Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Gun Safety: The Movies

Gun Safety: The Movies (Page 7)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2024, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Sounds more like Kenney was able to prove his rounds were clean.
I feel what best fits the evidence is Gutierrez-Reed’s dad mixed them up, but this was such an unfathomable mistake from a world renowned pro it took longer than it should have to catch.

In the days following the shooting, Kenney went with the “it’s her fault no matter what because she’s the armorer” defense. This implies he felt his ability to prove the rounds he supplied were clean was in question.



Orphaned on last page:

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Side question, for you rather than the case. Is it odd for multiple parties to bring ammo to a set? Feels like a security concern, and a liability issue. I'd expect all ammo to be accounted for through a single person, perhaps called an armorer.
The armorer is going to be the only person authorized to bring ammo to the set.

Kenney handed his supply over to the armorer.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 01:12 AM
 
A friend of Thell Reed brought ammunition to the police he said was pertinent to the killing. The prosecution deemed it irrelevant, but failed to inform or make it available to the defense.

The prosecution decided to publicly defend this to the judge, and the special prosecutor walked in protest.

Judge didn’t buy what the prosecution was selling. Case dismissed with prejudice. Baldwin’s a free man.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A friend of Thell Reed brought ammunition to the police he said was pertinent to the killing. The prosecution deemed it irrelevant, but failed to inform or make it available to the defense.

The prosecution decided to publicly defend this to the judge, and the special prosecutor walked in protest.
A Brady violation, seriously? No matter what you think of the case, I think you can expect Baldwin to have top notch legal representation and lots of public attention to the case.

I wonder whether this has any implication for the armorer's case, too. (I haven't kept tabs, but I reckon this is something to file an appeal if one hasn't been filed already.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 01:57 AM
 
FWIU, the armorer wants to add it to her appeal, which is already in progress.

Not sure how that would work though. Introducing new evidence to an appeal is tricky. Also, it’s not like the evidence comes from a disinterested party. Lastly, IIUC, he didn’t give it to the police until the day the jury in her trial delivered a verdict.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 04:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
FWIU, the armorer wants to add it to her appeal, which is already in progress.

Not sure how that would work though. Introducing new evidence to an appeal is tricky.
Yeah, I was following the Adnan Syed story for many years and learnt how difficult that is even if the prosecution's or police's behavior is egregious. So I have no idea. But in the end, this might tip the conviction. It did in Syed's case, it just took two decades.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 12:30 PM
 
I'm annoyed that Baldwin's role as producer wasn't allowed to be considered. While a court determined the armorer was the immediate cause, the root cause was likely cheapskate producers cutting corners to save money. If so and it isn't punished, it will keep happening.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 02:07 PM
 
@reader
I agree. That’s the pity here. A court case is also for the public to better understand what has happened. It would have been worthwhile to figure out the culpability of top management to judge the actions of the armorer or Baldwin-the-actor.

The armorer got less lucky as the (potential) Brady violation was disclosed well after she got sentenced. (Just to be clear, I don’t know whether the disclosure would have changed her verdict or set Baldwin free, but it should have been weighed.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm annoyed that Baldwin's role as producer wasn't allowed to be considered. While a court determined the armorer was the immediate cause, the root cause was likely cheapskate producers cutting corners to save money. If so and it isn't punished, it will keep happening.
Here’s the relevant part from the judge on this


“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that as a producer he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore as an actor Mr. Baldwin did all of these things wrong that resulted in the death of Ms. Hutchins because as a producer he allowed these things to happen,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said. “I’m denying evidence of his status as a producer.”

Which I would summarize as “you have to pick one”.

I personally would pick producer, because as an actor he’s innocent.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which I would summarize as “you have to pick one”.

I personally would pick producer, because as an actor he’s innocent.
I agree with this. Baldwin as an actor might have been careless (pointing a gun at someone during warmup), but that seems weak. No one has alleged Baldwin had anything to do with the live ammo getting on set.

However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.

btw, I also agree with Oreo about understanding what happened. I was looking forward to the court determining where the live ammo came from. Yes, the armorer didn't catch them - but who provided them in the first place? We've heard several theories, but it never got settled.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2024, 04:31 PM
 
AFAIK, the shot was being framed, so the gun needed to be pointed where it was to be pointed during actual filming.

As for how the ammo got on the set, the best theory I’ve heard so far is my own.

Thell Reed mixed them up and then handed them off to his daughter, who didn’t check them because she assumed her dad wasn’t a fuckup.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2024, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I agree with this. Baldwin as an actor might have been careless (pointing a gun at someone during warmup), but that seems weak. No one has alleged Baldwin had anything to do with the live ammo getting on set.
Yeah, which is why I think the criminal case of Baldwin-the-actor was relatively weak.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.
Yeah, that would have been much more difficult to establish, but ultimately it is what IMHO should have mattered.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
btw, I also agree with Oreo about understanding what happened. I was looking forward to the court determining where the live ammo came from. Yes, the armorer didn't catch them - but who provided them in the first place? We've heard several theories, but it never got settled.
Yes, and it would have mattered at least for sentencing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2024, 05:12 PM
 
Given the overlap (or near overlap) of trials of Baldwin and Trump, it occurred to me that it could be amusing/interesting if by chance they had ended up in a cell together.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2024, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.
The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.

The specific safety sloppiness most relevant to the killing was the armorer failing to inventory the dummies. I don’t see how that can be pinned on the production cheaping-out.


Edit: for example, Baldwin has been criticized for not respecting safety meetings. Well, no amount of safety meetings would have fixed the problem of the armorer inserting a live round instead of a dummy.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2024, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.
Saving money on personnel. Not paying for a more experienced armorer, perhaps not paying for an assistant armorer, maybe not paying for overtime, so she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?

Possibly cheaping out on emergency medical personnel on site, resulting in a victim bleeding out?

Saving money almost always involves skipping things. People, safety margins, having extra resources sitting around doing nothing - until they're needed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2024, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.

The specific safety sloppiness most relevant to the killing was the armorer failing to inventory the dummies. I don’t see how that can be pinned on the production cheaping-out.
There are tons of similar cases when it comes to e. g. air plane crashes. One example is forcing policies on pilots and crew that would not leave them enough time to rest. Or pressuring pilots not to divert, because diversions are very expensive for airlines. Or airlines not spending enough on pilot training.

In my mind it would have been very important to adopt this lens for part of the investigation. After all, I reckon that shoestring budgets and the like are not unique to Rust, but that on most movie sets people are luckier.

If you look back at my post, I was very skeptical as to whether you can conclude that there is criminal negligence by any one party. Now you were right and I was wrong about predicting the outcome of the armorer's trial. Despite that, I think a proper trial is the right forum to decide this question as a society.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Saving money on personnel. Not paying for a more experienced armorer, perhaps not paying for an assistant armorer, maybe not paying for overtime, so she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?
Or having her work overtime for days on end so that she wasn't rested enough.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Saving money almost always involves skipping things. People, safety margins, having extra resources sitting around doing nothing - until they're needed.
Yes, especially since most of the time, emergency personnel is “doing nothing” and “isn't needed”. It is easy to see how an organization can come to the conclusion that you save money here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2024, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given the overlap (or near overlap) of trials of Baldwin and Trump, it occurred to me that it could be amusing/interesting if by chance they had ended up in a cell together.
You'd wonder whether Baldwin would just annoy the living shirt out of Trump by interacting with him as him. (Baldwin did a Trump impression on SNL several times.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2024, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?
Honestly, I expect her to do that, demand more time, or quit. Those are her choices.

“Production didn’t give me proper resources, oh wel… BLAM” is not an acceptable choice on her part.

Further, that very day there was a walkout. She had hours of sudden downtime directly preceding the event.



Edit: to clarify my first sentence, if she had chosen to do it on her own time, that would mean staying late (or arriving early) and doing the inventory on set.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 15, 2024 at 11:29 AM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2024, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think a proper trial is the right forum to decide this question as a society.
I agree. Likewise, this production appears to have been so crummy it would make an excellent subject of analysis.

The problem I see is while production created an unquestionably unsafe environment, my instincts tell me the critical fuckup occurred independently from the unsafe environment.

To use my pet theory as an example, if the armorer failed to check the ammo because she mistakenly trusted her father? Doesn’t have jack shit to do with production.

Regardless of how the mixup occurred, the fact remains the armorer failed to inventory the bullets.

I posit this must have happened very early in the production, if not even before actual filming took place. If so, it’s very possible many of the (legit) complaints against the production didn’t have time to manifest.

For example, the charge of overworking people. The armorer was so overworked she couldn’t complete her job… on like day two?

Baldwin is accused of, and I imagine is 100% guilty of being an intimidating, pushy, skinflint asshole. Again… on like, day two? I assume Baldwin’s attitude tracked strongly with how over-budget the production was. Like I said, day two. Was the production so phenomenally out of control he was peeling heads this soon after it began? I mean, had she really even had a chance to meet the guy yet?

To put it another way, many (but not all) of the horrible practices we can pin on the production are cumulative problems. Being overworked doesn’t happen on day two, it’s week two. Same with people displaying how much of a flaming asshole they are. Stuff generally needs to go pear-shaped first. That can happen almost immediately, but it’s more commonly a slide.

One of the issues this doesn’t negate is the question of whether production had an obligation to fire the armorer, or knowingly hired someone incompetent. I’ll save that for later.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2024, 03:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You'd wonder whether Baldwin would just annoy the living shirt out of Trump by interacting with him as him. (Baldwin did a Trump impression on SNL several times.)
This was why I found the idea amusing. I'm thinking it's the premise for a new sitcom. Like a combination of The Odd Couple and Porridge.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,