christmas boots posted:

All true, but we also understand that motorcycles are fundamentally not weapons so we don't really need those descriptors. Like we understand that people aren't supposed to be hit by cars. Guns are typically used for killing things so "prop" is used as--admittedly misleading for the reasons you've noted--shorthand for "this gun wasn't supposed to work like that", immediately framing it as an accident in a way that "Alec Baldwin shoots two people with a gun" wouldn't so much.

Flowers for QAnon posted:

Exactly. A medic is very different than someone with cpr certification.

Kale posted:

Could be but I'm curious to see how that would connect specifically too what the scenario sounds like right now where the guy handed Baldwin a prop gun and said "Cold Gun" and then not only wasn't cold, but went off on it's own. Like that's just a specific sounding "it's safe...whoops it's not actually safe my bad" type situation relating to that persons position. It could be that the producers hired a really lovely unqualified prop manager and safety expert and there's some culpability there but again further investigation kind of required.

From what I'm reading though yeah it sounds like there were some accidental prop gun discharges over the weekend before the fatal one yesterday that were brought up and making some camera crew people nervous and just kind of ignored so that's looking pretty bad as far as safety protocols go.

I'm thinking back to the Brandon Lee incident and it was such a specific set of events that had to occur to get that prop gun into a situation where it had a live round jammed in the chamber from earlier and a blank one behind it, but it kind of sounds like this one just had a live round in it period and I really don't know how that happens.

Palpek posted:

He's the type of yes man who will absolutely skip safety protocols under producer pressure. The problem is that the producers of the movie included...Baldwin.

GABA ghoul posted:

I don't want to brag, but I have some experience with watching detective shows on tv(for example, Scherlock Homes, you might have heard about him? Colombo is another famous one ). And to me all of this looks like the gun guy on set orchestrated the whole thing to kill the camera women and make it look like an accident. They probably had an affair, which she threatened to disclose to his wife or they are half-siblings and he wanted to get a coheir out of the way. I hope the police is looking into this.

Gresh posted:

Flowers for QAnon posted:

Too bad there was t a good guy with a gun to stop this!

Lolie posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/26/rust-film-set-shooting-alec-baldwin

Who brought an "enormous amount of bullets" onto the set and why?

uXs posted:

The 'ban all guns from film sets' is a pretty dumb overreaction. There have been thousands of movies made since Brandon Lee with no problem, and it took a combination of a crew doing target practice with guns from the set, an inexperienced armorer who leaves guns and ammunition lying around all over the place, and an assistant director who picks up a random weapon from a table and yells 'cold gun' without actually checking, to have this (very serious) accident.

With a safety culture that bad, just banning guns seems fairly useless and not addressing the actual problem, which is that none of those people should've been allowed anywhere near a film set.

StrangersInTheNight posted:

That said, Cali is the 5th largest economy in the world, it could easily set an example and wield its soft power by not allowing guns on sets and that would have a vastly bigger effect on the industry at large than any of the well-meaning but naive suggestions for better systematic enforcement of gun safety regulations.

The only people who should have a vested interest in keeping real guns on sets are the armorers and their union, bc that's their livelihood. Everybody else, why do you care if it's real or not?

Dang It Bhabhi! posted:

lol gotta love those anti-union narratives: THEY WANTED DIAMOND-CRUSTED BIDETS!

punishedkissinger posted:

looks like the armorer was only getting paid $8k?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/05/rust-budget-reveals-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-was-slated-to-earn-under-8000/amp/

What is the question people should ask about this career but rarely do? posted:

“How much time is required to become a proficient Armorer?”

“The amount of time it takes to become an Armorer entirely depends on the individual. Some people pick it up incredibly fast, while others take a long time. Some people are naturals. They have an affinity for guns and making people feel relaxed. They understand the safety concerns and how to follow the correct procedure.”

“No matter how talented someone is, there is still at least a year’s worth of apprenticeship required to build a foundation. Unfortunately, when someone tries to rush the process, people get injured and killed on set. When done correctly, this career provides complete safety on set. However, when it isn’t, it can lead to disaster.”

Rad-daddio posted:

To be fair a lot of people would have to gently caress up for this to happen, which is exactly what happened.

Well, three so far but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to spread the blame across even more people.

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

that specific scenario would require not a cascade of fuckups but actual malicious intent

the more straightforward"Alec did not pull the trigger" scenario would be that the film crew union hired a sniper to shoot the trigger from a grassy knoll just as he brandished it at his victims

the holy poopacy posted:

Yeah, there's literally an industrywide outcry and push for new restrictions and requirements for firearms on set. Had Alec Baldwin's gun not mysteriously shot two people, none of that would have happened and crews would still have to put up with all kinds of unsafe practices.

Sentient Data posted:

I'm sad because this latest spin means the general public is even dumber than i want to believe. In a sane world his defense should be "of course i pulled the trigger, that was literally my job and what everyone expected me to do, and i only did so because we had multiple experts whose entire job was to make sure it would be safe to do so, and literally moments earlier we were reassured by the entire team that it was a perfectly safe course of action"

Acting like it matters at all if the trigger was pulled only serves to absolve the truly guilty people

Flayer posted:

I imagine if you're on a film set as an actor where you are handling guns every day you would start to get complacent about safety checks and by like day 20 when you get handed a "cold" gun you just accept it. That's not a defense of Baldwin but a realistic scenario if doing a gun safety check in front of the actor is not a formalised activity and rather just good practice.

Ultimately the blame does lie with the armourer loving all of them, becausethey all made decisions that placed human life at risk resulting in a loss of human life. From the idiots bringing real bullets and going plinking, to the producers that kept going after several incidents without change, to the armorer and ad who were supposed to check the gun, to the actor that pointed a gun at a person; they all had the power and responsibility to stop the chain of events that killed a woman, but they didnt.

je1 healthcare posted:

Yes, but showing remorse only helps in the event of making a plea deal, otherwise it can be used in court against you. If he admits to feeling guilt about the previous incidents on set he's admitting to being aware of the ongoing safety issues.

No idea what's he's thinking by doing this interview, but if I accidentally killed a coworker I might be a little broke-brained for a while. There's been one or two times where I missed a safety step at work resulting in a near-accident, and felt lovely about it for weeks.

LanceHunter posted:

It appears Baldwin has settled. And in a case of absolute madness the film is going to resume production (because apparently they made the woman's widower an executive producer to pay him off).

Baldwin Reaches Settlement With Family of ‘Rust’ Cinematographer

BAGS FLY AT NOON posted:

Lmao that was real??? I thought it was just a clever thread title

Article posted:

Prosecutors have downgraded the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin, significantly reducing the possible prison time for the actor, who was holding the gun that discharged on the “Rust” movie set, killing the film’s cinematographer.

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued this month that the Santa Fe County district attorney had incorrectly charged the actor under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that was passed months after the fatal shooting in October 2021.

If convicted under that law, called a firearm enhancement, Mr. Baldwin would have received a minimum prison sentence of five years. Instead, he now faces a maximum of 18 months in prison.

In a statement, Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the prosecution had dropped the firearm enhancement to “avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys.”

“The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys,” Ms. Brewer said on Monday.

The altered charges, which were filed on Friday, also apply to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer who was responsible for weapons and ammunition on set. She loaded the gun the day of the shooting with what were supposed to be all dummies, inert cartridges used to resemble real rounds on camera. While Mr. Baldwin was drawing his revolver to prepare for a scene, the gun discharged a live round, killing the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, and wounding the director, Joel Souza.


Mr. Baldwin has asserted he was not responsible for the fatal shooting, saying he was handed a gun that he was told was “cold,” meaning it did not contain live rounds and was safe to handle.

Lawyers for both Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Gutierrez-Reed had argued that by charging their clients under the firearm enhancement law, the prosecutors appeared to be applying a version of the law that had not been passed until 2022.

The version that was on the New Mexico books when Ms. Hutchins was killed says the firearm enhancement applies when a weapon is “brandished” in the commission of a noncapital felony. The newer version imposes a minimum five-year sentence if a firearm was “discharged” in the commission of a noncapital felony.

According to the law’s definition of “brandished,” the action must be done “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.” Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued in court papers that the prosecutors had not accused the actor of that behavior in legal filings or public statements, instead alleging that the actor had been negligent on set and had repeatedly violated film safety standards, which he denies.

A lawyer for Ms. Gutierrez-Reed, Jason Bowles, wrote in court papers that the firearm enhancement could not apply to her because she was not holding the gun when it went off. Instead, prosecutors have accused her of negligent behavior that included not properly checking the rounds that she loaded into the gun. Ms. Gutierrez-Reed told investigators that she did check each round that day.

Mr. Bowles said the prosecutors’ decision to drop the firearm enhancement “reflected good ethical standards and was correct on the facts and law.” A lawyer for Mr. Baldwin, Luke Nikas, declined to comment.

For both defendants, prosecutors have filed two counts in the alternative, meaning that if they are convicted, a jury would decide which definition of involuntary manslaughter applies.

This is not the only challenge Mr. Baldwin’s legal team has made to the prosecution’s case. The lawyers have also questioned the constitutionality of the district attorney’s appointment of a special prosecutor, Andrea Reeb. Ms. Reeb is also a newly elected state representative, and Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers have said that serving in two separate branches of government is unlawful and have asked for her to be disqualified.

A judge will be asked to determine whether there is cause to move forward with the charges filed against Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Gutierrez-Reed. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday.

Dick Fontaine posted:

Das Baby

dr_rat posted:

So do they get around the "you can't be tried for the same crime twice" law by going to a Grand Jury? I was under the impression that it is rightfully very hard to get around that to stop prosecutors just continually trying someone till they got a convection?

With what would seem to be the main piece of evidence their using to ask for a retrial seemingly botched, while I'm not sure the first trail come to the right decision, seems like the prosecution really shouldn't be able to have another go at it as far as I can tell.

Am I just missing something?

BATS FLY AT MOON posted:

He’s just going to request that the new trial folks accompany him to the set, where he can re-enact the events and show them exactly what happened.

quote:

So then I looked right at them and said, "Another take? How about I just fuckin' shoot the both of ya?"

Khanstant posted:

Baldwin and other producers were actively mocking and fighting the crew who wanted safer conditions. By the Hammurabi code it is clear what must be done. Until an exec or producer life is claimed in return, there is no justice. Baldwin is the best choice because we already have 30 rock and don't need him for anything anymore.

kntfkr posted:

He's more successful than his cousin Alex Baldlose.

dividertabs posted:

But how could an inexperienced, starry-eyed armorer know to make sure her guns didn't have actual bullets in them before handing them to known psychopath Alec Baldwin?