Guilty of MWB. Managing While Black.
And this thread was started by C’hump as a response to the SRIOD thread.
Heh, I have actually heard that in the form “LWB”, “Leading While Black”. Unforgivable offense, to a lot of people.
Guess which party she belongs to.
I have no idea. Is it stated anywhere?
The fact that I put her in this thread should be a clue.
In context (from LATimes):
Not only that, but just when anyone is handed a gun you need to make sure that you are not pointing it or pulling the trigger at anyone or anything that you’re not willing to shoot. He didn’t take those basic safety recommendations and procedures and protocols into account.
“He absolutely had a duty to either check the weapon himself or have someone to check in front of him,” Carmack-Altwies said. “We’ve spoken with several actors, A-list and less than A-list, and all have confirmed that when you are handed a gun, you need to look at it and make sure that it’s safe.
She is not claiming you can’t point a weapon at someone on a movie set. She is claiming that you should not point a weapon that you have not confirmed is safe via standard practices on a movie set. I cannot speak to what Baldwin did or should have done, but here statements are not stupid. She is also working with a Republican special prosecutor, so not really liberal.
You should be able point a gun at someone you absolutely do not want to shoot, on a movie set. The responsibility for this begins and ends with the armorer. End of story.
According to the DA, most actors working on set disagree. The common, and in my opinion, correct default is to assume that any gun is loaded until checked. When I was handed a shotgun at the firing range to qualify for the response team in the Navy (not even close to my primary job), there was always a two person check. The rangemaster would tell me it was unloaded, then I would confirm it. On a movie set, that could mean the actor independently checking or the armorer showing the empty chamber as they hand it to off, whatever their established procedures entail.
If I read the article correctly, the question at trial will come down to what the industry standard for responsible gun use is. If the actions taken fall within that, then they were not negligent and should not have criminal responsibility.
But we have no idea who the DA talked to.
This is from a recent TMZ article.
“Rust” actor Douglas Stewart is adamant about who’s in charge of firearms on film sets, and says Alec Baldwin’s getting a raw deal … because actors are not typically responsible for gun safety.
Douglas says whenever he’s been on a set with guns there have been strict procedures in place – procedures that clearly state a stage manager or armorer is responsible for preparing and handing guns to actors.
As an actor, he says he’s never been allowed to check a gun or open the chamber … whether for TV, film, or stage play.
.
.
From the same article:
Douglas also says that’s the industry standard – that actors trust the professionals when it comes to firearms.
From what I read at the time, the production was negligent in general in a lot of ways. Baldwin’s direct responsibility will depend on if his personal actions on the day differ from the industry standard. If it goes to trial, I would expect witness to testify to what that standard is.
I would also not be surprised if a civil suit filed against the producers (including Baldwin) is filed if the set in general was run in an unsafe way. Baldwin would have a hard time arguing that he either was unaware of issues on set, or not knowledgeable about industry practices.
For the purposes of this thread, I was merely pointing out that the statement posted from the DA was not as stupid as presented when taken in context. She may be overstating the case to push harder for a plea, or the state’s case may not prevail. But it the state’s position and her comments about it are not some stupid liberal idea.
There has been a long hatred of Baldwin since his portrayal of TFG on ‘SNL’. Screwing Baldwin over would put a big feather in a DA’s cap. Usually DA’s only take cases that they know they can win as they are judged by win percentages. Aggressively going after Baldwin in a high profile ‘6 o’clock news’ kind of way seems a gamble to try to make him over react and make a mistake which could be capitalized on.
That said, this is a shaky case and I’m left to ask why a DA would risk their win percentage on a case this thin? What is being dangled behind the scenes to make this worth the risk?
Illinois state representative from Chicago wants to limit traffic stops. Essentially, if he gets his way, drivers will be able to zoom through school zones at 45 MPH with impunity.
Aside from speeding and improper lane usage, the bill states “that no law enforcement officer shall stop a motor vehicle” in the following cases:
- Failure to display registration plates or stickers
- Operating with an expired registration sticker
- Excessive tints
- Defective mirrors
- Defective bumpers
- Defective windshield wipers or obstructed windshield
- Execessive exhaust
- Failure to comply with vehicle lamp requirements
- Failure to wear a seat belt
How is this a stupid liberal idea? looks to me like a garden variety fucking stupid idea devoid of political ideology.
This is the de facto thread for stupid ideas from Democrats.
I’ll allow it. While it’s not traditionally liberal, it does fall into the “stop police from harassing people of color over BS traffic reasons”. However, this stupidity extends “BS traffic reasons” to a place where Mad Max’s car couldn’t be pulled over.
Also, Rep. Slaughter AFAICT is a pretty solidly liberal politician. I wouldn’t consider him a stupid liberal by any means, but I think a case can be made for this particular bill being a stupid liberal idea.
I’ll note that speed cameras can have a great effect here. The only “don’t stop them ever” thing that bothers me is “Defective windshield wipers or obstructed windshield”. That sounds like a legitimate safety issue.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that US police have been using BS traffic stops for decades to troll for other, less obvious crimes. What you really need to do is stop searching every car that gets pulled over. Traffic enforcement should be traffic enforcement, not a fishing expedition. Decades of allowing abuse of traffic stops has brought you to this point - where the politicians will just disallow them almost entirely, because they don’t think the cops can be trusted to carry them out impartially.
I’ve been pulled over plenty of times, and never had my car searched. It’s not every car that gets searched at a traffic stop. Would it surprise you to learn that I am not Black or Hispanic?