Rust armorer found guilty

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Absolute nonsense. There is no equivalency between a firearm and a car. We covered this a couple of years ago in the context of a race car driver being expected to inspect their own car prior to a race, and put it to bed then. It failed to pass even the most cursory examination then, and it failed again today.

You keep going to the same well. The attempt to compare a man handling a firearm to someone getting in a car is absolutely ludicrous. Guns are different than anything else we handle and their rules are, therefor, necessarily different as well. And so painfully simple that even Hollywood actors should be able to abide by them. It would have taken less than two or three seconds to inspect that gun.

The bottom line is that there is not supposed to be any live ammo on set, at a studio or on a prop truck.

NEVER. EVER.

Even the prosecutor said that when Gutierrez-Reed arrived on set, the camera department had walked off the job leaving over 3 hours of "down time". More than enough time to check the dummy rounds, secure them until needed. She failed to do that.

We have also gone over the protocol. She was supposed to take each round from a box labeled "dummy rounds" (not loose rounds from a fanny pack) and shake them in front of cast and crew, listening for the BB, and then loading them into the gun one by one. She failed to do that.

If AB had opened the action of the gun after she handed it to him, that would have interrupted the "chain of custody" and he could (and maybe still will) be responsible for Hutchins' death.

[Tervuren]

Captains on a ship can still get in trouble when a pilot mucks up.
Each have their failures from what I've been able to read.
Baldwin didn't have his ship in order.
The armorer didn't have her part of the ship in order.
They both seem to carry some responsibility.

As for Baldwin not checking the gun, ok , I get that.
But he didn't take the gun from the person he put in charge of the gun.
That's different than if he did.

[rfuerst911sc]

Originally Posted by Baz

Baldwin's trial scheduled for July, Rick.....

You are correct and I was wrong . Thanks for the correction .

[Crowbob]

Baldwin should have never accepted the firearm from anyone other than the armorer, if he did it’s one of his numerous demonstrable acts of negligence.

From that point on its all on Baldwin.

I can see how it could happen. I can not see how it could have happened without Baldwin’s negligence.

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Captains on a ship can still get in trouble when a pilot mucks up.
Each have their failures from what I've been able to read.
Baldwin didn't have his ship in order.
The armorer didn't have her part of the ship in order.
They both seem to carry some responsibility.

As for Baldwin not checking the gun, ok , I get that.
But he didn't take the gun from the person he put in charge of the gun.
That's different than if he did.

Yes, and I understand Jeff's points.

This is an industry that has been handling gunfire for over a century with only 3 documented firearm deaths. Jon Erik Hexum, Brandon Lee and now Halyana Hutchins. All 3 due to inexperienced armorers and negligence.

Expect to see a lot of CGI gunfire in the future, all added in post production. All in the name of "on set safety".

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

Baldwin should have never accepted the firearm from anyone other than the armorer, if he did it’s one of his numerous demonstrable acts of negligence.

From that point on its all on Baldwin.

I can see how it could happen. I can not see how it could have happened without Baldwin’s negligence.

Is the Director responsible for ensuring that the necessary training is completed? IMHO I think it is Baldwin's negligence as Director that made this tragedy possible.

[Scott Douglas]

Why should any gun being used in a movie even be capable of firing a live round?

Aren't movies supposed to be make believe?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by craigster59

If AB had opened the action of the gun after she handed it to him, that would have interrupted the "chain of custody" and he could (and maybe still will) be responsible for Hutchins' death.

I can never get past this fundamental inconsistency with basic gun safety. I could never work in the movie industry. If I had somehow gotten into it and found this out, I would quit whatever job I had

[The Synergizer]

I can't get over the fact that she's standing there one second, seeing all the earthly surroundings. Then 1/10,000 of a second later it's St. Peter...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by craigster59

The bottom line is that there is not supposed to be any live ammo on set, at a studio or on a prop truck.

NEVER. EVER.

Even the prosecutor said that when Gutierrez-Reed arrived on set, the camera department had walked off the job leaving over 3 hours of "down time". More than enough time to check the dummy rounds, secure them until needed. She failed to do that.

I understand all of that, and will not argue against any of it.

Originally Posted by craigster59

We have also gone over the protocol. She was supposed to take each round from a box labeled "dummy rounds" (not loose rounds from a fanny pack) and shake them in front of cast and crew, listening for the BB, and then loading them into the gun one by one. She failed to do that.

There has recently been a new twist introduced into all of this. That YouTube video, wherein she is seen grabbing loose rounds from a fanny pack, was designed to do just that. Remember, that video was made while they were shooting another scene entirely. Likely made on a different day than the fatal shooting as well. It achieved its objective by insinuating that that was what happened immediately prior to the fatal shooting, by trying to portray that level of chaos and hurry as "typical" on that set.

Let's not forget, however, that the Assistant Director, just prior to that fatal shooting, picked the gun up off a table and handed it to Baldwin. It was before they had started shooting, there was no rush, and Gutierrez-Reed was not even on the set. She was not hurriedly fumbling in her fanny pack to reload that revolver. This distinction is very important.

Originally Posted by craigster59

If AB had opened the action of the gun after she handed it to him, that would have interrupted the "chain of custody" and he could (and maybe still will) be responsible for Hutchins' death.

Abso-freaking-lutely it would have "interrupted the chain of custody"!!!!!!! That's what we want!!! Everyone who touches any firearm under any circumstances checks its condition (loaded or unloaded?). Every. Single. Goddamned. Time. Again, it takes seconds to do so. Seconds. It's so bloody simple and easy there can be no excuse for failing to do so.

How many here believe that poor woman would still be alive today had Baldwin taken just a few seconds to check that revolver?

[flatbutt]

I do. Is he still maintaining that the gun "just went off"? I don't remember. I know that the likelihood of that happening has been discussed here but I don't recall if he has stayed with that.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I do. Is he still maintaining that the gun "just went off"? I don't remember. I know that the likelihood of that happening has been discussed here but I don't recall if he has stayed with that.

Baldwin has stuck with that story. This in spite of the fact that the FBI forensics lab determined that that revolver could not have fired unless the trigger was pulled. An independent forensics lab came to the same conclusion after the FBI reached theirs. They had to actually break off either the full cock notch on the hammer, or the end of the trigger, to make it fire without pulling the trigger. The gun both received was undamaged, they broke it in testing and rebuilt it.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Scott Douglas

Why should any gun being used in a movie even be capable of firing a live round?

Aren't movies supposed to be make believe?

Because the movie's producer was being cheap. Look at everything to do with that movie. It had a budget of only $10M. Middle of nowhere location, all the people involved were fresh, cheap, up and comers.

[FOG]

Craigster,

Your analogy of the rented car is wrong. Checking the firearm status as too whether or not it is loaded is analogous to a walk around of the car to look for flat tires and other major problems, it is faster to check the firearm than a walk-around. Your analogy to putting the car on a lift for an inspection is more along the lines of a function check, again far more involved and longer on a car than firearm.

As far as chain of custody being broken by conducting a safety check I am at a loss for words on that level of SNAFU.

S/F, FOG

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Scott Douglas

Why should any gun being used in a movie even be capable of firing a live round?

Aren't movies supposed to be make believe?

Did you miss the previous, long thread on this?

IIRC, there are fakes of many common guns that can be used in movies, but in the case of rare or unusual guns where it doesn't make sense to make a one-off fake gun,a real gun is used with blanks.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by masraum

Did you miss the previous, long thread on this?

IIRC, there are fakes of many common guns that can be used in movies, but in the case of rare or unusual guns where it doesn't make sense to make a one-off fake gun,a real gun is used with blanks.

The particular gun in question is a Colt Single Action Army, or an Italian made clone of that gun (Uberti, Cimmaron, Pieta, Pedersoli, and others). I would venture to say one of the most used movie guns of all time, featured in every Western made since, well, since they began making Westerns. From "big screen" to television. If there were ever a gun whose use in movies and television would justify the manufacture of an entirely safe, non-firing example, this would be it.

Beyond that, it would be incredibly simple to modify a functioning example of this design to where it would safely fire the ubiquitous "Five in One" blank, the industry standard for revolvers (these can be "fired" in revolvers and rifles chambered in .38-40, .44-40, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt, hence their name), while not being able to fire a "live" round.

With multi tens of million dollar Hollywood budgets, this falls into the category of "chump change". They would spend more over the course of production on coffee for the crew than they would on these modifications.

No excuse, just no excuse for having a gun anywhere near the set that is capable of firing "live" ammunition.

[craigster59]

In this instance it was pointing the gun directly at the camera to where you see the "dummy" rounds in the cylinder. Even in this instance the camera operator is usually behind thick plexiglass or off camera operating focus remotely. But of course due to "budgetary concerns" they didn't practice this simple task.

Much different with semi autos where you need to plug barrels to make the gun "cycle" with low pressure loads like 1/4 and 1/2 blanks which you use indoors or exteriors in neighborhood locations where you want to keep the sound of gunfire at a minimum.

Just a bad situation all around to save a few bucks.

[john70t]

Mr. Baldwin has denied responsibility for Ms. Hutchins’s death. In December 2021, he told ABC News that he cocked the gun but did not pull the trigger.

This was contradicted by an FBI firearms expert at the trial, who said the Italian-made Pietta revolver would not fire when fully cocked without the trigger being pulled.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/armorer-alec-baldwin-movie-rust-found-guilty-involuntary-manslaughter

So...lying to the FBI? (why are they involved in a single shooting event?)

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by FOG

Craigster,

Your analogy of the rented car is wrong. Checking the firearm status as too whether or not it is loaded is analogous to a walk around of the car to look for flat tires and other major problems, it is faster to check the firearm than a walk-around. Your analogy to putting the car on a lift for an inspection is more along the lines of a function check, again far more involved and longer on a car than firearm.

As far as chain of custody being broken by conducting a safety check I am at a loss for words on that level of SNAFU.

S/F, FOG

It would still involve unloading the firearm and checking each round for the rattle of a BB or a hole in the side of the casing and then reloading. Dummy rounds do not necessarily have spent primers. Time is money when filming and that's why you employ someone who's specific job is to make sure all firearms are safe and secured.

It was the armorers job to have the guns secured prior to filming and to load the dummy rounds in front of cast and crew. That did not happen.

All of you seem to think this was like a Saturday afternoon at the Rod & Gun Club. There should have been NO live ammunition anywhere near the film set.

Next you're going to insist that all actors should personally inspect any fake explosives with timers in a James Bond film "Just to make sure it's not real C-4". Alec Baldwin could have inspected the gun himself every time it was handed to him and it wouldn't have done any good. He's not a "firearms expert". Unfortunately neither was the armorer that HE hired and for that he has some responsibility.

[Steve Carlton]

Craig- do you think Baldwin has liability as an actor for pointing the gun where he did and pulling the trigger?