Alec Baldwin and the "Rust" shooting

[iambiguous]

From PN:

Am I missing something here? Alec Baldwin was on a film set. Live ammunition is not allowed on a film set. Actors shoot guns on film sets all the time. Film sets employ ammunition experts who take care of ammunition and firearms on said film sets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the actors. Actors have every right to believe it when they are told that the guns they are handling don't have live ammunition in them. They don't have any choice. Brandon Lee was shot and killed on a film set by another actor yet no one was ever charged, certainly not the actor who rightfully believe that the gun had blanks in it.
A lot of people don't like Alec Baldwin's politics, therefore, according to American Republican intellectual giants, he MUST be guilty of SOMETHING (they don't seem to know 'what' exactly) because a person's politics is the definitive yardstick for measuring a person's guilt or innocence in events that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Now, could the gun-toting religious nut-job American Trump-loving Republicans on here (you know who you are) explain to me what exactly Alec Baldwin is 'guilty' of, since it's a given that you will be in the 'guilty Baldwin corner' because he doesn't vote the same way you do (which is guilt, in and of itself).

The only possible guilty party is whoever took live ammunition onto the filmset.

Besides. Y'all love guns so much. What do you think guns do? Shouldn't y'all be applauding him for not using those 'pussy dummy bullets'?

He had a live round in his gunbelt (not placed there by the armorer). He broke procedure by pointing the gun at the person he shot when he should not have. IOW he went against gun use on set protocols and he's been on sets with guns for a long time and had the double role as producer. There had been incidents on set involving live fire on set, which he knew about. IOW it was known on a set he was producer on that live rounds were getting into film guns. He also had tension or dispute with this person. He's not being charged for intentionally doing this, but given all the facts, this would have been a possible charge. We do not know that the armorer failed though she is also charged. But for all we know she did her job. Why the hell did have a live round on his gunbelt? Why did he point the gun at her and pull the trigger?

Personally, I think he was criminally negligent, at least. What the exact charge should be, I don't know. Above my paygrade. I don't care about his politics. My guess is we overlap quite a bit, but I don't know. I can't take the politics of celebrities seriously. I wouldn't let a celebrity fix my leaky kitchen sink pipe, spay my cat, teach comparative religion or, yeah, advise me on politics. What do they know about the real world?

This is a classic example of the gap between what each of us as individuals thinks about something and everything that it is possible to know about something.

The incident on the Rust set occurs. We read about it, hear about it and react.

Depending of course on what we read and what we hear. Depending further on such things as our own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein. Depending finally on all of the facts that can be gathered about the event.

Some will emphasize one set of facts, others another set of facts. But which set of facts reflects the optimal or even the only rational manner in which to evaluate and judge an event?

That's why even in the either/or world of facts, mere mortals are still stuck with subjective points of view.

To wit:

I recall the courtroom scene from the film Reversal of Fortune. Sunny von Bülow is hovering like a ghost above the proceedings below. Speculating on what the outcome of the trial might be. Now, there was "the fact of the matter": Claus is either guilty or not guilty of putting her into an irreversible coma. The jury acquitted him. But was their own decision in fact the right one?

In a No God world there is often no way to get around this even in the either/or world.

In the Rust incident however there is considerably more ambiguity. There's the fact that Baldwin did what he did. Everyone there saw it. But there are also all the facts that can be accumulated such that those on both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for or against his culpability.

Then the objectivists on both sides who insist that, no, unless you think as I do, you are flat out wrong.

Same with the moral objectivists among us, of course. God or No God.

[Ichthus77]

Whoever is guilty or not… Maybe they should implement a new procedure on every set that a clearing barrel is included and used before anyone is allowed to fire a weapon, and ban live ammo during both rehearsal and filming? That’s why God made special effects.

[iambiguous]

Anyone else?

[MagsJ]

_
From the..

Re: Moving in a vacuum? Erm, no. thread.
Postby MagsJ » Fri 20 Jan, 2023 19:54

Motor Daddy wrote: ”It is easier to stop a bullet traveling at 10 feet per second than it is to stop a bullet traveling at 1,000 feet per second. The reason that increasing the speed of a given mass bullet will go through thicker targets is that it takes more force to STOP IT. If it doesn't stop as quickly then it will obviously penetrate a greater distance, hence go right through the target at a higher velocity. The mass didn't change, the velocity did.”


I replied: “Yes, and Alec Baldwin has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Live rounds are not allowed on set, but yet.. there they were”.
__
To win, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin committed a 'lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.'

In plain English, Baldwin would have had to believe that his handling of a gun used as prop could kill.

The district attorney for Santa Fe County, Mary Carmack-Altwies, lays that blame squarely at Baldwin's feet, stating he should never have pointed a gun at anyone. 'You should not point a gun at someone that you're not willing to shoot,' she said. 'That goes to basic safety standards.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... LIBOR.html“

[Flannel Jesus]

Then the objectivists on both sides who insist that, no, unless you think as I do, you are flat out wrong.

I'm not a moral objectivist personally, but... You say this like it's an inherently bad thing. But is it? Is it bad to think that you believe something that is correct, and other people who disagree with you are incorrect?

[Mr Reasonable]

it seems like one of the fundamental elements of criminal liability in the united states is, intent. i don't think that actors on a movie set who are using what they believe to be prop guns/blank ammo intend to shoot anyone with a real bullet.

the reason why this issue is politicized is because baldwin rad a recurring stint on snl where he made fun of trump.

[MagsJ]

_
..and not because he shot someone?

He fired the gun at someone, and the camera wasn’t even rolling.. which is against film-production policy btw, as there is a specific set procedure on how firearms are to be handled on set.. and what he did weren’t it.

Firearms should only be brought on set when the cameras are ready to roll, and the firearm checked and cleared before being handed over to anyone. That was not the case when the gun went off.. as we all know.

[Mr Reasonable]

are you saying that all that somehow amounts to intent on his part?

[MagsJ]

_
If that’s what you got, from the facts that I said, then that’s what you got.

I simply stated the facts.

[Mr Reasonable]

i'm trying to think of a similar incident where an actor ended up doing time and i can't come up with anything

[iambiguous]

From PN:

He had a live round in his gunbelt (not placed there by the armorer). He broke procedure by pointing the gun at the person he shot when he should not have. IOW he went against gun use on set protocols and he's been on sets with guns for a long time and had the double role as producer. There had been incidents on set involving live fire on set, which he knew about. IOW it was known on a set he was producer on that live rounds were getting into film guns. He also had tension or dispute with this person. He's not being charged for intentionally doing this, but given all the facts, this would have been a possible charge. We do not know that the armorer failed though she is also charged. But for all we know she did her job. Why the hell did have a live round on his gunbelt? Why did he point the gun at her and pull the trigger?

Personally, I think he was criminally negligent, at least. What the exact charge should be, I don't know. Above my paygrade. I don't care about his politics. My guess is we overlap quite a bit, but I don't know. I can't take the politics of celebrities seriously. I wouldn't let a celebrity fix my leaky kitchen sink pipe, spay my cat, teach comparative religion or, yeah, advise me on politics. What do they know about the real world?

Are you suggesting he had taken his own real bullets onto the set and had them in a 'gunbelt' (is that like a bum bag with bullets in it?)? How do you know this? I can't find anything that says that. Where did you read that live ammunition had been found on the set prior to the incident? I can't find anything that says that either. The only gun concerns I could find were complaints that prop guns were going off accidentally--something that happened to Baldwin's stunt double. Prop gun quality is a different matter from live ammunition.

See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Me, I'm no less "fractured and fragmented" about this too.

What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?

That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".

For the objectivists, what's crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.

[iambiguous]

Then the objectivists on both sides who insist that, no, unless you think as I do, you are flat out wrong.

I'm not a moral objectivist personally, but... You say this like it's an inherently bad thing. But is it? Is it bad to think that you believe something that is correct, and other people who disagree with you are incorrect?

No, in a No God world where the value judgments of mere mortals are not either inherently/necessarily good or bad, but just the embodiment of subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, there is what is able to be established as in fact true about the Rust shooting...and there is the extent which any of us can demonstrate that our own reaction to the fact that Baldwin was charged is inherently/necessarily right or wrong.

I merely take this frame of mind to any other moral and political context in which some insist that others must think as they do about what is correct...or else.

In other words, the part where in regard to things like abortion and guns and capital punishment and homosexuality etc., some acquire the power in any particular community to actually punish those who don't think "correctly".

The Baldwin case is just particularly ambiguous given the fact that it all unfolded on a film set where there is often a considerably greater gap between pretend and reality.

[Ichthus77]

every time you say you are fractured and fragmented I always think of the whole.

I mean …a hole doesn’t exist apart from “that from which” it is a privation.

whole: that from which one is fractured/fragmented

Seems to me you can trace back to the whole just by observing the fractured/fragmented parts like a puzzle, no?

I mean. You’ve admitted there’s a problem. Step 1 is down. Well on your way ….

…back again to wholeness.

(Rust… also a privation.)

Can we make this whole without destroying Alec?

[Ichthus77]

Oh. Hm. In other words… can we make diamonds instead of rust?

[iambiguous]

Uh, anyone else?

[Ichthus77]

Uh, anyone else?

No, seriously.



Take 2:

Shall we accept diamonds from God, and shall we not accept rust?

[MagsJ]

i'm trying to think of a similar incident where an actor ended up doing time and i can't come up with anything

..and?

I’ll be following the court case, and see how it unfolds in real-time.

I have no expectation of the outcome, as expectations aren’t part of my vibe. Please remember that for similar future exchanges.. as I find insinuations about my emotional character demeaning to my personage.

[Ichthus77]

So s/he has some expectations^

[MagsJ]

So s/he has some expectations^

He has [deductively] determined the outcome, I have not.. I have no emotional-attachment to the event, to warrant I do that.

[Ichthus77]

I was half joking, which is maybe out of place when someone had died and another’s life hangs in the balance.

If the policy I suggested was already policy, everyone who didn’t follow it is culpable. How does the policy handle violations?

If it wasn’t already policy, no one has violated anything, unless y’all have tech that can prove intent… beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And y’don’t! Especially once you wonkify the junk in the brain that signals intent. Something to keep in (out!) of mind

[Ichthus77]

Hm. It’s almost like in order to observe intent, you mess up the possibility of observing intent.

[Ichthus77]

oh yeah!!!!!

[iambiguous]

No, seriously.

[MagsJ]

I was half joking, which is maybe out of place when someone had died and another’s life hangs in the balance.

…then I didn’t get the joke.

If the policy I suggested was already policy, everyone who didn’t follow it is culpable. How does the policy handle violations?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=How+d ... s-wiz-serp

If it wasn’t already policy, no one has violated anything,

Is that a trick inquiry? as why would ‘health and safety’ liability be exempt on film sets.. as opposed to any other workplace.

unless y’all have tech that can prove intent… beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And y’don’t! Especially once you wonkify the junk in the brain that signals intent. Something to keep in (out!) of mind

Do actors take gun safety classes?

Actors and even sometimes crew will receive training from weapons professionals on gun safety. “You spend time with them, showing how a gun works, how you don't point it at anyone ever, how you keep your finger off the trigger and always point it down,” Walters says.
__
What has intent got to implicitly do with it, when there are legal adherent protocols and procedures in place?

[Ichthus77]

Depends what the charge is.