About that Rust shooting

[Unsuspicious]

YouTube

[slewfoot]

Around my area, it has all fallen into the WGAF drawer. Not news anymore

[Steve_R]

I’m not sure how that makes the person who pulled the trigger innocent, but there are different rules for the rich and famous.

[86RAG]

In my not so humble opinion, they are just trying to shift the blame to her

[Aerovette]

How does one prove someone had a hangover? Is a hangover illegal now? Is that considered "impaired".

That's almost as stupid as " I didn't pull the trigger" when a video shows you pulling the trigger.

Will they accuse her of being on her period next?

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

I’m not sure how that makes the person who pulled the trigger innocent, but there are different rules for the rich and famous.

*rich and famous liberals

[DAB]

as a potential juror for this case, how exactly does one, after all this time, without the defendant admitting to it, prove this?

"we think she was drunk the night before"

"well counselor, i think you are wasting the court's time"

we are not tried for what we think, but for what we have done.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by DAB

as a potential juror for this case, how exactly does one, after all this time, without the defendant admitting to it, prove this?

"we think she was drunk the night before"

"well counselor, i think you are wasting the court's time"

we are not tried for what we think, but for what we have done.

Let's say at midnight, she drank 6 shots one right after the other. Then went to bed and woke up at 8:30... just in time to tell anyone that suspects she is "hungover", to STFU. There is no standard for "hungover" and no test exists.

[slewfoot]

Just on the news here. She was drinking heavy and smokin weed into the night before

[DAB]

Originally Posted by aerovette

Let's say at midnight, she drank 6 shots one right after the other. Then went to bed and woke up at 8:30... just in time to tell anyone that suspects she is "hungover", to STFU. There is no standard for "hungover" and no test exists.

exactly.

and we know that different people have different reactions to alcohol. some drink it like water with no discernible effects, others, are incapacitated after one glass of wine.

the time to administer a "drunk" test was that day. not wave your hands in despair years later because you couldn't make a case for the guy who was actually holding the gun.

"treat all guns as loaded"

sigh.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by slewfoot

Just on the news here. She was drinking heavy and smokin weed into the night before

And this means what? In her hungover state she advised Baldwin to pull the trigger?

[Unsuspicious]

Got high on pot and schemed to get Baldwin in trouble maybe? Who knows, stoners come up with goofy ideas.

[Shrike6]

They gave Baldwin a pass because he’s a flaming liberal, and rich. They need a scapegoat. Armorer is young, not well experienced, not rich or liberal. Easy target. Was she liable for loading a live round? IDK. But SHE didn’t kill the victim. Baldwin inarguably did. He’s the killer. But she’s gonna be thrown under the bus, because someone has to, and she is the chosen loser.

[markids77]

Originally Posted by Shrike6

They gave Baldwin a pass because he’s a flaming liberal, and rich. They need a scapegoat. Armorer is young, not well experienced, not rich or liberal. Easy target. Was she liable for loading a live round? IDK. But SHE didn’t kill the victim. Baldwin inarguably did. He’s the killer. But she’s gonna be thrown under the bus, because someone has to, and she is the chosen loser.

Don't forget... the live round was going downrange the next time the trigger was pulled regardless of where the muzzle was pointed... I really don't think Baldwin loaded the weapon, or certified it "safe". That is what Armorers get paid for on set.

Still, she is not the only person at fault by a long shot in my opinion.

[Chemtrails99]

Originally Posted by Shrike6

They gave Baldwin a pass because he’s a flaming liberal, and rich. They need a scapegoat. Armorer is young, not well experienced, not rich or liberal. Easy target. Was she liable for loading a live round? IDK. But SHE didn’t kill the victim. Baldwin inarguably did. He’s the killer. But she’s gonna be thrown under the bus, because someone has to, and she is the chosen loser.

It was said that she was off set for lunch, and during that time directors took some guns, loaded them live and were plinking cans and bottles. They put the gunbs back without telling her what they ad done, and assitant directors came over being pushy and grabbed what they wanted without proper check. There is a huge pecking order on sets, sunds like they loved showing their rank too. As for hungover, she's young and the murder happened after lunch, so it wasn't like a bleary eyed morning without coffee early morning sort of incident. They've been trying to throw her under the bus since the day it hapened, leaking pictures and stories about her from hours after the moron on the trigger used it.

I'm in the camp saying inal check is on the person holding the gun. Just like a pilot doing a preflight. Even more when that actor was raised by a gun safety instructor. He knew how to handle, he didn't care.

[Tikiman]

Welcome to the set of "Rust". This is your armorer.

[Nox]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

I’m not sure how that makes the person who pulled the trigger innocent, but there are different rules for the rich and famous.

No matter what you think of Baldwin, it makes sense if you understand how the movie industry works. The actor’s job is to act and it’s the propmaster or armorer’s job to prepare and inspect all of the props and weapons. The armorer or propmaster retains custody of everything until just before the shot, and then places the item for the shot.

Many actors/actresses have no clue about weapons and many have never even handled one before so wouldn’t know the first thing about checking them. That’s exactly why an armorer is on set.

I’ve consulted on movies where the armorer inspected and retained all weapons until just before the shot and just before the director yelled, “action,” the armorer would place the weapon in the actor’s hand and many times show the actor how the weapon needed to be held.

So regardless of politics, I do understand why they are going after the armorer.

[Nox]

Originally Posted by Chemtrails99

I'm in the camp saying inal check is on the person holding the gun. Just like a pilot doing a preflight. Even more when that actor was raised by a gun safety instructor. He knew how to handle, he didn't care.

In Hollywood, you have to go by the lowest common denominator. Always assume that the actor/talent knows absolutely nothing about guns. It doesn’t matter if the actor is Keanu Reeves or even the Navy SEALS (in Act of Valor). Regardless of who the actor is, just assume they know nothing about weapons. The armorer needs to check and recheck the weapon before placing it in the actor’s hand before the shot.

To say Baldwin should have checked the weapon before pressing the trigger is to make an assumption that he knew how to do that, and like I said, never make an assumption that an actor knows anything about guns…. Most I have encountered do not know the first thing about guns.

[the new me]

Originally Posted by Nox

In Hollywood, you have to go by the lowest common denominator. Always assume that the actor/talent knows absolutely nothing about guns. It doesn’t matter if the actor is Keanu Reeves or even the Navy SEALS (in Act of Valor). Regardless of who the actor is, just assume they know nothing about weapons. The armorer needs to check and recheck the weapon before placing it in the actor’s hand before the shot.

To say Baldwin should have checked the weapon before pressing the trigger is to make an assumption that he knew how to do that, and like I said, never make an assumption that an actor knows anything about guns…. Most I have encountered do not know the first thing about guns.

You are correct about this stuff.

As it happens, though, Baldwin's father was a firearms instructor. Baldwin grew up with guns and does know about guns. Not sure if that means he should be judged by a different standard because of that. In fact his job as an actor did not including assessing the condition of the weapon he was holding.

Another issue is that the armorer was supposedly discharged from her position as armorer prior to the shooting in question. At that point she was supposedly just an assistant prop master. So it's not clear who was acting as armorer for the scene. Apparently some assistant director went and fetched the gun from a table? I'm not quite clear about that. I do wonder why the gun wasn't locked up when unattended, or if it was locked up who had the key. Or if it wasn't unattended, who was attending it. None of this has been officially revealed.

Maybe they're persecuting her because she didn't offer to let them tie her up.

This is like a terrible game of Clue except we know who did it, what the weapon was and where the killing took place. But we don't fully know the backstory.

Oh and there's one other complication: Baldwin was the producer of the movie, which means he had final responsibility for the operation of the set, including hiring the armorer and ensuring she was doing her job. In actual fact he may have delegated the hiring of some crew members, including the armorer, to the Production Manager or even the First Assistant Director (who may have had PM responsibility). It was a low-budget production and the exact crew sheet hasn't been made public to the best of my knowledge. Regardless, Baldwin was not just the triggerman, he was the ultimate authority on the set with final responsibility for everything.

The math goes like this: 1 + 1 + xyz + wtf = pretzel.

[the new me]

Originally Posted by Shrike6

They gave Baldwin a pass because he’s a flaming liberal, and rich. They need a scapegoat. Armorer is young, not well experienced, not rich or liberal. Easy target. Was she liable for loading a live round? IDK. But SHE didn’t kill the victim. Baldwin inarguably did. He’s the killer. But she’s gonna be thrown under the bus, because someone has to, and she is the chosen loser.

The odds of her not being liberal are close to zero.