I’m not a lawyer, but..
The general assumption, when it comes to “expertise,” is the notion that if you gather several bona fide “experts” and ask them the same question within their field of study, you will get more or less the same answer.
Either the world is getting more and more hopelessly complicated, or the academy is turning out more and more of the certifiably unqualified, or we must conclude: very few of the “experts” really know what they are talking about.
Take the Alec Baldwin Rust shooting case. Just ponder some of the truths we were being asked to believe, by way of understanding who bears responsibility for the killing of Halyna Hutchins…
On a movie set, you never point a gun at anyone..
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But consider your crime drama watching experience. How many times have you watched an actor point a pistol or a rifle straight at you? You experience this, safely, on the other end of your iPad or in a cushy, lean-back chair at a luxury dine-in theater, but that means that some actor has been paid to point a gun directly at a camera operator. This is as old as Hollywood. It’s almost a fetish. I would wager you’ve actually seen a .45 caliber barrel, via a macro lens and a dolly, drilling you visually right down the tunnel of death. The idea that SAG, or state laws, or guild tradition would prevent this from happening based on the real life truth, “never point a gun at anyone you don’t need to kill,” is just silly.
Hollywood, in order to depict human depravity realistically, points guns at people.
Live ammo should never be found on a movie set..
Absurd. When law enforcement arrived on the Rust movie set, they were armed with live ammo. In certain filming environments, a production company may choose to employ armed security. It may sound difficult to believe, but in certain remote locations, with actors and extras trailered-up for weeks on end, they may set some tin cans up against a hillside and engage in target shooting, using the very “prop weapons” they use to film the movie. In some cases, such practice may actually improve the credibility of their performance. I know from personal experience that card-carrying SAG libtards, on a production set, happily engage in target shooting, for the sheer novelty of the thing. I have no direct evidence in the Rust case, but I would wager there was can-plinking taking place on that movie set. It likely accounts for the presence of live ammunition where it should NOT have been — at the armorer’s desk.
Actors can’t be expected to inspect their issued weapons..
Utter bullshit. Imagine you are on a film production set. Someone has handed you a “prop gun” which is actually a functioning weapon. It is a functioning weapon for the sake of visual credibility. In this case, it is a revolver. You are instructed to point the barrel at your head and pull the trigger. Alternatively, your own real-life son has been hired as cast member, and you are directed to fire the “dummy gun” in his direction.
Would you really trust ANY prop-master or assistant director in this situation? Wouldn’t it be entirely prudent to empty the revolver, inspect each round, and keep the weapon in your possession until the scene was concluded? Why would any thinking person pull a trigger on a gun he had not personally inspected?
The DEI problem
It’s a thing. Hannah Gutierrez, riding on her step-father’s credentials and failing to keep her deadly inventory safely accounted for. Enough said.
Trust the prosecutor..
What a joke. In this case, Kari Morrissey simply decided to withhold evidence from the defense. In so doing, she effectively prevented a jury from deciding whether Alec Baldwin should face any penalty for killing his own cinematographer.
A Citizen’s Conclusion..
Perhaps we should not trust prosecutors with the task of turning over state’s evidence? Maybe there should be an independent office that just turns it all over, to both sides, as it comes in? Perhaps Alec Baldwin, in this case, would face at least a little punishment for shooting his friend dead?
