22 November 2021 — 1002 mdt

Why I’m much madder at Alec Baldwin
than I am at Kyle Rittenhouse

Acting in self-defense, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men, and seriously wounded a third. Acting in a rehearsal, 62-year-old Alec Baldwin shot and killed the woman photographing the movie in which he was starring.

The deaths leave stains on the souls of both men, but by my reckoning, the stain on Baldwin’s soul is much deeper, and will — and should — last much longer.

Rittenhouse

Using abysmal judgment, he brought an AR-15 assault rifle to a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, WI, on the evening of 25 August 2020. In the chaos, two men charged him and a third approached him holding a powerful handgun. Believing his life was in danger, he shot all three, killing two. On trial for intentional murder and other charges, he argued he acted in self-defense, taking the witness stand to testify on his own behalf. The jury believed him, finding him not guilty on all charges.

The more I learn about what happened in Kenosha that evening, the more I’m convinced that Rittenhouse genuinely feared for his life — and that he had good reason to fear he was in mortal danger. I accept the jury’s verdict and do not consider it a miscarriage of justice.

His legal woes may not be over, of course. The families of the men he killed and wounded may bedevil him with civil lawsuits. And the federal government may charge him with federal crimes.

But his acquittal gives him a second chance in life. He’s studying nursing at Arizona State University. If he graduates, if he steers clear of the Paul Gosars and Tucker Carlsons, the false friends who would abandon him after exploiting his notoriety to raise money for their putrid causes, he can save many lives with his nursing skills, thus over time redeeming himself. I pray he does. So should everyone.

Baldwin

The facts are not in dispute. Baldwin was on a movie set, sitting in a church pew rehearsing a scene. In front of him, behind the camera, were the film’s chief of photography and the director. Someone handed Baldwin a Colt .45; someone said “Cold Gun.” In Hollywood’s argot, that means a gun without a load.

Baldwin accepted the revolver, but did not spin the cylinder to see for himself whether there were rounds in the firearm. He accept the word of the person who said the gun was cold. Moments later, demonstrating how he would play the scene, he pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger, no doubt expecting the click of the hammer hitting an empty chamber.

But his pistol was loaded with three .45 caliber rounds. The one he fired went through the photographer’s chest, killing her, and penetrated the director’s shoulder, wounding but not killing him.

This could have happened only in Hollywood, and it should not have happened there. No current or former member of the armed forces; no hunter or sports shooter; no one with commonsense, would fail to determine whether the firearm handed to him was loaded. That’s what’s taught to young men and women, in military service, in civilian life, everywhere. Baldwin’s not conducting his own safety check is inexplicable, inexcusable, irresponsible, unforgivable.

He may escape a reckoning in criminal court, but he’s already lost his case in the court of public opinion, and faces strong cases against him in civil court. His acting career, if not over, surely is irreparably damaged.

Rittenhouse has 60 or more years to redeem himself. Baldwin does not. If Rittenhouse conducts himself with dignity and responsibility, the stains on his soul may fade and be forgiven when the roll is called up yonder. But no matter how many his future good deeds, the stain on Baldwin’s soul will remain fresh to his dying day.

Baldwin’s liberal politics may appeal to the people damning Rittenhouse’s acquittal, but given the facts, they should be one hell of a lot madder at Baldwin than Rittenhouse. I know I am.