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 5)
Thread Tools
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 10:13 AM
 
And again, Baldwin being a non-gun person, he didn't have to "pull" the trigger if he already had his finger on it when the hammer was pulled back. It's another issue with not having a qualified, active armorer on the set, so nobody maintained control of the gun.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 02:04 PM
 
The only thing I can think of which potentially challenges this idea is I have never been able to thumb-cock a gun without looking like a dork. It’s smooth enough in movies I assume that gets practiced.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 02:53 PM
 
In the movies, you only see the take the director likes. How many “dork” takes wind up on the cutting room floor? Probably tons of ‘em.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 03:19 PM
 
My own experience is it’s been impossible to get right accidentally. With a tight grip, the thumb is too far forward. The “natural” way to do it is to loosen your grip to let the gun pivot forward. Even then your thumb doesn’t have good leverage, and due to the loose grip the gun squirms around while cocking.

To be clear, I don’t have lots of experience with it, just enough to tell myself “there’s got to be some trick involved”.

As an aside, over the last 10-15 years, obvious trigger discipline has become a thing in movies.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2022, 04:36 PM
 
Civil suit was settled.

They’re going to finish the movie and the husband gets a cut.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 01:51 PM
 
Baldwin’s getting charged with involuntary manslaughter.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 06:11 PM
 
Also charging the armorer. The prosecutor says safety was lax on set, and when they interviewed other actors (unrelated to Rust), the actors claimed they regularly checked the guns handed to them.

No arrests are planned. The suspects will both get summonses.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 06:46 PM
 
In regards to checking guns, I want to know the standard actor protocol for revolvers with a fixed cylinder.

IIUC, for Baldwin to have caught this, he would have needed to remove and replace every round, one at a time. I have trouble buying that’s what an actor does every time they’re handed a fixed-cylinder revolver. Likewise, if the actor is responsible for live ammunition being mixed in once the gun is handed to them, then that should apply to every gun, including the ones with 30-round magazines. To put it bluntly, there is no time for that shit. Not having to waste this time is one of the reasons you have an armorer.

If I remember the relevant law, the question is going to be whether Baldwin could have reasonably expected the outcome of his actions. Unless the actor checking every bullet actually is the protocol, it quite clearly demonstrates a prevailing attitude actors do not expect the possibility of getting live ammo. Hence, Baldwin cannot have reasonably expected this outcome.

As for Gutierrez-Reed. I need to know how the live ammo got on set before I pass judgment.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 19, 2023 at 07:04 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Baldwin’s getting charged with involuntary manslaughter.
I’m surprised about the argument: they are going for “direct responsibility” rather than Baldwin’s responsibility for the movie project. I don’t think the former path does not sound very convincing, especially given that Baldwin had no reason to suspect that live rounds were on set. (AFAIK blanks are still dangerous at close range, though, so even they must be handled with care.) Also for all the other reasons we have discussed, regular gun handling rules do not apply on film sets, including the “don’t point the gun at anything you don’t want to shoot” rule.

My feeling is that this is a civil issue like a fatal car accident where legally one side is at fault, but not criminally liable for the death.

As for the armorer, if I were on the jury, I’d want to know how the live rounds made it on set. I vaguely remember that some people on set wanted to shoot these historic revolvers and/or that the supplier of the dud ammy effed up. If the key is gross negligence, I’d really want to know. If e. g. the armorer was in on the “shoot historic guns” thing and either organized or accepted live ammo on set, that’s a clear breach in my book. If she had no idea and the rounds that were supposed to be used are difficult to distinguish from live rounds, I’d probably lean towards finding her not guilty.
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
Jan 19, 2023, 07:32 PM
 
(This is me just yakking… not a reply to the above )

As far as I’m aware, with rare exception, actors are not expected to be placed in situations where if they fuck up, someone else dies.

This cannot be said for armorers.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In regards to checking guns, I want to know the standard actor protocol for revolvers with a fixed cylinder.

IIUC, for Baldwin to have caught this, he would have needed to remove and replace every round, one at a time. I have trouble buying that’s what an actor does every time they’re handed a fixed-cylinder revolver. Likewise, if the actor is responsible for live ammunition being mixed in once the gun is handed to them, then that should apply to every gun, including the ones with 30-round magazines. To put it bluntly, there is no time for that shit. Not having to waste this time is one of the reasons you have an armorer.

If I remember the relevant law, the question is going to be whether Baldwin could have reasonably expected the outcome of his actions. Unless the actor checking every bullet actually is the protocol, it quite clearly demonstrates a prevailing attitude actors do not expect the possibility of getting live ammo. Hence, Baldwin cannot have reasonably expected this outcome.

As for Gutierrez-Reed. I need to know how the live ammo got on set before I pass judgment.
I should have waited and read your post first before adding my response. Completely agree with what you wrote.
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
Jan 19, 2023, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As far as I’m aware, with rare exception, actors are not expected to be placed in situations where if they fuck up, someone else dies.

This cannot be said for armorers.
Yeah, that is the key for me. I don’t think a prop gun is different from other stunt gear. If one actor causes the death of a staffer or another actor because some stunt equipment failed, I don’t think I’d put the blame on them either.

Baldwin was/is Executive Producer (?), so you might make an argument about his responsibility to ensure a safe set (by e. g. not cutting corners and saving money by shirking safety procedures). But also here the difficulty is that (1) Baldwin would not be alone and IMHO it’d be improper to only focus on him and not others, and (2) this is a pretty shaky argument, because then the prosecution would have to prove (in my mind at least) that the accidental shooting was a result of that. If some bozos on set brought live ammo with them to shoot these old guns without the knowledge (and perhaps against express directions otherwise), then that’d put them in the clear as far as criminal liability is concerned.
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
Jan 19, 2023, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I should have waited and read your post first before adding my response. Completely agree with what you wrote.
Likewise!

From what I’ve been able to gather, the only way to visually tell the live ammo apart from the dummies was the primers happened to be a different color. The way I’m familiar with to make identifiable dummies which look identical to live ammo is to load the dummy with something that rattles.

If the target practice story is true, Gutierrez-Reed is hosed. Even if that’s not how it happened, she’s still hosed.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 08:32 PM
 
According to the news I've read, the armorer has separately civil sued the supply company for selling them live rounds mixed up with the dummy rounds. I know we speculated earlier about target shooting on set, but I haven't read anything official about that.

It sounds like they're going after Baldwin partly as the producer, re the lax safety on set, which other crew members had complained about.

Edit: most of what I've read came from this CNN report. Note that they seem to be updating the story as details come in - I no longer see a reference to Baldwin being able to check the ammo. It now refers mainly to his role as producer.
( Last edited by reader50; Jan 19, 2023 at 08:56 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
From what I’ve been able to gather, the only way to visually tell the live ammo apart from the dummies was the primers happened to be a different color. The way I’m familiar with to make identifiable dummies which look identical to live ammo is to load the dummy with something that rattles.
That'd make a big difference to me if I were a member of the jury.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the target practice story is true, Gutierrez-Reed is hosed. Even if that’s not how it happened, she’s still hosed.
Playing her defense lawyer for a second, I'd argue the onus is on the prosecution to prove that she at the very least was aware of and allowed live ammo on set. Speculation is not enough, the relevant legal standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

PS I hope the prosecutors really try to figure out how this happened, even if nobody goes to jail for it. That's one of the aims of a trial, at least philosophically.
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
Jan 20, 2023, 10:06 AM
 
If the defense claims she was unaware, as a prosecutor I would maintain that’s proof of her irresponsibility. The target practice would be further evidence of said.

Also, my cynical assumption is the prosecution doesn’t care how it happened. All they care about is bagging her.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 07:14 PM
 
I do understand that. AFAIK the issue is proving gross negligence, correct? That seems like a high standard that needs to be met.
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
Jan 20, 2023, 09:04 PM
 
My assumption is if dummies visually identical to live ammo are used, it’s standard protocol to verify every dummy is in fact a dummy.

If my assumption is correct, should she claim the live ammo came from the rental house, it’s an admission she ignored standard protocol.

If I correctly understand the definition of gross negligence, the question is could she have reasonably predicted ignoring the process of verification led to the outcome of live ammo being introduced to the set.

To my mind, this outcome is reasonably predictable.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2023, 04:38 AM
 
CNN has asked legal experts about the case. The experts think the case is weak, though they mostly analyzed it vs Baldwin. Among other things, prosecutors have not proven how the live rounds got on set.

I'd prefer them to have covered the armorer's position too. But the story spoke from Baldwin's position, and/or in a general way. So I don't know if her case is stronger or equally weak.

One thing has been bothering me though. Baldwin tested the gun by pulling the trigger - while it was pointed at someone. When the cameras are rolling, you need to point and fire per the script/director of course. But who tests a gun first, by pointing it at another person? Even idiots checking if their guns are loaded, usually point them at the floor.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2023, 12:18 PM
 
I don’t think the prosecution needs to prove how the live ammo ended up on set if Gutierrez-Reed tries to pin it on the rental house. The prosecution can just agree and ask if she conducted a verification. She either didn’t, which makes her guilty (IIUC), or she did an egregiously bad job, which makes her guilty (IIUC).

Baldwin (as actor) claims he did not pull the trigger. The prosecution can easily prove he did beyond a reasonable doubt, but that’s different from proving he intentionally pulled the trigger, which is what one presumably does during a test. I agree with the CNN analysis the case against him as an actor is very weak. Also, when the prosecution loses, expect accusations of a conspiracy to have Baldwin escape justice.


As an aside, the front runner for “best meme” is still the black tear tattoo photoshopped onto Baldwin’s face.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 12:45 PM
 
All charges against Baldwin have been dropped.

I’m hearing a very different story now in regards to the results of the FBI analysis of the gun.


Edit: and retract any previous statements I made based on bad information. The important one being the claim Baldwin must have pulled the trigger.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 22, 2023 at 01:52 PM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 02:57 PM
 
Charges have been dropped, but with the option to refile.

They've (prosecutors) determined the gun was modified, and are no longer sure if it can fire without pulling the trigger. From what I've read, the FBI didn't notice or evaluate modifications. The FBI is going to re-examine the gun.

The charges were dropped for now, because they're not in a position to prove Baldwin pulled. They may refile, depending on the FBI's 2nd examination.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 10:54 PM
 
No idea if it’s true, but I read the gun blew up when the FBI was testing it the first time.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 11:21 AM
 
Even if the gun were only “slightly” modified (like a lighter hammer spring, for example) that can change things drastically.

The amount of pressure on the trigger needed to fire this kind of revolver is directly related to the strength of the hammer spring. Obviously if you have actors with relatively mild index finger strength and you want them to be able to operate the gun on screen, you’ll want a lighter trigger pull weight. This almost always goes along with polishing the part of the hammer that the trigger engages with, along with the trigger’s engagement surfaces, for a much smoother pull. This path heads toward a “hair trigger” situation. That’s a bad, dangerous thing.

This is a common modification for “quick draw” demonstration shooters, but their ammunition tends to be something like wax slugs (literally pushing a warm, primed case through a slab of wax to cut out a neat cylinder of wax that stays in the case), or the finest of lead shot with little to no powder charge. Plus quick draw folks are ALWAYS fully aware of their targets, backstops, and location of the audience…because they DO know about guns.

I digress…if the gun were modified for a lighter trigger pull, it could have been so light that a mild bump, or vigorous movement could have allowed the trigger to slip out of the hammer’s notch and let the thing fire.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 12:36 PM
 
It was claimed this had some form of hammer block or transfer bar. I imagine this puts some form of minimum trigger force required because the trigger has to move the safety.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2023, 01:46 PM
 
The most common hammer block system has a part that physically prevents the hammer from going forward far enough to strike the primer. This part is moved out of the way of the hammer ONLY when the trigger is pulled far enough back, often “almost all the way”. This part is usually in the form of a metal bar that slides up and down inside the frame, where the hammer falls. This device is appropriate with “historically appropriate” single action revolvers that have the firing pin as part of the hammer itself.

Another, related safety system is called a “transfer bar.” Like the hammer block, the trigger must be pulled “almost all the way” before the transfer bar allows the hammer face to strike the rear of the firing pin. Most modern revolvers use a frame-mounted firing pin, so the transfer bar is appropriate.

Here’s a nice description with pictures.

But if you’re dinking with the hammer spring, are you going to leave in a part that “is only needed if you’re using real ammunition”? I don’t think it’s likely. Digging into the lock work of a revolver you’re using for theatrical purposes (demonstration shooting, film, etc.) often means overcoming anything that might slow down the demonstration or cause multiple takes. “It’s only going to be firing blanks anyway, so why sweat that stuff.” Yes, that’s a good “famous last words” entry…

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2023, 09:11 PM
 
I'm a little confused by the latest revelations, at least how they have been presented here. Reader wrote:
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
They've (prosecutors) determined the gun was modified, and are no longer sure if it can fire without pulling the trigger. From what I've read, the FBI didn't notice or evaluate modifications. The FBI is going to re-examine the gun.
Did you mean to write “whether it can fire without pulling the trigger”? The point of the prosecution was that Baldwin had had to have pulled the trigger to shoot the revolver, correct? If the gun had been modified to make it safer, i. e. if it could not have been shot without pulling the trigger, that would make their case stronger, not weaker, no?

Also, I was under the impression that the gun was not a replica, but an original, right? Wouldn't you want to keep it in its original condition as modifications would severely impact its value?

Anyway, big picture, I am not surprised. Even if it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt Baldwin had pulled the trigger, I am not sure he would be convicted in a criminal court.
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
Apr 26, 2023, 09:37 PM
 
Everything I’ve heard so far is it was a replica with a hammer block safety.

Original models of this type did not have a hammer block safety, and would indeed go off without pulling the trigger. With those, it was standard to load only 5 rounds and let the hammer rest on an empty chamber.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2023, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Everything I’ve heard so far is it was a replica with a hammer block safety.
Probably you are right, it was a long time ago that I read those articles.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Original models of this type did not have a hammer block safety, and would indeed go off without pulling the trigger. With those, it was standard to load only 5 rounds and let the hammer rest on an empty chamber.
I see. So the prosecutors think the gun might have been modified in a way so as to remove the safety?
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
Apr 27, 2023, 01:17 AM
 
My understanding is the original prosecutors maintained the reason the gun fired is Baldwin pulled the trigger.

The FBI took possession of the gun and tested it. The reports said the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled. Thus, it was reasonable to infer the prosecution’s claim was likely correct. IMO, this didn’t make Baldwin guilty, but he was setting up bad optics for himself by insisting he didn’t.

Since then, I have heard both the gun fired once without the trigger being pulled during testing, as well the gun itself blew up during testing. Also since then, the new prosecutors dropped the charges for the time being.

In other words, at this point I have no idea what the prosecutors think, or what testing the gun actually ascertained.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2023, 01:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Did you mean to write “whether it can fire without pulling the trigger”? The point of the prosecution was that Baldwin had had to have pulled the trigger to shoot the revolver, correct? If the gun had been modified to make it safer, i. e. if it could not have been shot without pulling the trigger, that would make their case stronger, not weaker, no?
The 1st FBI investigation concluded that the trigger had to be pulled for the gun to fire. So prosecutors were sure Baldwin pulled the trigger (Baldwin later claimed he did not pull the trigger). For a direct criminal charge against Baldwin, he had to have pulled the trigger. (an indirect charge about lax safety on his set is a separate issue).

After word hit that the gun had been modified (and the FBI hadn't examined it with that in mind), the prosecutors could no longer be sure Baldwin pulled the trigger. As they could no longer point to the FBI report as proof Baldwin pulled, they had to drop the charge. At least temporarily, until the FBI could re-examine the gun. This decision is done for tactical reasons.

In the US, you can only be charged with a particular crime once. If prosecutors charged Baldwin, failed to prove he pulled the trigger, and Baldwin was found innocent by a jury - he'd be scott-free. Even if later evidence proved he'd pulled the trigger, and planned all along to murder his producer - he could not be re-charged with the same crime. Because prosecutors can only use that charge once. So it makes sense they'd drop that charge, if they cannot prove it today. So that charge will remain available should evidence reappear that would prove Baldwin pulled.

My post was shorthand for the above.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2023, 03:37 AM
 
I see, now I understand. What threw me off was that I couldn't see a reason to modify the gun in such a way as to make it less safe. It still doesn't make any sense to me … but sometimes these things do happen. With a (potentially) modified gun, I reckon a conviction is even less likely than if Baldwin had had to have pulled the trigger.

Is there any word on why there is so much focus on a criminal trial? Is it that the prosecutors want to avoid looking soft on Baldwin? What about charges against the production company (which may or may not involve Baldwin) for negligence? Or would that necessarily be a civil procedure?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 10:07 PM
 
OreoCookie has agreed to prune out the “not really appropriate for this thread” stuff and give it all a new home. I like this route for the objectivity he’ll bring, and I’m just too overwhelmed IRL at the moment to be able to do a good job.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 10:25 PM
 
I split off the discussions on the politics into this thread so that we can focus on gun safety on movie sets. If you want to discuss the politics of gun safety, please use the other thread.

PS I really like how respectful the discussion has been so far.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
PS I really like how respectful the discussion has been so far.
Me too! Thanks SO much!

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Me too! Thanks SO much!
Welcome.
I also added a comment to subego's “first” post in the other thread (with his permission).
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
Jun 14, 2023, 04:01 PM
 
Rust film set weapons supervisor was likely hungover, prosecutors say

Prosecutors in a case arising from the 2021 fatal shooting on the set of the movie Rust claim that the weapons supervisor on the production was drinking and smoking marijuana in the evenings during filming – and she was likely hungover when she loaded a live bullet into the revolver that actor Alec Baldwin used.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gutierrez-reed



Oh, gawd. The prosecutors can go fuck themselves.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2023, 05:55 PM
 
Being hungover is not a crime, though it can be bad for work. I don't care about the weed or booze unless she was drunk/high on set.

If it's been established that she did load the live round(s), that isn't so good. She may have a case against the prop house, but if the actor isn't expected to check the ammo, then the armorer is the last person required to catch live rounds. I'm getting less sympathetic about her case. And I'm not impressed with Baldwin saving money on general safety.

subego, remind me why the prosecutors are so bad? An innocent person is dead, due to a preventable accident. If Baldwin isn't to blame, and the armorer isn't to blame, or anyone else, how is justice served for the dead person? Who should get punished, or do we just write off her life?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2023, 06:53 PM
 
I’m castigating the prosecutors for the booze and weed thing. It’s weak, and makes me think they might have a weak case.

On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with her getting indicted. It’s her fault.


Edit: I mean, AFAICT. Even if they got mixed in at the rental house, she’s still responsible for every round which comes on set. They all need to be checked first.

She neglected this responsibility, and almost undoubtedly was aware of the possible outcome. That’s involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 14, 2023 at 07:21 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2023, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
subego, remind me why the prosecutors are so bad? An innocent person is dead, due to a preventable accident. If Baldwin isn't to blame, and the armorer isn't to blame, or anyone else, how is justice served for the dead person? Who should get punished, or do we just write off her life?
I think it might be a case where something bad happened, people were negligent, but not criminally liable. A person being hungover (or just plain tired) makes them more prone to error, but unless they have been intoxicated at the job, then it might just be beyond criminal liability. The lack of a clear responsible party makes this really hard as a criminal matter.

I think the analogy to someone dying in a car accident works quite well here: it need not be a criminal matter.
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
Jun 15, 2023, 10:57 AM
 
It seems cut and dried to me.

She had apparently neglected her responsibility (checking every round from the rental house), and I’d find it hard to believe she wasn’t aware of the possible consequences of her neglect. The possibility and danger of a live round being mixed in is precisely why she had the responsibility.

If one knows their behavior might cause death, and then it does, that meets the New Mexico standard for involuntary manslaughter.

This would be the case in a car accident if the driver was engaging in negligent behavior.



As an aside, I do have some sympathy for her situation. For example, I’m still seeing people repeat the rumor she took them out for target practice while the production was on hold. AFAICT, that didn’t happen.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 15, 2023 at 11:43 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2023, 12:29 PM
 
Is her indictment public? Most of the stories have been centered on Baldwin, with the armorer only mentioned on the side.

The reason for asking, is to find out if she was present in the closed set (COVID restrictions). If she wasn't, and someone else handed the gun to Baldwin - then she might have an out. If someone else loaded the gun and handed it to Baldwin, the armorer has a better defense.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2023, 12:52 PM
 
I haven’t tried to dig up the indictment.

That she was set up outside, handed the gun to the Assistant Director, who brought the gun on set and handed it to Baldwin, has been the story since day one, so I’ve been assuming that’s legit. IIRC, the Assistant Director copped a plea. To repeat my earlier commentary, if the COVID protocol was “only essential crew on set”, it seems to me she shouldn’t have been on set. She was not essential for a scene which (ostensibly) only has dummy rounds.

If what I have heard is true, that the live rounds were nearly indistinguishable from the dummy ones, I don’t think the Assistant Director is guilty of anything.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2024, 12:36 PM
 
Gutierrez-Reed’s trial begins tomorrow.

Prediction: she’ll be found guilty, which she is, but there will also be significant railroading.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 20, 2024 at 12:55 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2024, 06:56 PM
 
The sneak preview appears to be the case will pivot on how live rounds arrived on set in the first place.

Gutierrez-Reed’s attorneys will argue they came from the rental house.

I’ve been working under the assumption this is true, so the prosecution strategy would be not to contest it and nail her anyway on a failure to conduct an inventory.

They could be playing semantics but the prosecution implies they’re going to argue Gutierrez-Reed was herself the source of the live rounds.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2024, 09:01 PM
 
The last “firearms professional” to handle the firearm has the responsibility to verify its safety. Union set or not. Getting the guns from a rental house is irrelevant if nobody ever checked to make sure that the revolver did NOT have live ammunition in it.

The FIRST RULE OF GUN SAFETY is that a gun is ALWAYS LOADED unless you have JUST proven otherwise. I cannot stress that enough. Even if it’s a prop that cannot chamber real ammunition, you check it, check it again, and check it again. Verify there’s nothing dangerous in the prop, hand it to the actor as the director calls “action,” and take it away as soon as the director says “cut”.

So I don’t think the rental house line will - or SHOULD - work. I guess we’ll see.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2024, 09:14 PM
 
It only works as a line as opposed to the line “I personally brought the live ammo on set”.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2024, 10:51 AM
 
Yup. If I read correctly the prosecution is claiming Gutierrez-Reed brought them from home.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2024, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The last “firearms professional” to handle the firearm has the responsibility to verify its safety. Union set or not. Getting the guns from a rental house is irrelevant if nobody ever checked to make sure that the revolver did NOT have live ammunition in it.

[…]

So I don’t think the rental house line will - or SHOULD - work. I guess we’ll see.
Wouldn’t that still impact the degree of (gross?) negligence, though? What is the theory of the prosecution, how did the live bullets get on set? (From memory, I read somewhere that some of the crew wanted to shoot the revolver.)
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
Feb 23, 2024, 11:38 AM
 
We’ll have to see if the target practice story comes back up.
     
 
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 11:50 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.,