present.

But there are budgets to consider and powdered sugar is cheaper than
cyanide. And in line with that reasoning . . .

On a more expensive film, two guns might have been used. One for the
barrel shot showing bullets in the cylinder (the director's decision
to have such a shot was a contributing factor) and a second gun loaded
with blanks. Alternatively, the second gun could have been left
unloaded leaving the CGI guys to insert the flash and powder clouds in
post production.

Just to be clear, I'm not *excusing* the accident on budgeting, I'm
*blaming* budgeting.

That said, there were any number of cheap western movies, serials and
TV episodes that experienced no such accidents.

Another contributing factor is audience sophistication which demands
maximum realism in every frame.

>> The prosecutor sees it differently,
>> but the prosecutor knows the law better than me and likely has
>> information I don't.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> The real reason people are so upset has nothing to do with a
>> death or a movie. They think they can now get revenge on Baldwin
>> for saying bad things about Don Fatso. It's like the loons
>> demanding Biden be chained up and his house torn down: all they
>> have is their irrational hate and demand for vengeance for their
>> lard and saviour.
>
>Yes, another externality factor which will invariably influence the
>outwardly expressed opinions from the peanut gallery.

If Baldwin's part had been played by Clint Eastwood or Chuck Norris
(may he rest in peace), the massive outcry would have come from the
left and it would be the right making excuses.

Do we really have to politicize EVERYTHING? I mean, what brand of
toilet paper do Republicans prefer compared to Democrats?

Swill
--
Bill Mahr on George Santos: "Everyone saw in George Santos what
they wanted to see - Republicans saw a Trump loving rich prick, Democrats
saw a a proudly gay person of color, and the Proud Boys saw him as a guy
who would blow them after a couple of beers and not tell anyone."

Glory to the heroes. Glory to Ukraine.