Non answer. Just like a few others I've requested from you. You cite evidence and facts you are unable to back up. So that makes you the kind of forum member I find useless. For example, I asked you where it was stated that Baldwin demanded access to the guns. Crickets.

I'm not going to rehash a year and a half worth of discussion for you, Steve. It's as simple as that. All of this has been all over this forum, all over the internet, all over the media. The fact that you have somehow been unable to keep up with all of it, and are now demanding we all start lap six or seven of this discussion, speaks volumes. If you simply go back and read through the many discussions we've had on this forum, you will be much better informed than you are at present. I cannot, and will not, help you with that.

???? I believe this has been discussed, in depth. You are, of course, absolutely right - full stop. No live rounds on set. Ever. No excuses. "Plinking", after hours, with prop guns? NFW. We have even discussed why "prop" guns "need" to be fully functioning firearms. Again, in a good deal of detail. And, again, no justifiable reason for that. There are just so, so many ways to disable them from actually sending a bullet downrange. A few of us have detailed all of them. Cheap and easy - no earthly reason not to incorporate them. This has all been covered in various discussions on this very forum. I'm at a loss as to why you would think your observations have fallen on deaf ears.

What I am implying is that given any reason to challenge procedure before getting to the actual events that took place is going to be exploited. And if there has been any background activity that has managed to skirt witness tampering, then it may have taken place.

Those involved in legal representation (I could not think of the word I wanted to use there) don't play nice. And money does what these people need it to do.

Baldwin Settles

(that's just a reminder)

that was kind of the point of that article. I should have only posted the one liners.
I bolded certain items. It's pretty natural, I think, for us to always look for a cause or single factor that was responsible, but in systems like this where there are multiple layers of security, there's not any one cause (unless maybe there's been a single action that removed the system entirely). In this case, it seems that the system was in place, but there were at least 3-5 failures in the system that ultimately lead to this catastrophe. 1 live ammo on set 2 live ammo in the gun at times 3 armorer not on set when the gun was produced/handled/used 4 gun not cleared etc...

Looks like the new forensic report concludes the trigger had to have been pulled in the gun Baldwin was handling. I believe there was some film evidence looked at from the set as well. It doesn't specifically say there were no modifications, but I would assume they were looking for them, as that is a big claim that was made, leading to the charges being dropped against Baldwin (that can be re-assessed) and this whole forensic examination.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-08-15/rust-alec-baldwin-firearms-report-trigger-pulled

Looks like the judge might dismiss the charges against Baldwin again. There's a contention that prosecutors didn't fully advise the grand jury they could question other witnesses and that a Sheriff's Deputy was cut off when discussing safety measures on set. There should be a decision next week.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-05-17/should-alec-baldwin-indictment-in-rust-movie-shooting-be-dismissed

Baz... I can't see that video from Australia.

What's the title (so I can search from here)?

Here's an image of the embedded video. The rest says "manslaughter charge in "Rust" shooting

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1716723828.jpg

Thanks Steve. I found the story on the NBC channel.

This is going to be an interesting trial, but I personally believe Baldwin will be acquitted. Proving involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt will be a high bar, given the unique situation of movie set safety protocols. This is just my opinion- I'm no expert attorney.

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-movie-things-to-know-6c08979ccc0067660831ba66602334fd#

Alec Baldwin is standing trial for involuntary manslaughter in connection to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Prosecutors allege Baldwin pulled the trigger of the gun that fired the live round that hit Hutchins and film director Joel Souza. In their opening statement, the prosecution said Baldwin was “playing make-believe” when he allegedly fired the prop gun on the set of his movie “Rust.” Baldwin’s defense fired back, claiming Baldwin never pulled the trigger and was just doing his job as an actor. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down 15 key moments from opening statements as Alec Baldwin’s manslaughter trial kicks off.

<iframe width="718" height="404" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oecgu_vH3iE" title="15 Key Moments from Alec Baldwin’s Manslaughter Trial Opening Statements" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The defense has given up on (most certainly false) Baldwin's claim that he didn't pull the trigger. The prosecution seems to build their case on proving that he did and is guilty of the charges. Personally, I don't think they will prevail on that, but we'll see. Same video as above, forwarded to 20:59:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oecgu_vH3iE?si=wUhgDGETsacAwaGB&amp;start=1259" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.... just like Dorothy Hamill.... he will.

Heads will explode :D

There is a presumption that the weapon was not live. It was a prop. He will be acquitted. The focus should be on the idiot that was in charge of the props.

Yep not his fault but he pulled the trigger and killed someone.

It was not a prop, it was a firearm.

Quit calling it a prop gun. It is a gun

Not gonna go well for prosecution if they just focus on who pulled the trigger given my digestion of what has been said in this thread.

Chain of command and his position in it seems to me to be far more relevant.

It’s all irrelevant now as the judge just dismissed the case with prejudice. Evidently the prosecution withheld evidence.