According to our friends at NewsBusters, on June 25th, a pro-life group called Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust were peacefully protesting outside of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood when a crew from the Jimmy Kimmel Show arrived to do some filming. The pro-life youth activists weren’t in the film crew’s way – whatever they were shooting was across the street – but then for no reason other than to be ideologically sadistic, the crew turned a hot spotlight on Ryan Bueler, one of the young protesters. Bueler refused to be intimidated and for 15 minutes stood under a light hot enough to partially melt a bracelet he was wearing.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight:
1) A film crew was doing their job, legally and (presumably) with all the appropriate permits
2) An anti-abortion group comes along and decides to interfere with the film crew’s job (which apparently had nothing to do with abortion)
3) Someone in the film crew turns a light on one of the protestors
4) After fifteen minutes of *willingly* staying put in front of the light, the bracelet worn by the protestor was starting to melt
Ummm… How is this anything other than “crazy protestor is friggen’ CRAZY?”
The film crew was doing their job with legally approved tools. When a group of nuts descended upon them and interfered with their work – i.e. their ability to feed their families. So they pointed a light at ’em. And at least one of the protestors was nuts enough to *willingly* stand in front of it.
Look, typically I’d be right up front with the “Union thugs” accusation. But you *don’t* mess with someone’s livelihood. And unless you are a MORON, you *don’t* stand in front of a lamp like this. And if you’re one of the protestor’s buddies, you hustle his ass out away from under the lamp.
But from the comments at “Big Hollywood” and elsewhere, apparently the film crew are all monsters, and the protestor *isn’t* a brain-damaged whackjob retard.
What am I missing here?
7 Responses to “I’m confused”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well, judging by what I read, it was the abortion crew who was there first, and they weren’t in the way of the film crew to start with. Are you sure we read the same piece? I admit that standing under the spotlight for that long just to show bravado was evidently pretty dumb. I didn’t know that spotlights could get that hot.
> it was the abortion crew who was there first, and they weren’t in the way of the film crew to start with.
Well, that’s true. But there’s this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2010/07/01/pro-life-activists-vs-jimmy-kimmel-thugs
“But at some point the crew became aggravated by the pro-life activists because they refused to move along …”
My understanding of the law, especially in Caaifornia, *particularly* in Hollywood, is that whena film crew has the permits to film at a particular spot, other people gotta vacate per the film crews directions.
The various sites I’ve read about this incident keep yammering on about how it was “torture.” Is it really “torture” if you are somewhere you are not supposed to be, and can leave at any time by simply walking away? Bake-Boy *wanted* to be in the spotlight.
The way it reads to me is that the film crew was on the other side of the street. The light was turned on the protestors because someone in the film crew was an asshole.
I have no idea who or what Jimmy Kimmel might be. I don’t really care.
“My understanding of the law, especially in Caaifornia, *particularly* in Hollywood, is that whena film crew has the permits to film at a particular spot, other people gotta vacate per the film crews directions.”
It’s entirely possible that they simply didn’t know that. It’s also possible that they weren’t asking the protesters to move along for filming-related reasons. And while I think that the kid was stupid for staying where he was, that doesn’t mean the guy who turned the light on in the first place wasn’t a douchebag.
> it reads to me is that the film crew was on the other side of the street.
I think the *action* was on the other side of the street, but this lighting crew was on *this* side of the street, with the abortion nuts.
> The light was turned on the protestors because someone in the film crew was an asshole.
Seems to me that the abortion nuts were probably assholes, and apparently interfering with the film/lighting crew, so the lighting crew went asshole in response. The “Survivors” were either physically in the way, holding up signs in front of cameras or making noise. Otherwise the story makes even *less* sense… why would the crew turn a lamp on some schmoe who was part of a group that was jsut standing out of the way not causing trouble?
Union goons vs. theocratic protestors. Gah. It’s like Iran vs Iraq or “Whale Wars.” Can’t they *both* lose?
I wasn’t clear on which side of the street the light crew was on. I can easily imagine a crew member giggling as he turned the light on someone with whom he disagreed.
I just can’t care about either side. Hollywood isn’t real. Those protestors were indulging in political masturbation: making themselves feel good while avoiding actually doing anything that might have results.
I want to know why someone would wear a bracelet made out of wax, as the skin would start to burn before the bracelet melted if it was made out of anything with a much higher melting point than that.