Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
Why this now? From what you say it wasn't lunchtime. She was AWOL. Any set I have been on (not many) everyone eats at once.
Too many different versions going around. Someone should read the court transcript and see if they can figure it out. I can't and I'm glad I wasn't on the jury. I can say how I feel I might have voted, but I really don't have the facts.
Does anyone except those that were there? And how much was the truth anyway? I'll bet that the Baldwin version goes into much more detail... or legal maneuvers. What if Baldwin is found guilty even if no sentence. Does that open the HG-R appeals situation? Does she have money for an appeal or just takes this in the ass.
|
Over the course of this now couple years long discussion, I have learned a great deal about the rules under which Hollywood handles firearms on set. They do not follow the rules established in or by the firearms world which, at first, I had a very hard time accepting. I can now accept why they do what they do, even if it flies in the face of everything I was ever taught about safe gun handling.
From what I understand, they hold the armorer responsible for everything. Fine. Fine, that is, if they follow their own rules. In this case, they did not follow their own rules, yet they still hold the armorer responsible. They want to "have their cake and eat it too".
Under Hollywood rules, no one handles any firearm that was not handed to them by the armorer, who has verified its condition before handing it over. That did not happen here. David Halls picked that gun up from an unattended table or cart, in the absence of the armorer. She was not on the set. The original story was that she was away at lunch. Doesn't matter - the salient point is that she was not there, David Halls knew she was not there, but picked up that firearm anyway, in violation of their own rules.
He did this right in front of Alec Baldwin, who was also quite aware that she was not there. Alec Baldwin accepted that gun from David Halls after having watched him pick it from from an unattended table or cart, with Guiterez-Reed nowhere to be seen. He was violating his own rules, and he knew it. Both of them knew it, yet proceeded anyway.
Regardless of which set of rules Hall or Baldwin followed, those of the real firearms world or their own Hollywood rules, had they followed either, Halyna Hutchins would still be alive. They are trying to say that Guiterez-Reed was "responsible" under their rules, yet they did not follow their rules in her absence. She had no chance to verify the condition of that gun before Halls handled it, because she was not even present. Had Halls left the thing alone until she got back, as their own rules demand, none of this would have happened. If Baldwin had refused to take possession of that gun from Halls because she was not there, as their rules demand, none of this would have happened. To hold her responsible for the outcome after two men had broken their own rules, in her absence, is unconscionable.