…..involuntarily manslaughter…….others on set will be charged as well……



…….charged…………..?!

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2023 10:15AM by NewtonMP2100.

This seems eminently reasonable. He pointed a gun at a person knowing that it was something that he should not have done and a person ends up dead. That sure seems like 'involuntary manslaughter to me. Others seeing the same charge makes sense too. It took several people screwing up for this to happen.

Now they all will have their days in court.

Quote
hal
This seems eminently reasonable. He pointed a gun at a person knowing that it was something that he should not have done and a person ends up dead.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. He says that he was directed where to point the gun. Note that it is common to point guns at people in movies and TV shows so that act alone does not make it negligent.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

If the production cut corners by knowingly hiring an incompetent person as armorer, and if Baldwin as producer was part of that decision, then the charge would be legitimate.

[www.shouselaw.com]

Quote

Penal Code 192b PC sets forth California law as to involuntary manslaughter – which is unlawfully causing the death of another person by acting with criminal negligence
***
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

Evidently the prosecutors are confident they can prove criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin led to the death of victim. My guess is that they have what they consider to be strong evidence that Baldwin ignored known or obvious risks.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ted King
[www.shouselaw.com]

Quote

Penal Code 192b PC sets forth California law as to involuntary manslaughter – which is unlawfully causing the death of another person by acting with criminal negligence
***
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

Evidently the prosecutors are confident they can prove criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin led to the death of victim. My guess is that they have what they consider to be strong evidence that Baldwin ignored known or obvious risks.

I'm sure if he thought it could shoot a real bullet and kill what he pointed at, he wouldn't have done it. The jury would have to be convinced that he's a wantonly reckless, disrespectful guy. They can't do that. BUT, they can either like him or not like him.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ted King
[www.shouselaw.com]

Quote

Penal Code 192b PC sets forth California law as to involuntary manslaughter – which is unlawfully causing the death of another person by acting with criminal negligence
***
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

Evidently the prosecutors are confident they can prove criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin led to the death of victim. My guess is that they have what they consider to be strong evidence that Baldwin ignored known or obvious risks.

I'm sure if he thought it could shoot a real bullet and kill what he pointed at, he wouldn't have done it. The jury would have to be convinced that he's a wantonly reckless, disrespectful guy. They can't do that. BUT, they can either like him or not like him.

It's New Mexico law, his politics could have a bearing on the outcome. He should be glad they weren't shooting in Texas.

Doncha just love showbiz news?

Quote
RgrF

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ted King
[www.shouselaw.com]

Quote

Penal Code 192b PC sets forth California law as to involuntary manslaughter – which is unlawfully causing the death of another person by acting with criminal negligence
***
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

Evidently the prosecutors are confident they can prove criminal negligence on the part of Baldwin led to the death of victim. My guess is that they have what they consider to be strong evidence that Baldwin ignored known or obvious risks.

I'm sure if he thought it could shoot a real bullet and kill what he pointed at, he wouldn't have done it. The jury would have to be convinced that he's a wantonly reckless, disrespectful guy. They can't do that. BUT, they can either like him or not like him.

It's New Mexico law, his politics could have a bearing on the outcome. He should be glad they weren't shooting in Texas.

Oops, I thought it happened in California. Here is the applicable New Mexico law explained:

Quote

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a person while committing a misdemeanor criminal offense. Involuntary manslaughter can also occur if a person is engaging in a lawful act but unintentionally kills someone by being negligent or not exercising due care. Involuntary manslaughter is classified as a fourth-degree felony with sentencing up to 18 months in prison and probation.

So somewhat different verbiage but basically the same idea as the California law. Disrespect does not seem to be part of the legal criteria for being found guilty. I don't think they will argue that he is generally a wantonly reckless guy, just that in this particular instance his actions amounted to being wantonly reckless. I guess we'll have to see whether or not they have a strong enough case to establish that.

---

e pluribus unum

Sounds like prosecutors have put Baldwin in a corner thus insuring a legal fight to the end.

ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams broke down Alec Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter charge in connection with the fatal 2021 shooting on set for the film, Rust.

“The prosecutors just threw the book at Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez Reed,” Abrams said. He added, “They threw everything they possibly could at both of them. In particular, when you talk about these involuntary manslaughter charges, typically in the state of New Mexico, the maximum punishment for involuntary manslaughter is up to 18 months. Well, they have added an enhancement on one of the charges, a firearm enhancement, which adds a potential mandatory penalty because a firearm was involved. The firearm enhancement makes the crime punishable by a mandatory five years.”

Because of these enhanced charges, Abrams assessed that the prosecutors “have gone all out in determining that Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez Reed are criminally responsible.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2023 07:13PM by RgrF.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. He says that he was directed where to point the gun. Note that it is common to point guns at people in movies and TV shows so that act alone does not make it negligent.


This.

From everything I've seen so far, he was told by the production's AD that it was a cold weapon, meaning unloaded, and he should have had every reason to believe so.

He was also as stated above, where to point the weapon.

This was the same action that killed Brandon Lee.

(And yes, I'm well versed in the mistakes that led to Lee's death.)

I disagree there was any negligence in this action, on Baldwin's part.

The armorer is at fault on a number of levels.

And the AD skates, taking a plea deal, when to my mind, he has a part in this death and Baldwin, even though firing the gun, does not.

At some point, if not completely banning live ammo on set, states could require anyone handling or firing a weapon must undergo training with that weapon to safely inspect the status of said weapon.

I don't know if that's currently a legal requirement in any state, for the actor to do the armorer's job for him or her.

Alec was holding the weapon, and now he's being made to hold the bag.



I'm sure if he thought it could shoot a real bullet and kill what he pointed at, he wouldn't have done it. The jury would have to be convinced that he's a wantonly reckless, disrespectful guy. They can't do that. BUT, they can either like him or not like him.


This.

I believe he was led to believe it was unloaded.

What may trip him up a little, and will need a good defense lawyer to smooth over, are his statements that he didn't pull the trigger, just cocked the hammer and it fired, vs the FBI's saying their testing showed it couldn't have fired without pulling the trigger.

I'd bet the prosecution would try to use that to show Baldwin was wrong to to fire, and is lying.

Whether it's Baldwin's politics, or just general notoriety, it's going to boil down to, as vis says, whether or not the jury likes him.

Regardless of what's claimed in voir dire, I think very few people climb into the box without some preconceived opinion about a defendant.

The question is are they and will they consider evidence in an objective manner, and consider what the evidence might or might not mean.

I hope he's found NG.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

I deem them both the armorer and Baldwin negligent. They also should also name and prosecute any knucklehead who was involved in loading the gun with live bullets to go plunking or whatever they were doing before the incident.

It is best practice to never point a gun barrel directly at anyone at any time on a set, even a prop gun because it's just a bad idea to get into that habit, and certainly not one that is actually a functioning gun supposedly empty or loaded with blanks. Even one firing blanks can sometimes push debris from the barrel that could be harmful to someone at close range. We've been making westerns, crime movies, war movies, etc., for 100 years and have learned every trick in the book with camera angles to make pointing a gun directly unnecessary.

If he was "directed" to point the gun in any direction that intersected with any human on the set, the director was an idiot and Baldwin was a fool to listen.

Armorers don't like actors testing guns, because the actor can mess it up and make it more dangerous at worst, and screw up the set-up at the least. The Armorer is paid to take care of that. In countless productions going back decades, with some exceptions but vanishingly rare, the Armorer does their job right and no one dies. If the armorer screwed up this very clear expectation, they are negligent.

However, that does not excuse the actor from treating every gun like it's live, because treating it like it's live means that mistakes like Baldwin's never happen.

I'm not a prosecuting attorney, but I play one on MacResource Forum.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2023 11:42PM by Acer.

If he was "directed" to point the gun in any direction that intersected with any human on the set, the director was an idiot and Baldwin was a fool to listen.


BS.

It's called making a movie.

It's the armorer's and director's job to see that happens.

It's the actor's job to act.

People point guns at each other in the making of movies.

It's done all the time.

It only take one person to make the gun safe, and that's the armorer.

It's their job to see the gun is unloaded and keep it so from the time it leaves their hands to the time it gets to the actor.

It was the cinematographer who 'directed' Baldwin to point the gun at her.

Yeah, blame her for pre-flighting the scene.

It's wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun.

It was his job to act, to do as he was told.

He did his job, others didn't.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Yeah, I can see the armorer being charged but not Baldwin.

Early reports were that crew members were taking the guns, loading live ammo, & using them for target practice just off the set.

No wonder a Iive round ended up in the gun.

I’m with RAMd®d on this one. Actors point guns at people in movies. It seems to me that an armorer’s job is to manage risk and make sure no one gets hurt.

How the hell (and why?) would live ammo end up in a set-piece gun? Or even on set? That in itself is stunning incompetence on the part of the armorer (if not deliberate sabotage).

Unless they can show Baldwin knew the armorer was incompetent and/or specifically hired an unqualified person for that job, I just don’t see it.

Quote
pdq
I’m with RAMd®d on this one. Actors point guns at people in movies. It seems to me that an armorer’s job is to manage risk and make sure no one gets hurt.

How the hell (and why?) would live ammo end up in a set-piece gun? Or even on set? That in itself is stunning incompetence on the part of the armorer (if not deliberate sabotage).

Unless they can show Baldwin knew the armorer was incompetent and/or specifically hired an unqualified person for that job, I just don’t see it.

Just based on what I've seen so far, it does seem like the prosecutors are unjustifiably reaching in the charges against Baldwin. Unless they have evidence that shows a lot more culpability on his part, it is looking like it could very well be a case of prosecutorial overreach.

---

e pluribus unum

When television and film productions choose to save some bucks and film outside of the Hollywood environment there are benefits and there are detriments.

The level of professionalism is simply not at the apex standard. It's mostly good enough until it isn't.

How the hell (and why?) would live ammo end up in a set-piece gun?


That's the key question.

Not that I'm suggesting a conspiracy, but I did wonder about the possibility of someone deliberately trying to sabotage the film or Baldwin.


Or even on set?


I could seem some scenes where actual bullet impact on walls, cans, props, etc would further the impact of a scene.

But these could easily be done by cut scenes with the armorer doing the shooting and the cast member shooting blanks.

Again, this is where a competent armorer's imperative for safety pays off.

Pure speculation on my part, and from what I think I remember reading, the AD in question may have been riding roughshod over the armorer, her being female and this her first job away from Daddy.

But no matter, it's the armorer's job, not the AD, to control who gets what.

That there are rumors the prop weapons were used off set means she was complicit and provided access, or was coerced and provided access deliberately.

Or possibly, she even forgot to properly secure the weapons.

That's all on her.

The AD cut a plea deal and I really want to know what that entails.



Unless they have evidence that shows a lot more culpability on his part, it is looking like it could very well be a case of prosecutorial overreach.


Yes, there's a lot we don't know yet, and it may be that evidence showing significant culpability exists.

At this point though, I'm leaning towards prosecution thinking that going after the guy holding the gun is either SOP, or because he's the guy holding the gun, it will be easy to get the jury on board.

Which may still be SOP.

If Baldwin where merely facing civil charges for the production company not doing due diligence in hiring the armorer and subsequent claims of mishandling firearms, shouldn't there be more people at that level being named?

It doesn't seem likely that he'd be the only EP, but it could happen, I suppose.

It will probably be quite a wait and see.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

A less than glowing recounting of the brief lead armorer career of the “Rust” lead armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's father is Thell Reed, a well-known Hollywood armorer…

During a recent interview on the “Voices of the West” podcast, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said that “Rust” was only the second time she had worked as a lead armorer on a film set. The 24-year-old said her first experience was on the set of the film “The Old Way,” which stars Nicolas Cage and recently wrapped shooting.

Gutierrez-Reed also told the podcast that she almost didn't take the [“The Old Way”] job because she hadn't been sure if she was ready for it.

“It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career,” she said on the podcast. “It was also my first time being head armorer as well. I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready. But doing it, like, it went really smoothly.” [Apparently that may not have been the consensus opinion, as reported further down.]

Gutierrez-Reed later added that she had initially been fearful loading blanks into guns on set.

”I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like, oh, I don't know anything about it,” she said.

Earlier this week, the online publication The Wrap published a report citing sources from the set of “The Old Way” who said Gutierrez-Reed exhibited poor gun safety on set.

Stu Brumbaugh, who worked as a key grip on “The Old Way,” told The Wrap that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's behavior caused the film's star Nicolas Cage to scream at her and storm off set after she fired a gun near the cast and crew for the second time in three days without warning.

Two separate sources told The Daily Beast that there had been “considerably less attention” given to gun safety under Gutierrez-Reed's leadership on the film's set.

“There were several concerns I brought to production's attention,” one source told the publication. “I have been around firearms my entire life and noticed some things that were not OK even with loaded blank firearms."

The Daily Beast went on to recount a story from a source who said Gutierrez-Reed loaded a gun during production and handed it to a child actor without properly checking the weapon. Filming was stopped by crew members who intervened and demanded that Gutierrez-Reed had properly checked the firearm, the publication reported.

“She was reloading the gun on the ground, where there were pebbles and stuff. We didn't see her check it, we didn't know if something got in the barrel or not,” the report said.

---

A priest, a rabbit and a minister walk into a bar.
The bartender asks the rabbit "what'll ya have?"
The rabbit says "I dunno. I'm only here because of Autocorrect.


National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
As of July 16, 2022, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is now available by simply dialing 988. The previous number, 1-800-273-8255, will remain active.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2023 02:28PM by Blankity Blank.

I think Baldwin was indicted for the obvious reasons - he was holding the gun, it was his production company (IIRC), and he has the biggest name and the deepest pockets.

Still doesn't make sense to me, but I don't know all the details...

I agree with Acer, it seems difficult to exonerate Baldwin, as he fired the weapon, and we don't know in what context. But the weight of the case should obviously be focused toward the responsible parties for the gun safety. And the person(s) who hired the armorer, given her thin resume and questionable previous work.

---

Hurts like a bastid...

Quote
RAMd®d
If he was "directed" to point the gun in any direction that intersected with any human on the set, the director was an idiot and Baldwin was a fool to listen.


BS.

It's called making a movie. true

It's the armorer's and director's job to see that happens. true

It's the actor's job to act. true

People point guns at each other in the making of movies.actually rarely happens. And when it does, real guns are rarely used. Typically prop guns or fake guns

It's done all the time.

It only take one person to make the gun safe, and that's the armorer.no, it take everyone to keep guns safe. If someone standing in front of you, drops the magazine, racks the slide, looks down the barrel to confirm the gun is clear, then hands the gun to you, you still rack the slide, look down the barrel yourself, and still do not aim the gun at someone, Alec failed to confirm the gun was safe, a vital step anyone handling a gun should have done. Takes 15 minutes to teach anyone handling a gun to do these steps, even the basic NRA safe gun handling course, 15 minutes, covers this

It's their job to see the gun is unloaded and keep it so from the time it leaves their hands to the time it gets to the actor. Every person that handles the gun has the responsibility to confirm the gun is safe

It was the cinematographer who 'directed' Baldwin to point the gun at her.

Yeah, blame her for pre-flighting the scene.

It's wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun. It is, it's everyone job, everyone that handles the gun. Just like someone jumping in a car, someone else makes sure it's safe, but if the actor does not know how to drive, hits someone, they accept responsibility

It was his job to act, to do as he was told.

He did his job, others didn't.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2023 07:09PM by Mr645.

Quote
Mr645
If someone standing in front of you, drops the magazine, racks the slide, looks down the barrel to confirm the gun is clear, then hands the gun to you, you still rack the slide, look down the barrel yourself, and still do not aim the gun at someone, Alec failed to confirm the gun was safe, a vital step anyone handling a gun should have done. Takes 15 minutes to teach anyone handling a gun to do these steps, even the basic NRA safe gun handling course, 15 minutes, covers this

Oh, don't be silly, Mr 6.

The gun:



Show me how you "drop the magazine" with this.

Show me how you "rack the slide" on this.

You might look into the details before you jump in here and offer your expert opinion.

You're shootin from the hip, dude.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2023 07:55PM by pdq.

You're shootin from the hip, dude.


Well done, you!

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
pdq

Quote
Mr645
If someone standing in front of you, drops the magazine, racks the slide, looks down the barrel to confirm the gun is clear, then hands the gun to you, you still rack the slide, look down the barrel yourself, and still do not aim the gun at someone, Alec failed to confirm the gun was safe, a vital step anyone handling a gun should have done. Takes 15 minutes to teach anyone handling a gun to do these steps, even the basic NRA safe gun handling course, 15 minutes, covers this

Oh, don't be silly, Mr 6.

The gun:




Show me how you "drop the magazine" with this.

Show me how you "rack the slide" on this.

You might look into the details before you jump in here and offer your expert opinion.

You're shootin from the hip, dude.

OK, so you open the wheel, confirm the gun is a prop. If it seems like a real gun, and has bullets in it, you make damn sure they are blanks, and NEVER aim it at another person. Most of the time guns are aimed ff of a real person. Most gun makers make versions that cannot fire live rounds.

"The standard protocols dictate that weapons must be overseen by licensed armorers and that performers shall be trained in gun safety."

The type of gun does not matter, the person handling it should have basic safety training, like any dangerous stunt.

Why not use something like this. [www.securityprousa.com]

Quote
Mr645
…and NEVER aim it at another person. Most of the time guns are aimed ff of a real person.

Oh please. More silliness. Hollywood has done this for years.



Here’s info from someone who actually does this for a living:

Quote

Western movies are unique in that they generally use a type of handgun called a revolver. The revolvers require no modifications to operate with blank cartridges. A live round with the projectile or a blank round with no projectile will both fit. These guns are generally rented by the prop master or armorer from a rental house in the business.

While blank rounds have gunpowder (and can be dangerous) they have no bullet and look different than real rounds. However…

Quote

Dummy rounds in the industry look like live rounds. They have the lead tip [that blank rounds don’t].

In place of the powder, in a dummy round a single BB is placed inside. When you shake them you know.

That is, when you shake a single dummy round, you know. If you have 5 dummy rounds in a revolver and one real one, how could you tell unless you pulled out each round and shook it?

So,

Quote

Generally speaking, live rounds are never on set except for rare occasions for educational shows that are actually filming on a gun range.

The person that procured those rounds in this case commingled live and dummy rounds.

Quote

Before being placed in the gun, I [the armorer] show them to the first assistant director. He or she shakes them listening for that BB inside. Then I load them in the gun. I try to fire all of the dummy rounds at the floor in front of the assistant director. Nothing happens. I then present the gun to the talent, also firing at the floor so they see. If they are pointing it at another player, I also show them.

Apparently none of these things happened. It’s clear that there was shocking incompetence on the part of 1) the person supplying the dummy rounds (or whoever admixed the dummy and live rounds), and/or 2) the armorer, and/or 3) the assistant director (who has taken a plea deal and will be testifying in the case). You can certainly make the argument (which I’m sure will be made) that as director and producer, Baldwin hired the wrong people (if he did hire them).

Will a jury find that to rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter?

That will ultimately be up to the jury, not any of us.

From pdq's link (brackets are mine):

There are only a few ways guns on set can be deadly – a blank shot point-blank to the head [Jon-Erik Hexum], something foreign stuck in the barrel of the gun and a blank is fired behind it creating a projectile [Brandon Lee], and if a live round is mistaken for a dummy round and instead of dry firing it actually fires [Halyna Hutchins].


All preventable tragedies.

In at least one of those instances, with Hexum, if I recall correctly, there was no armorer, just a property master.

I think there was an armorer in Lee's case, I'm not sure.

But it was an incredible chain of missed opportunities to have prevented his death.


That will ultimately be up to the jury, not any of us.

True that.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

“If any one of these three people—Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez Reed or David Halls—had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple,”

There is a big difference between pointing a real gun at a camera and at a person. Even firing blanks can be dangerous and if fired close enough, have killed people. When you see guns aimed at an actors head, these are prop guns, do not function. Even gun manufacturers make non functioning guns, welded or missing aprs so they cannot ever be made to fire.

[www.zmescience.com]

When using a real gun, regardless of what is loaded into it, it needs to be checked by everyone that handles it. When using a real gun, you do not point it at someone.

Quote
pdq

Quote
Mr645
…and NEVER aim it at another person. Most of the time guns are aimed ff of a real person.

Oh please. More silliness. Hollywood has done this for years.



.

Western shot? Aimed at camera, I bet there is no one at the business end of that revolver.
Other three? I am sure those are not real guns, all prop guns

Ladies and gentlemen, our resident expert and mind-reader, who just knows what kind of gun is depicted in the above pictures, and exactly how the pictures were taken (but umm…not what kind of gun was used in the Rust shooting).

BTW, this is an interesting (albeit somewhat older) article from Variety (who probably actually know about how they do things in Hollywood) discussing the central problem here, which is how a live round ended up in Alex Baldwin’s gun - there were actually a total of eight live rounds, mixed in with dummy rounds, found on the set!

Quote
pdq
Ladies and gentlemen, our resident expert and mind-reader, who just knows what kind of gun is depicted in the above pictures, and exactly how the pictures were taken (but umm…not what kind of gun was used in the Rust shooting).

Ya know, Hollywood has been using guns in productions for literally 100 years. If they were not following best practices that Mr645 describes, we'd be having this discussion a lot more often.

Quote
Acer

Quote
pdq
Ladies and gentlemen, our resident expert and mind-reader, who just knows what kind of gun is depicted in the above pictures, and exactly how the pictures were taken (but umm…not what kind of gun was used in the Rust shooting).

Ya know, Hollywood has been using guns in productions for literally 100 years. If they were not following best practices that Mr645 describes, we'd be having this discussion a lot more often.

Did you look at the linked article?

Quote

Movies often use real guns, but never real bullets. But on “Rust,” a live round made its way into a Colt .45, which Alec Baldwin fired during set-up for a shot inside a church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch. Investigators would later find seven other suspected live rounds on the set, mixed among dummy rounds.

If by "best practices", you mean not playing Russian roulette by mixing live and dummy ammunition on the set - the live ammo being apparently made using shell casings from a dummy ammo manufacturer who doesn't actually make live ammo - they had apparently been reloaded by someone - , yes that certainly would have been helpful.

using shell casings from a dummy ammo manufacturer who doesn't actually make live ammo


Well, that's certainly a huge red flag.

I hope we find out the Who and Why.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.