https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/rust-armorer-fair-shot-trial-1235823841/
I am guessing that The Hollywood Reporter is wanting to get this obviously reckless "Armorer" off because she's a woman. Why else?
Is it possible for anyone to look at anything without considering the immutable characteristics involved?
What a stupid population we've become!
They only charged her with the most lenient charges in the first place. She's already gotten off easy for being probably the most reckless Armorer in the history of the movie business.
shareOh, I misread your initial comment.
I don't know too much about the case. I'm still not sure why real guns are used on a set when fake guns and some CGI work just fine for the task.
Complete insanity what happened on that set. Regardless, she was the Armorer. Everything regarding firearm safety was directly her responsibility.
shareI just read that investigators are still trying to trace the origins of the live ammo Hannah placed into Baldwin's prop gun. If that's the case how is this trial even taking place right now?
Also, is this a precedent that two people are being charged for the murder of the same person but under two different sets of criteria; Gutierrez for being under the influence of drugs while on set, Baldwin for allegedly pushing for more lax safety protocols with regards to the armory department?
It's clear what the difference is between actual bullets and blanks. That was her responsibility, to make sure that blanks were the only things used on that film set. She loaded the gun, she said it was okay, she gave it to Baldwin. She is responsible.
Bullets vs. Blanks:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/D712/production/_121185055_blank_cartridge_2x640-nc.png.webp
The sequence of events places the cause of a live-loaded gun on Hannah's actions as the armorist, but my question is why are investigators still trying to determine the origin of those live bullets if they're not tracing them to Hannah?
Secondly, how is Alec Baldwin's subsequent action of having that loaded gun considered by prosecutors as a different criminal act independent of Hannah's actions?
Baldwin has been on enough movies to know that basic gun safety rules still apply on sets. The fact that he was told it was not loaded is not an excuse for pointing it in the direction of crew or pulling the trigger like he did.
share"The fact that he was told it was not loaded is not an excuse for pointing it in the direction of crew or pulling the trigger like he did."
That's not a fact, so your rationale is moot from the get go.
Between the video evidence and the fact that a crew member and the director were struck by the bullet, the evidence is pretty strong. LOL.
share"know that basic gun safety rules still apply on sets"
Thats the single point that has gone round and round a hundred times in different posts on this site since the incident happened.
I contend that basic gun rules do not apply on set , and the extrsa risk of that is mitigated by the role of the armorer.
Sure if you're handed a revolver flip the whatsit out out and check if you like , but not ALL "basic gun rules" can be followed , so its the armorers job to make sure guns are empty/blanks etc
Why can they not be followed you ask ?
The same reason basic road safety rules can not be followed when filming a car chase.
You cant film a car reversing and flipping round at speed ( j turn) in any way that follows the rules of the road. The risk is mitigated "on set" by stuntman / closing roads / etc etc
In the same vein there is no possible way you can film a "gun held to the temple" scene , which happens extremely frequently in movies , without breaking the
"Never point a gun at anyone" basic safety rule.
also its impractical for alec baldwin to "check the ammo" if he's been handed an mp5 with 30 blanks in it, he'd have to empty them all out .
The armorer should have done that for him.
so given that *some* of the "Basic gun safety rules" cannot be applied , its the armorers job to make sure that NONEof them need to applied because all the actors are effectivey playing with safe props.
So in conclusion I reckon the responsibility for this terrible accident lies more with the armorer than Baldwin - despite her being a lot prettier and probably a nicer person, I am capable of being impartial.
They had an experienced armorer testify about this during the trial. It's really not a matter of opinion.
I know that the vast majority of the time they can follow general firearm safety rules and are supposed to. They also have rules specifically for when guns are on sets. Many, probably most shots don't actually involve an actor pointing the gun at anyone. This scene involved Baldwin drawing his weapon, nothing more. And it was a rehearsal.
A shot like the one you described, with a gun being pointed at someone in frame, up close, would probably require them to take extra safety measures, like using a prop gun that couldn't fire. Most of the time they can fake it, though.
He's also responsible. Basic gun safety requires you not to take anyone's word for it that a gun is unloaded, or is loaded with blanks. You always check it yourself. If that's not normally how it is on movie sets, then they're doing it wrong.
shareSo , when the director yells "Action!" and the armorer hands you an AK47 full of blanks , your supposed to empty them all out , check , and reload the clip?
Drugged kids should not hold such positions, and cops are idiots to the end.
share