Re: Alec Baldwin getting away with murder

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:

Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:59:02 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

https://deadline.com/2024/03/rust-movie-armorer-guilty-shooting-death-1235847983/

Classic example of shit rolling downhill and our two-tiered justice system.
Baldwin is "loose" with weapons on the set and he fires the fatal shot but
because he hired a young and very inexperienced armorer, she ends up being
the perfect scapegoat.

You are completely wrong here.
That's not what "being the perfect scapegoat" means. She's not any kind
of scapegoat. She was in charge of loading and supervision and care of
those weapons. On her watch, live ammunition was brought onto set and
mixed in with blanks and the "denatured" (I forgot the term for bullets
without gunpower) ammunition.
She prepared the guns that morning. She then left them, plus the mixed
ammunition, unattended because she had another part-time job in the
props department.
She's literally not allowed to leave the guns unattended, not ever. If
she's not there, they are unloaded and placed in the propmaster's safe.
Yes, I understand that it was inconvenient for the propmaster to be
there to unlock the safe when they were setting up for that scene. He
failed in his duty anyway.
But if the guns were to be out, then she COULD NOT perform another job
on set. It's that simple.
Some jobs are of the kind, like hers, that she cannot obey an order not
to do the job she must do. She must refuse such an order. She can be
fired for refusing an order, but she must not obey an order that
requires her to leave the guns unattended.
It's not a difficult job but it requires someone to perform it who isn't
a fuckup. She's an adult. Inexperienced or not, she's allowed to perform
work that requires her to be totally responsible.