Now, it's been about six months, and we have a state investigation into the Rust shoot shooting released, which largely blames the production and producers themselves for shoddy standards and ignoring various issues about safety, including at least two previous shootings from accidental misfires.

Despite the attempt to frame the argument as one of pro-Baldwin/anti-Baldwin ("Again, it seems to me the "sides" here are "Baldwin has some responsibility" versus "no he doesn't."), we'll take a look of some of what I did actually, and apparently presciently, say:

(Very first post)

So I suppose the producers do not consider these texts, or the walk-outs that resulted, as "official complaints"? I hope these crew members, and that unit manager, has preserved these texts. This is beginning to look like criminal negligence for the producers (which Baldwin was one) and it'll be interesting to see who was responsible for some very crucial decisions that specifically led to an environment of carelessness and disregard. I'm sorry that Hutchins didn't join in her collegues in walking out.

I don't think it's a coincidence that at least two of these production companies responsible for this film seem to specialize in the kind of anonymous straight-to-Bulgaria cheapo action flicks that Bruce Willis has been specializing in lately. I think most likely we're going to find that this accident is directly attributable to tight-fisted penny-pinching corner-cutting by people likely more concerned in fronting their off-shore accounts than quality control or professional safety. But I digress...

We know that those who reported the previous discharges walked off the set hours beforehand. Why did the producers allow this? What efforts did they take to address their complaints? "Hutchins had been advocating for safer conditions for her team"? Advocating to whom? Why was she ignored? Why was the producers' response to their union crew's complaints, including the dangers of the previous discharges, to "order the union members to leave the set and threatened to call security to remove them if they didn’t leave voluntarily"?

I'm not aware of what Baldwin knew, and neither are you. I think he should be held responsible if he had been involved in any of these decisions involving sacking his union crew over safety concerns (or simply ignoring Hutchins'), the decision to employ a nonunion prop master, or was one of the executives actively pressuring crew members like Halls into cutting safety corners in order to stay on schedule.

There's no model protocol being followed here. There appear to have been at least a couple people in the production crew who sacrificed caution for expediency. If anything, it shows a flaw in using nonunion, nontrained crew members.

I've qualified what I believe to be Baldwin's responsibility in this case to be, very specifically to his role as a producer, because I feel that this accident was primarily a result of poor production standards, an opinon strengthened by the links to those from the production who were in a position to know.

(This was my first response to the allegation that I was on the side of "no he doesn't", as framed.  Unfortunately it wouldn't be the last time I'd have to repeat this claim after being repeatedly portrayed as being against assigning any blame to Baldwin.)

Corax gives Baldwin primary responsibility (because of his stated axe with Baldwin's previous anti-gun comments and the perceived hypocrisy of his statements about those involved in gun accidents), whereas I give Baldwin some responsibility (I've questioned why his finger was on the trigger for an unholstering rehearsal and why the hammer was apparently cocked).

There's never a good reason to have live ammo on set. The fact that loaded pistols were introduced on set at all is another example of the negligent and lax attitudes of the production towards safety concerns. There's a reason why the union crew walked off after two live round misfires. It's intolerable for that to happen even when it doesn't kill someone. The fact that it killed someone hours after this walk-off is simply mind-boggling. I think its why a number of people are suspecting something more foul at work here. But whoever brought the pistols with live rounds to the set is as guilty as anyone who brings vodka to a kindergarten class.

If Baldwin is culpable for anything it's whether or not he was aware of these gun safety issues, or if not, why wasn't he? If I were a producer, I think I'd be a little curious why my union crew walked off the set.

Baldwin is likely responsible for this set's lack of safety protocols anyway.

Baldwin is clearly the name attached to the project, and if he wanted to put his foot down over lax safety issues or supporting the greivances of his crew, I bet you his authority would be decisive. But maybe he wasn't aware of the issues. Or maybe he didn't care. These are details that will come out eventually, but we can see that this was a dangerous, dysfunctional set. As I mentioned earlier, I'd like to see who was making these decisions and creating the on-set culture.

(I had forgotten about the part where the blame shifted to diversity standards forcing the hiring of a woman prop master.)

This is not a case of chromosomes or demographics. This was human beings who were carelessly negligent and a production staff who ignored safety warnings. This isn't about diversity standards, it's about professional standards, and by all accounts this was a reckless and highly unprofessional production.

The relevant negligence here involves those who introduced live ammunition to the movie set and those who ignored or dismissed the previous lapses of gun safety. I doubt Baldwin brought or allowed live ammo on the set, but he may not have taken the latter as seriously as he should have as a producer.

Baldwin will likely be held, along with the entire production staff, liable in a civil settlement for Hutchins' family.

(which is exactly what happened, btw.)

Is it a coincidence that both films she's worked on were productions run by LLC capital funds? Such productions have taken advantage of the pandemic to make movies while most studio productions were scaling back. The cheapness of these productions are evident, and by most accounts this cheapness has directly led to cutting corners on maintaining safety protocols.

As far as Baldwin's culpability goes, it still remains to be seen whether he should have been responsible for similarly throwing his weight around in order to address and correct the set's safety lapses. A civil lawsuit, with Baldwin as co-defendent, is all but certain, I believe.

Despite this.....here's the post from the mod:

On multiple occasions you were asked why you thought Baldwin was totally blameless. Since you say you don't think he's totally blameless (and I believe you!), it's confusing that you didn't take any of these opportunities to dispute the premise, even though you kept replying.

When someone says "why do you believe X?" more than once and you never say "I don't believe X," you really shouldn't be surprised when someone thinks you maybe believe X. And if they do, you should probably simply inform them of that, rather than call the idea "bullsh*t" and immediately impugning their motives.

Unfuckingbelievable.  I have to depend on the judgments and comprehension of nitwits.  Frustrated, my response to this was:

I replied fully the very last time you asked me this in the thread.

For some reason though, I keep being asked to elaborate. I'm not going to continue repeating myself every other page. It's exhausting, and it's insulting that you can't bother to read these posts, and the many others like it. Sorry. I've already taken the opportunity to dispute the premise. So either you aren't reading, or you're deliberately ignoring so you can continue to claim that I haven't responded.

I've already said, multiple times, why and to what degree I believe Baldwin is liable, and I have explained in what way I don't find him liable. I'm not going to repeat myself at this point.

And get this gem of idiocy:

Yes, the last time. This is the whole point. Obviously you have disputed the premise since.

At some point it does seem like I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in calling them stupid and not just acting like assholes.