Rust armorer found guilty

[Crowbob]

She had one job at which she failed miserably.

I’m guessing other armorers in entertainment think she got off easy.

[Crowbob]

I don’t know if there’s much of a difference but I think Baldwin should go down as negligent homicide, if there is such a thing.

[Steve Carlton]

She was also a props assistant, which was not wise from what I've read. But she's a total flake IMO and did completely fail as armorer. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

[stealthn]

Where’s Hugh when you need a comment? Lol

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

At least she got rid of that crappy dye job!

Her lawyer told her to do that....iow, look sane....normal. Not her real self.

[Baz]

Not surprised. Only a 2 hour deliberation. Could get up to 18 months. She'll be out in 6 months.

Baldwin bears some responsibility as producer of the movie. He was there when this happened.

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Horribly unjust verdict. I predict it will not survive on appeal.

I predict you are wrong.

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Tobra

She is the scapegoat, least powerful person involved

Funny I would say she was supposed to be the most powerful person involved when it came to anything related to weapons on set and with an experienced armor this would've never happened

[Baz]

Originally Posted by The Synergizer

Is Baldwin off now, scot-free?

Or is there more to come?

His case is next (July)...so yes...more to come........

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

She had one job at which she failed miserably.

I agree 100%

[Jeff Higgins]

She was twice removed from possession of the firearm on which Alex Baldwin pulled the trigger while he had it aimed at a living human being. She did not hand it to the Assistant Director, the guy who handed it to Alex Baldwin. She did not tell that Assistant Director that it was a "cold gun". Nor did she hand it to Alex Baldwin. She was not even on the set when Alex Baldwin fired the fatal shot.

An old buddy of mine who practices law made me aware of a legal doctrine that is often utilized in vehicular accident situations. It's known as "last chance to avoid". The hypothetical was "what if I'm driving some old schittbox (or something on which I'm hopelessly underwater on the loan) and 'opportunity' presents itself?" in the form of some other driver who cut me off, ran a red light, or whatever. Gave me the "opportunity" to total the car while he was clearly "at fault". Well, guess what? If you actually had an opportunity to avoid the collision but chose not to, things get very, very murky...

Both the Assistant Director and Alex Baldwin had that "last chance to avoid". If either had followed centuries old gun safety protocol and had checked the gun themselves, no one would have died. Two missed opportunities. One dead cinematographer. Twice removed from the armorer.

At my own gun club (as in all others) we have long established rules for the "transfer" of firearms. All actions are open, chambers empty, chamber flags in place, magazines removed, cylinders swung open (on double action revolvers), loading gates open and cylinders free to rotate and inspect (on single action revolvers), etc. Anyone caught violating these simple rules is sent home and made to stand tall in front of our Range Committee to explain their transgressions before they are allowed to return to the range.

We've all heard the Hollywood argument that actors simply cannot be expected to understand guns and their operation. Bullschitt. I have hunted in places where the camp help, and the guys who tag along on the hunt - skinners, trackers, etc. - run around naked when we are not with them, cannot read nor write in any language, yet are expected to safely carry and handle loaded rifles (so they can hand them to you in a hurry when the situation demands) when we are in the field. More so, they are expected to be able to quickly reload the one you just handed over your shoulder to them, in trade for the one they just loaded for you.

So, no - the supposition that no one on set is responsible for the condition of the firearm in question other than the armorer is no more than Hollywood "A List" entitled actor nonsense. Anyone with a gun in their hand is responsible for that gun. The only one responsible for that gun.

[Reiver]

As to Baldwin.... she is def. responsible for the arms/wpns and the condition at usage.

However, Baldwin was the 'OIC,' the guy in charge and some of the vids show him rushing the crew in many clips...and during the shooting shots...hurrying things along and the very young and probably newbie armorer did not 'take charge' and stop him so he is also complicit.

As to all of the actual events and timing leading up to that final event I am not privy to all of that...but he is not Scot free because she was found culpable.

I do believe her sentence was over the top tho given the circumstances I am aware of.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by stealthn

Where’s Hugh when you need a comment? Lol

Hugh is excercising discretion. He may be called as an expert witness.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

She had one job at which she failed miserably.

I’m guessing other armorers in entertainment think she got off easy.

This. She was either totally incompetent or just reckless. Either way, she deserves a lot more time.

[stealthn]

Uh, understood.

On the Baldwin side, I get it as producer, but as a human, if I am handed a gun/prop that the person whose job it is to know if it’s live/loaded or not, I have to trust them. But then again, I hired them, I am my own worst enemy…

[CurtEgerer]

How does one become the person in charge of firearms when you have a prior history with drugs and rehab?? They did do a nice job of trying to normalize her for the jury by getting rid of the clown hair though!

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

This. She was either totally incompetent or just reckless. Either way, she deserves a lot more time.

Yes, also very stupid. Cocaine (by the sounds of it) onsite. I think she was concentrating on being cool and part of the "movie people scene" other than doing a good job of what she was employed to do.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by MMARSH

Funny I would say she was supposed to be the most powerful person involved when it came to anything related to weapons on set and with an experienced armor this would've never happened

You are absolutely right, Michael. The armorer is supposed to have absolute authority over all things gun related on set. At least that is my understanding, with the disclaimer that I have never been on a movie set.

It is also my understanding that with a more experienced, and therefor forceful and assertive armorer, this would not be allowed to happen. Such an armorer would have shut them down. Again, having never been on a movie set, that is merely information I have gleaned from those who have.

Where I do have some experience, and some industry contacts, is in the field of firearms. Not Hollywood, but firearms. I've actually met her dad, Thell. Not that that means anything. Anyway, my admittedly distant contacts in the industry are in agreement on one thing - they would not have taken this job.

Why? Because... Alec Baldwin. He has a "reputation". No experienced armorer, with a good name in that industry, was willing to risk it by working under the conditions they expected to see on his set. Nor, apparently, was Baldwin willing to accept one who would "talk back". The result was an unholy matrimony between an inexperienced armorer seeking to expand her resume' and a producer/director/actor more than willing to run roughshod over her. One who both demanded access to the guns and handled them when she was not on set.

A "stronger", more "authoritative" armorer would have allowed neither. The armorer should have been, as you point out, the ultimate authority. "The most powerful person involved." But she was not. Baldwin was. By his own design.

[Arizona_928]

Or she was overworked and needed a stimmy to keep her going

[Baz]

Originally Posted by stealthn

Uh, understood.

On the Baldwin side, I get it as producer, but as a human, if I am handed a gun/prop that the person whose job it is to know if it’s live/loaded or not, I have to trust them. But then again, I hired them, I am my own worst enemy…

Would you aim and fire a weapon at your daughter.......without first double checking if it had live rounds or not?