DannyDuberstein said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Agree with you that it's easy to tell if a revolver is loaded. Like, impossible to miss easy. That's one reason I think it was intended to be loaded. Even as crappy as this set apparently was, I have a hard time believing the armorer, AD, director, Baldwin, and everyone else who were in the church when it happened didn't notice.

---

These idiots had live ammo on site and were plinking with prop weapons. I give them zero benefit of the doubt.

And everything I've read was that the focus was on Baldwin's actual draw

---

I agree on all the stupidity that happened on set. All I am saying is that if the gun was not supposed to be loaded with anything, that's a lot of people to not notice it is loaded. Especially for a revolver. And I can't equate the desire to break rules and to plinking with not noticing a gun that is supposed to be unloaded is loaded. Just 2 different circumstances with completely different motivations.

Perhaps someone noticed and didn't give a **** since careless and sloppy seems to be a pervasive issue here. Just assumed it was dummy and it didnt matter. The AD clearly assumed it was cold

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Perhaps someone noticed and didn't give a **** since careless and sloppy seems to be a pervasive issue here. Just assumed it was dummy and it didnt matter. The AD clearly assumed it was cold

---

Certainly possible. I still think the more likely scenario is that it was supposed to be loaded with dummies. If it was supposed to be unloaded, you have no less than 5 people (including 2 who were having the gun pointed at them) that failed to note bullets in the cylinder that shouldn't be there. I just find that more improbable. But who knows.

Did they not explain the circumstances of the firing in the press conference?

I've been under the assumption that he was attempting to rehearse the scene with a blank to get the full effect and they were seeing how it would look on camera.

They did not. I gave a rundown of things discussed while it was going on.

It's obvious to me, someone was criminally negligent. The question is, who? And as the producer, is Baldwin responsible?

This is so interesting.

Oof. This article doesn't paint a great picture of the armorer. According to crew of the last movie she worked on (her first), she once fired a gun without warning and it caused Nic Cage to walk off set. She also reportedly carried guns tucked under her arms so that they were actually pointing at people she was around

https://nypost.com/2021/10/27/rookie-rust-armorer-made-nicolas-cage-storm-off-previous-set-after-firing-gun/amp/

Yeah, American Airlines doesn't get to hire Paris Hilton to fly a plane and then scapegoat her when it crashes and kills people. Every one of these stories that comes out paints the producers and anyone in a role of responsibility on this crew (Ie anyone with the clout to temporarily stop things due to safety concerns) in a terrible light, and responsible for what happened

jeffk said:

---

I mean, no charges have been filed against anyone yet, so it's hard to say anyone is going to get made into a scapegoat or get off scot-free yet. And if criminal charges can't be made, I strongly suspect the civil cases will be massive.

---

Seriously, it's been a week since she shooting occurred. I don't think anyone is being scapegoated or protected yet. She would be the very first person to naturally be focused on.

What is making me bring up the scape goatism is how other Hollywood types are jumping down her throat, but not saying anything about the producers. Like they are rallying behind them.

And I'm not saying the NM police would partake. They may go after Baldwin hard. But it seems Hollywood is aligning on his (and the other producers) side fom the little I can tell one week in.

1st AD admitted he didn't check every round before handing the gun to Baldwin. He said he saw three rounds but didn't check the entire drum.

Sounds like the blame is starting to be spread around

https://www.cnn.com/entertainment/live-news/rust-shooting-investigation-10-27-21/index.html

I agree that the producers should ensure whoever they hire is qualified for the job. But, at the same time, when you take a job as armorer for a movie, you're ultimately the one responsible for the weapons. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, don't take the job.

I think we're all in agreement that there's plenty of blame to go around.

Prop or not at the end of the day you are handed a gun, if you are a responsible gun user you check, double check, that it is loaded the way it is supposed to be (blanks or live rounds), you don't just take someone else's word for it, especially don't point it towards anyone until you are 100% sure blanks are loaded. Several people should be held liable but by the way the media is handling it they are trying to put all the blame on the armorer and absolving Baldwin of any blame.

A lot of what I've read or watched in THE MEDIA has mentioned Baldwin's oversight role as well. It's an interesting, emerging story. Maybe there's some sort of underlying meta-narrative being concocted by the powers that be, but I think there's probably some confirmation bias at work in that reading of the news.

Exactly. I've yet to read a single piece that attempts to absolve Baldwin. The armor and her experience are rightfully seeing *most* of the blame, but I'm seeing plenty of outlets lay blame on the AD, Baldwin, the producers, etc as well.

JCA1 said:

---

I agree that the producers should ensure whoever they hire is qualified for the job. But, at the same time, when you take a job as armorer for a movie, you're ultimately the one responsible for the weapons. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, don't take the job.

---

WRONG!

Accidental discharges a week earlier. Complete lapse of management oversight in addition to hiring people that didn't have enough experience. Armorers will definitely have a manslaughter charge but management is going to be culpable as well... book it!

No such thing as an accidental discharge. Negligent discharge? Yes

DannyDuberstein said:

---

No such thing as an accidental discharge. Negligent discharge? Yes

---

Couldn't agree more but that's what they are generally called. Not forcing a safety shut down is a management failure. Always near misses, management failure etc leading up to tragic "accidents".

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

No such thing as an accidental discharge. Negligent discharge? Yes

---

I'm pretty sure I don't mean it when it happens.

---

LRHF said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

I agree that the producers should ensure whoever they hire is qualified for the job. But, at the same time, when you take a job as armorer for a movie, you're ultimately the one responsible for the weapons. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, don't take the job.

---

WRONG!

Accidental discharges a week earlier. Complete lapse of management oversight in addition to hiring people that didn't have enough experience. Armorers will definitely have a manslaughter charge but management is going to be culpable as well... book it!

---

You're very fired up with your thumbs down and ALL CAPS EXCLAMATION POINT! and I'm not sure why. My very first sentence agrees that the producers should make sure the personnel they hired are qualified and competent for the job they are hired for.

And on that note, is there a certification process (or something similar) for armorers? Seems like a role that should have some standardized accrediting process.

If you agree the producers are also liable, we agree.

If you believe the armorer is the only accountable party, then we don't agree.

LRHF

LRHF said:

---

If you agree the producers are also liable, we agree.

If you believe the armorer is the only accountable party, then we don't agree.

LRHF

---

I don't know enough about the facts or New Mexico law to proclaim anyone guilty of anything legally.

If you want to know how little she knows about guns and shooting, she is overseeing this travesty of form in that article...

That's just the Johnny Miller reverse C. You can win US Opens with that form but can be tough on the back

And the real travesty is that Alec Baldwin is standing somewhere to the right with an apple on his head

Sure, that's what it looks like with proper form and stance... if that person is made out of wet spaghetti instead of bones. And uh actually you might be right

Person that pulls the trigger bears the most responsibility.