Category Archives: So Much Stupid!

This Is Why My Confidence In The Courts Is Bottoming Out

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Cargill v. Garland, the challenge to Trump’s (yeah, he still owns it) bump-stock ban.

Now, it’s true that we still have Clarence Thomas, who is intelligent and willing to study facts at issue. But we also have Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”

That was after the government claimed that a semiauto rifle with a bump-stock can fire 600 rounds per minute. But Brown, with firearm knowledge exceeding that of John Moses Browning, knows better: 800 rounds per second.

Probably theoretically, higher, once you account for those magazine changes in that one second.

Just for comparison, the GAU-8/A Avenger seven-barreled, Gatling-style autocannon in the A-10 attack aircraft — the beloved “Warthog” — has a measly rate of fire of just 3,900 rounds per minute; twelve times slower that Jackson’s magical bump-stocked gun.

No wonder the Air Force wants to retire the A-10.

But back to bitter reality. We’re stuck with ignorant high court judges, who when even the banners inflated claims fall short, simply make up their own “facts” to rationalize the infringement of allegedly protected rights.

Oh, well; however SCOTUS rules, Thomas’ takedown of Jackson’s idiocy should be amusing.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Jesus Was Palestinian”

That line has been getting quite a bit of play from historically ignorant pro-Hamas protesters in the US, as Christmas approaches. It’s just plain stupid, as Palestine didn’t exist back then. Romans applied the name to their imperial province around AD 132, after a failed Jewish rebellion. They picked the name (which derived from the Greek name for Philistines).

But, anachronism aside, let’s roll with it, and see the implications.

“Jesus was Palestinian.”

Jesus was a Jew residing in the region, descended from other of the many (majority, in fact) Jews long residing in the region.

Therefore, all Jews living in Israel (the bulk of the Roman Palestine) now are Palestinians.

And thus we come to the fact that, by these idiots’ standards, we already have a free Palestinian state.

“Free Palestine” has existed since 1948, when the British gave the Mandate of Palestine its independence. Job done; from the river to the sea. Happy now?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Idiocy Repeats Itself

Senator Markey [Dumb@ss-MA] filed a bill earlier this year. I missed it until now: S.1819 – 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2023.

This bill purports to ban the distribution of 3D-printer files used to build firearms.

Purports.

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm…

Now if he’d just left it at that, he’d merely be a constitutional idiot. But let’s look at the rest of that sentence

to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.

Yes, Markey still thinks 3D additive manufacturing printers start with unfinished frame/receivers.

Still? Perhaps you’ve gotten a sense of deja vu. Markey rode this short bus two years ago.

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.

Look familiar? Two years on, and he still can’t figure out the difference between additive 3D-printing and subtractive CNC machining (like a Ghost Gunner mill that does complete unfinished frames/receivers).

Or maybe it’s idiocy with a large dose of insanity.

You know, if Markey — his staffers, rather — followed opposition sites like The Zelman Partisans perhaps he’d figure out just why his bill cannot do what it purports, even if it magically passed into law. But I give this attempt no better odds than S. 2319, which whimpered and died in committee.

And yes, I still giggle at this part.

over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web

I still haven’t found a “World Wide Web” that does not operate over the Internet.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update] An Appropriate Use Of Force?

There’s a trial in Virginia over a shooting. Let me describe the reported circumstances, and let you decide what you’d have done.

You’re minding your own business, when a 6′ 5″ “goon” (his own monicker, by the way) walks up on you. He sticks his hand in your face and calls you a “dips**t”. You repeatedly tell him to stop, but he refuses. You keep backing away, but he keeps closing on you, still calling you a “dips**t.” You try to knock his hand out your face, but he continues.

Would you be frightened, concerned for your physical safety?

Would you shoot the hulking threat?

Alan Colie did shoot the goon; a single shot to the abdomen. And was arrested for it.

Cook, who is 6-foot-5, could be seen holding a cell phone about 6 inches from Colie’s face. The cellphone broadcasted the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” through a Google Translate app several times.

Colie could be heard saying “stop” on three separate occasions and tried to back away from Cook, who continued to advance towards him.

Colie attempted to knock the phone away from his face before he allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Cook in the lower left chest.

The “rest of the story” is that the goon is a YouTube “prankster,” who has had multiple run-ins with law enforcement over his disgusting, frightening, and threatening “pranks” pulled on unsuspecting strangers. A sane person of normal intelligence might learn from those encounters that such “pranks” are dangerous.

Not Cook.

YouTube prankster Tanner Cook said in court on Tuesday that he had no idea he had scared or angered Alan Colie, 31, who ended up allegedly shooting him during a prank.

And why would he even consider the possibility that his victim might be scared? After all, it’s not like any of his other targets were…

Cook said during the hearing that he tries to confuse targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience and doesn’t try to elicit fear or anger, but said his targets often react that way.

Oh. So he already knew that his subjects often perceive him as a threat — just as Colie did — but still thought thought the risk of instilling that fear would be fun.

Would I have shot the goon? Quite possibly, given the scenario described in court. I would certainly have drawn my sidearm and issued one last warning. Then, whether I fired or not would depend on Cook passing the impromptu IQ test.

The prosecution in this case maintains that the shooting was unjustified because the goon was “unarmed.”

“It was stupid. It was silly. And you may even think it was offensive. But that’s all it was — a cellphone in the ear that got Tanner shot.”

No, it was disparity of force. Colie was threatened by a person much larger and stronger; a person who refused to cease his threatening actions. Cook didn’t need a weapon to be a danger, he was a weapon. And while Cook might not have intended to be a threat, Colie didn’t know that; he only knew what he was experiencing, and that was the actions of Cook, who admitted that he knew his victims “often” saw his acts as threatening.

Juries are weird, so I don’t know how this will turn; but I know how it should: acquittal.

As for goon Cook, he clearly is still failing life’s ongoing intelligence test. I suspect he’ll finally encounter someone less restrained than Colie — who only fired a single shot to stop the advancing threat — who will empty his magazine center mass, ending those “pranks” for good.

Update, 9/29/2023: The verdict is in. Colie was acquitted of the two felony malicious wounding and malicious shooting in an occupied structure charges. Weirdly, though, he was convicted of misdemeanor use of a firearm during a felony the same jury said he didn’t committed. Colie’s attorney is addressing that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ban All The Guns?

So demands the irrational Here4TheKids.

Guns ARE the problem. Here4TheKids is a national movement with a state focus.

We demand that Colorado Governor Jared Solis sign an executive order to ban guns and buy them back.

An executive order pushes Democrats to finally TAKE REAL ACTION to put an end to this nightmare.

They plan to hold a sit-in — which somehow isn’t a “protest” — in Denver on June 5, 2023. If Solis is psychotic enough to do as they wish, their “nightmare” has just begun.

Their site doesn’t list any contact email; just a couple of form to “volunteer” or register for the sit-in. I guess they don’t want to answer any inconvenient questions. Like…

1. You may not like it, but doesn’t the Second Amendment exist?

2. Didn’t HELLER establish the the right to keep and bear arms preexisted the Second Amendment; that it only protects a right that exists anyway?

3. Didn’t MCDONALD establish that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, meaning Colorado and Solis have tto obey it, too?

4. Didn’t BRUEN establish that restrictions on the Second with no general, historical tradition are unconstitutional; and that it protects arms beyond those in existence at the time of ratification?

5. Does this mean that Here4TheKids is advocating for the overthrow — by fiat executive order, no less — of the Second Amendment and the Constitution that established the authority of the Supreme Court? Basically, the overthrow of our Constitutional representative republic. The overthrow of the government?

6. Doesn’t that get into treason territory?

So… another set of victim-disarming lefties who want to do away with the Constitution and courts. As I recently noted:

Baker had better hope that the Courts don’t get disavowed. The little remaining confidence in the courts is the only thing standing between himself, and his doorkickers, and six to twelve million heavily armed, non-compliant SOBs.

A final question for the lunatics at Here4TheKids: Do you really want to declare Hunting Season… on yourselves? Because once we can no longer rely on the Constitution, Courts, or basic sanity on the part of idiots like you, I’m afraid there are some who would be happy to take matters into their own hands, and rid themselves of infringers.

And their cheerleaders. Like you.

We’ll try to talk those excitable folks down, but if you actually manage to field confiscating door-kickers, it won’t be easy.

And we’ll have less incentive to try to control them.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Turning BRUEN On Its Head

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation are suing Washington over its “high capacity” (10+ rounds) magazine ban. That’s old news in itself. What is new is that the Aliiance for Gun Responsibility joined the case as “intervenor-defendant.”

Yes, someone petitioned the court to be sued. Odd, but not unprecedented. More often if someone thinks they have valid points to bring to the court’s attention they would file an amicus brief. But actually being a party to the case gives them more leeway to file motions and responses and potentially call more witnesses.

But I couldn’t help wondering exactly what the AGR, the primary backers of the ban, expected to bring before the court that the existing governmental defendants couldn’t or wouldn’t.

The Alliance specifically denies Paragraph 38’s assertion that LCM regulations are “recent phenomena.”
[…]
The Alliance specifically denies Paragraph 39’s assertion or suggestion that LCMs have been common in America (or anywhere else in the world) for hundreds of years.

Wait. What? Large capacity magazines aren’t recent but have been around for quite a while, but they haven’t been around for quite a while? They regulated something that hadn’t been around?

The Alliance admits that, to the extent weapons capable of firing more than ten rounds existed before the 20th century, they were experimental, unusual, impractical, unreliable, prohibitively expensive, or otherwise not analogous to modern firearms equipped with LCMs—and thus unlikely to necessitate government regulation. The Alliance admits that the only known example in existence of the Wheellock rifle was made in Germany around 1580 and was capable of firing 16 shots.

Basically, we are looking at a –admittedly confused — variation of the old “the founders never envisioned anything but single-shot muskets” argument. Buy with a weird twist to account for the ruling in BRUEN.

The Alliance admits that, to the extent weapons capable of firing more than ten rounds existed before the 20th century, they were experimental, unusual, impractical, unreliable, prohibitively expensive, or otherwise not analogous to modern firearms equipped with LCMs— and thus unlikely to necessitate government regulation.

BRUEN requires that gun control laws and regulations have a basis in general, historical tradition.

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.

AGR is arguing that specific firearms — innovations — have a basis in such tradition, or they can by default be regulated. AGR’s attorney, Kai Smith, just got BRUEN completely ass-backwards.

Never mind that SCOTUS disposed of that very argument in BRUEN. Or, for that matter, in the earlier Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”

AGR would have us — and specifically the court — believe that the only reason that the government didn’t “envision” magazine limits was that they didn’t envision “high capacity” magazines. And of course if they’d anticipated that, they would have preemptively banned such Progress of Science and useful Arts”.

Instead of promoting innovation.

Pro-tip, AGR: Just because Madison didn’t invent “high capacity” magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms does not mean he didn’t anticipate such a possibility.

James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.
[…]
Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. The Second Amendment is just for muskets.”

It’s almost as if they foresaw “Progress of Science and useful Arts” — including arms. And communications systems. You might even get the impression they sought to “promote” such advancements by “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

This — aside from the lack of a law degree — is why I’ll never be a federal judge. I’d have sanctioned attorney Kai Smith for that frivolous, self-contradictory filing that completely reverses the meaning of two separate Supreme Court rulings.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Time For A “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Automobiles Act”?

After partially defunding their police, Saint Louis has hit upon the real reason car thefts are up. And it has nothing to do with decades of — mostly — Dimwitocrat corruption.

When it isn’t the guns, it’s the cars.

ST. LOUIS CRIME: City Officials to Sue Car Manufacturers Because Criminals Are Stealing Cars
Car thefts have skyrocketed in St. Louis in recent months, with city leadership threatening lawsuits against Kia and Hyundai for an alleged defect that makes certain makes of the cars easier to steal.
[…]
In August, St. Louis leaders threatened to sue Hyundai and Kia, demanding the car companies address a defect that allegedly makes stealing vehicles made before 2021 easier to steal. KMOV reported last week that plans to sue the carmakers over the city’s spike in auto thefts are still in the works.

The issue, of course, isn’t really a “defect.” It’s a lack of an optional system that I’ve never had installed in a single vehicle I’ve owned in my life.

Hyundai and Kia chose to manufacture and sell the affected vehicles without an immobilizer, a device which prevents most vehicles from being started unless a code is transmitted from the vehicle’s smart key. Viral videos on TikTok and YouTube give step-by-step instructions on how to steal the affected vehicles without a key, and reports of stolen Kia and Hyundai vehicles have skyrocketed across the country.

Yes, Saint Louis is demanding that auto manufacturers only produce “smart” guns cars capable of recognizing authorized users, and disabling the vehicle for anyone else. Sounds vaguely familiar.

Not to give them ideas, but wouldn’t be easier to ban automatic transmissions, since a great many wanna-be “gone in 60 seconds” emulators can’t drive a stick? After all, who really needs a fully automatic car built just to go as dangerously fast as possible anyway?

Welcome to the party, pals.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Supreme Court of the Public Broadcasting System?

A few days ago, I ran across a column by a Terrence Cummings, “COMMENTARY: But for Rittenhouse doctrine.” It was the usual garbage you’d expect from victim disarmers. I didn’t — at the time — think it worth a response column, but I did write to Cummings.

“But for the Rittenhouse doctrine, you would think you would have a right to take your AR-15 to any grievance or protest near you and across state lines. Then, you could possibly “murder” (used loosely throughout this piece) two people, injure another and call it self-defense.”

Lessee…

1. Rittenhouse didn’t have an AR-15. It was a Smith & Wesson M&P rifle.

2. Rittenhouse didn’t take the rifle across state lines.

3. “Murder” is a specific term best not used “loosely,” unless you enjoyed being sued for libel/defamation. Murder is the deliberate, unjustified killing of a human being by another human being. The general term you are searching for (if you were being honest) is “homicide.”

3a. Rittenhouse fled his first attacker. He fired only when trapped and physically attacked. That is confirmed by video evidence and witness testimony.

3b. Rittenhouse again fled an attacking mod (video & witnesses). He fired again when, laying on the ground, he was again attacked with potential lethal force (the skateboard; if you doubt that’s potentially lethal, ask the family of the Santa Monica man killed by being struck in the head with a skateboard, or check with the California police officer who ended up in ICU when struck with a skateboard by an Antifa protester).

3c. Rittenhouse — still on the ground — fired again at a person who repeated aimed his own unlawfully possessed firearm at Rittenhouse. Video & witnesses.

4. Immediately after the shootings, Rittenhouse fled the pursuing crowd and attempted to turn himself in to the police.

I never made it much past that, since you’d already proved yourself ignorant of federal and state law and the events of the night, and that you are grossly biased.

Cummings’ reply was simple.

Thanks so much for your email and sharing your perspective. It is welcomed and appreciate.

I assumed that was the end of it, until this morning when I received another email from Mr. Cummings. He referred me to another, earlier column he wrote: “COMMENTARY: America worships guns.”

Continue reading The Supreme Court of the Public Broadcasting System?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Rifle Plate Loophole

A few people noted that New York state Dims’ Senate Bill S9407B had a small problem. I was patiently waiting to see if they would address it with an amendment after it was publicly pointed out.

S9407B is a ban on the sale or possession of a “BODY VEST, AS SUCH TERM IS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION 270.20.” The problem with the bill is that none of the sponsors appeared to have read 270.20.

For the purposes of this section a “body vest” means a bullet-resistant soft body armor providing, as a minimum standard, the level of protection known as threat level I which shall mean at least seven layers of bullet-resistant material providing protection from three shots of one hundred fifty-eight grain lead ammunition fired from a .38 calibre handgun at a velocity of eight hundred fifty feet per second.

No, the Dimwits never amended to correct what seems like a bit of a shortfall, if keeping their citizens sufficiently vulnerable to gunfire was their purpose, as it certainly appears. Soft body armor that will stop a rather old-fashioned .338 caliber, 158 grain, lead slug is out. The governor has signed the bill into law.

Hard ceramic, steel, composite, or UHWM polyethylene plates that will stop higher- power rifles rounds (as well as the lesser .38s)  are still fine. New Yorkers can breathe a sigh of relief, since the basic stupidity of their elected wannabe-masters worked in the people’s favor for once.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Alec Baldwin: Spin, Spin, Spin

Yes, I’m a little late to the game. I wanted to be sure I had all the relevant reports from officialdom. I think it’s generally better to be accurate, than rapidly off target.

Alec Baldwin and his attorney are spinning like tops, trying to counter the — expected — damning report on the forensic examination of the firearm Baldwin used to kill Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin has previously suggested that Rust Assistant Director Dave Halls and Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are to blame for the shooting. He claims that they declared the gun “cold” when it was actually “hot,” and he has accused them of not doing enough checks.

Baldwin also had possession of the gun. What of his responsibility to do a check, or to handle the firearm in a responsible manner?

“The FBI report is being misconstrued,” Baldwin’s attorney said. “The gun fired in testing only one time — without having to pull the trigger — when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places.”

“The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition,” the lawyer added.

Except that is definitely not what the FBI report says.

Item 2 is a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver, Model 1873 SA (Californian), Serial Number E52277, which functioned normally when tested in the Laboratory.

“Unable to fire […] because it was in such poor condition” is not “functioned normally.”

Additionally, Item 2 has a hammer with a fixed firing pin and does not contain any internal safety mechanisms to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer of a chambered cartridge, such as a transfer bar or hammer block. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Again, normal operation; not failed to fire due to poor condition. I suspect that the shyster is basing his false claim that the gun failed to fire on this single, out of context sentence, from the FBI report.

This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

Fuller context: “this testing” refers to the “Accidental Discharge Testing” section of the report. “This testing” failed to obtain a discharge without pulling the trigger when the weapon has at both quarter cock and half cock. Because the sear stops functioned normally.

At full cock, the FBI was able to cause the weapon to discharge without a trigger pull… only by pounding on the hammer so hard that the sear broke.

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

The sear functioned normally (yeah, that phrase again) until the FBI managed to break a previously normally functioning firearm in forcing a failure.

This report doesn’t exonerate Baldwin by demonstrating a firearm in poor condition. It condemns the lying bastard by proving the gun was working properly while in Baldwin’s criminally negligent hands.

Baldwin, and too many excuse-making media outlets make a big deal of the Medical Examiner’s report seemingly clearing Baldwin of culpability by declaring the incident an accident. Sure enough, that word appears on the report summary page (page 35).

MANNER OF DEATH: Accident

Alone and out of context. Let’s read the rest of the report for the details of that one word. Page 37:

Death was caused by a gunshot wound of the chest. Review of available law enforcement reports showed no compelling demonstration that the firearm was intentionally loaded with live ammunition on set. Based on all available information, including the absence of obvious intent to cause harm or death, the manner of death is best classified as accident.

I’ll grant that Baldwin probably had no intent to cause Hutchin’s death, or to wound Souza. That leaves a lot of room for negligence, which makes it involuntary manslaughter on Baldwin’s part.

Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Ignoring, thus violating, every basic rule of firearms handing is most definitely “without due caution and circumspection.”.

Baldwin negligently failed to check the gun he was handling. Because why would an allegedly responsible adult do what little kds successfully learn, when he has babysitters to do it for him?

He negligently pointed the loaded firearm at two human beings. Because he’s only an allegedly responsible adult, and someone supposedly told him to do it.

He negligently fired a normally functioning gun at those two human beings. Because who knew that if you hold the trigger down while pulling the hammer back, the normally functioning loaded gun would function normally. Because what allegedly responsible adult could expect such a normal occurrence?

Others may share some additional culpability in this senseless killing, particularly the so-called “armorer.” Why was live ammo on a movie set at all? Why did the armorer not properly examine her supposedly dummy and blank rounds to be sure of what she had? Why was any round — dummy, blank, or live — loaded into a gun for a rehearsal that didn’t call for a discharge? Why was anyone but the “armorer” handing Baldwin a firearm?

But if Baldwin had followed a few basic rules, the possible failures of others still would not have mattered. Is he a responsible adult? I’m dubious, because his “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” sounds remarkably like the act of a three year-old.

In the final analysis, despite any additional culpability on the part of others, Alec Baldwin is responsible for the negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins. He failed to check the weapon. He pointed it at two people. He discharged a normally functioning firearm at them.

Alec Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins.

All that remains to be seen is if New Mexico authorities will even do the right thing, or protect Baldwin, and future film production income for the state. I’m also dubious of the right thing happening, since Baldwin wasn’t arrested and formally charged months ago.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail