casinterest wrote:

An attorney for the armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer said Wednesday that he believes someone might have been trying to sabotage the set by putting a live round in a box of dummy ammunition.

So, were they supposed to be blank rounds or dummy rounds? There’s a difference. Anyone familiar with firearms should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round.

Dummy rounds are a little different. There are obvious dummy rounds, such as snap caps, that look different from a live, or blank. But, some dummy rounds are simply rounds that have had the primer and powder charge removed. There will be a small hole drilled in the case, and/or the primer seat will be empty. I’ve also seen cases that have been crimped along their length to indicate they we dummies.

In either case, an armorer should be able to tell the difference with ease.

casinterest wrote:

This article points out that there were two hours where the guns were left unattended,

Unacceptable. I won’t leave a gun laying out at home when I’m alone, much less on a busy movie set. The only time a firearm is left on a table for an extended period, in my home, is when it’s disassembled for cleaning.

fr8mech wrote:

So, were they supposed to be blank rounds or dummy rounds? There’s a difference. Anyone familiar with firearms should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round.

It appears that her attorneys are trying to muddy the waters in the court of public opinion.

seb146 wrote:

meecrob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Right. So why should it be any different for any other American? Or, conversely, why is everyone all upset this tragic accident happened when the average American "responsible gun owner" is not held to these standards?

Because one is for commercial purposes and the other for recreational purposes. Airlines are held to a higher standard than some guy banging out circuits in a 172. Courts like when you say "I screwed up" they don't like it when you say "I was trying to make money and screwed up"

Having a deadly weapon involved should have some responsibility. Just like owning a car or flying, there should be some responsibility. Other movies and TV shows have firearms. Any one of them could have had this accident. They still can. Why should they be held to a higher standard than the average American? It is still a weapon.

They should be held to a higher standard because its a workplace. Like this is the basis of modern employment law. I'll retract this statement as soon as someone produces the deceased's employment contract that states "may suffer injury up to, and including, death by projectile for purposes of getting footage for the aforementioned "project""

Edit: I think I missed your point. The topic is not average American gun owners though. Like as much as I want to fly my Canadian flag high and insult Americans right now because there was not a tragic gun death here (oh wait, there was), its ludicrous to think that this is in any way comparable to John Doe going to the gun range. This is a horrible tragedy, yes, but that does not mean we need to grab every gun owner by the nape and yell in their face "LOOK WHAT YOU COULD DO!!!"

fr8mech wrote:

casinterest wrote:

An attorney for the armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer said Wednesday that he believes someone might have been trying to sabotage the set by putting a live round in a box of dummy ammunition.

So, were they supposed to be blank rounds or dummy rounds? There’s a difference. Anyone familiar with firearms should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round.

Dummy rounds are a little different. There are obvious dummy rounds, such as snap caps, that look different from a live, or blank. But, some dummy rounds are simply rounds that have had the primer and powder charge removed. There will be a small hole drilled in the case, and/or the primer seat will be empty. I’ve also seen cases that have been crimped along their length to indicate they we dummies.

In either case, an armorer should be able to tell the difference with ease.

casinterest wrote:

This article points out that there were two hours where the guns were left unattended,

Unacceptable. I won’t leave a gun laying out at home when I’m alone, much less on a busy movie set. The only time a firearm is left on a table for an extended period, in my home, is when it’s disassembled for cleaning.

All valid points. At this point, I am beginning to suspect that the police are looking at criminal negligence to homicide. Especially considering that there were other incidents of live ammunition incidents.

casinterest wrote:

other incidents of live ammunition incidents.

That's what's getting me. You can never assume to be 100% safe, but you should be safer on a movie set with trained professionals who planned this entire sequence of events out, than randomly walking on the street in a bad part of town. Clearly something broke down, but the dirty laundry seems it was a known issue.

casinterest wrote:

This is going to get wild.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru ... l-n1283092

An attorney for the armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer said Wednesday that he believes someone might have been trying to sabotage the set by putting a live round in a box of dummy ammunition.

This article points out that there were two hours where the guns were left unattended, and that the bullets were loaded from a box labeled as dummy The Armorer loaded the weapons, and apparently from another article I read, spun the rounds when handing it to Baldwin claiming that it was Cold.



The Armorer seems likely to take the fall unless they can find out if there was indeed tampering.

I would think the armor can see if the casing has a bullet in it or not. The blanks I have seen are all missing the bullet. Sounds fishy to me.

As I said before, I just had an odd feeling about the armorer. It just seems really unusual for a 20-something with a middle class Hollywood gig to suddenly have two attorneys and a PR campaign going in the media.

Aaron747 wrote:

As I said before, I just had an odd feeling about the armorer. It just seems really unusual for a 20-something with a middle class Hollywood gig to suddenly have two attorneys and a PR campaign going in the media.

I would have gotten a lawyer or two as well. No matter what comes out, they share a pretty large part of the liability.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

As I said before, I just had an odd feeling about the armorer. It just seems really unusual for a 20-something with a middle class Hollywood gig to suddenly have two attorneys and a PR campaign going in the media.

I would have gotten a lawyer or two as well. No matter what comes out, they share a pretty large part of the liability.

Average salary for a production armorer is around $50K. Not the kind of income where you cough up two attorneys.

It’s a certainty that the armorer isn’t the one paying or employing the legal counsel. The production company and possibly their insurer has a strong interest in defending her.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s a certainty that the armorer isn’t the one paying or employing the legal counsel. The production company and possibly their insurer has a strong interest in defending her.

True, but these tactics are strange. I worked for insurance defense counsel many moons ago and most insurers don't want their attorneys talking to media at all.

That’s modern legal defense—try it in public

Crew member sues Alec Baldwin, others over ‘Rust’ shooting

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin ... 4d91a4e7a2

The head of lighting on the film “Rust” filed a lawsuit Wednesday over Alec Baldwin’s fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set of the Western, alleging negligence that caused him “severe emotional distress” that will haunt him forever. Serge Svetnoy said in the suit that the bullet that killed his close friend Hutchins, narrowly missed him, and he held her head as she died.

“They should never, ever, have had live rounds on this set,” Svetnoy’s attorney Gary A. Dordick said at a news conference Wednesday. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court names nearly two dozen defendants associated with the film including Baldwin, who was both star and a producer; David Halls, the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun; and Hannah Gutierrez Reed, who was in charge of weapons on the set.

‘Rust’ Gaffer Sues Alec Baldwin, Armorer, Producers for Negligence in On-Set Shooting

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust ... 235109520/

Includes the 25 page Complaint for General Negligence and the Demand for a Jury Trial

The suit accuses several people of failing to properly inspect the gun to make sure it did not contain live rounds, including Baldwin, armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed and first assistant director Dave Halls. It also accuses the film’s producers of failing to hire enough competent crew to maintain a safe set.

The suit alleges that the defendants “wholly failed to perform their responsibilities and violated the most basic of industry standards governing the use and maintenance of firearms and ammunition. Their conduct proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries.”

'Alec chose to play Russian Roulette': Rust script supervisor breaks down in tears as she SUES Baldwin over Halyna Hutchins' death because he 'cocked and fired the gun even though the scene didn't call for it'

Mitchell was standing close to the Director of Photography, Halyna Hutchins, when the Bullet from Alec Baldwin's gun fatally shot her

Allred alleged that live ammunition was brought to the set and that the assistant director improperly handed Baldwin the gun

Baldwin knew that the gun should've never been given to him and that he could not rely on the AD about whether or not the gun was safe to use

'Mr. Baldwin chose to play Russian Roulette when he fired a gun without checking it and without having an armorer within his presence,' she said

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -suit.html

My instinct from the get go was that Alex was f'ing around on the set.

^^

The suit claims assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deliberate infliction of harm. It also states that the scene being shot did not require a gun to be fired.

The suit names names 22 defendants associated with the film including Baldwin, Rust producers, six production companies - El Dorado Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, Short Porch Pictures, Brittany House Pictures, 3rd Shift Media and Streamline Global - armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, First Assistant Director David Halls and others.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

^^

The suit claims assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deliberate infliction of harm. It also states that the scene being shot did not require a gun to be fired.

The suit names names 22 defendants associated with the film including Baldwin, Rust producers, six production companies - El Dorado Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, Short Porch Pictures, Brittany House Pictures, 3rd Shift Media and Streamline Global - armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, First Assistant Director David Halls and others.

Now it's just a silly parade of money shellgame from various plaintiffs' attorneys. Key to focus on still is the armorer - why were so many weapons misused on set? Why were ammunition types mixed? Why were weapons being used to shoot cans outside? All things she should be responsible for/have answers to.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

^^

The suit claims assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deliberate infliction of harm. It also states that the scene being shot did not require a gun to be fired.

The suit names names 22 defendants associated with the film including Baldwin, Rust producers, six production companies - El Dorado Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, Short Porch Pictures, Brittany House Pictures, 3rd Shift Media and Streamline Global - armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, First Assistant Director David Halls and others.

Now it's just a silly parade of money shellgame from various plaintiffs' attorneys. Key to focus on still is the armorer - why were so many weapons misused on set? Why were ammunition types mixed? Why were weapons being used to shoot cans outside? All things she should be responsible for/have answers to.

Well, the operator of the weapon has no small level culpability as well. To load, clear and safe a weapon is the basic thrust any responsible weapon handling as well as following the Four Rules. To say, "well it's all on the armorer" means that the production company does bear some burden for lacking appropriate safeguards such as shoot geometry, prohibiting live rounds on set, prohibiting recreational shooting on set, etc.

Here's George Clooney's take on it. It seems that he's always done his own safety checks and it's kind of the industry standard.
https://www.wfsb.com/george-clooney-rus ... ve%20round.

johns624 wrote:

Here's George Clooney's take on it. It seems that he's always done his own safety checks and it's kind of the industry standard.
https://www.wfsb.com/george-clooney-rus ... ve%20round.

So, pretty much what those of us that have handled firearms have said, the ultimate responsibility to ensure the firearm is in a safe condition belongs to the person handling the firearm.

fr8mech wrote:

So, pretty much what those of us that have handled firearms have said, the ultimate responsibility to ensure the firearm is in a safe condition belongs to the person handling the firearm.

When it comes to deadly weapons... the answer to that is YES !!! BINGO !!

Saw a comment today that said it all.

If someone handed you a gun and said it wasn't loaded would you point it at your daughter and pull the trigger? That's exactly what Baldwin did.

It was just someone else's daughter.

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

Oh well, as long as we can find blame it doesn’t need to be made better.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

So, it's not obvious to you that a "device designed to kill" should be verified safe by the end user prior to use as a prop?

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

So, it's not obvious to you that a "device designed to kill" should be verified safe by the end user prior to use as a prop?

This is just more of the "bad gun" mantra of the anti-gunners. It's always the bad gun and never the person behind it.

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

Oh well, as long as we can find blame it doesn’t need to be made better.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am by no means pro-gun, but I can't help but feel that one or more people in this chain of failure lacked experience and/or were ignorant of proper procedures. I'd bet if this was given the oversight it should have, this tragedy would never have happened.

This situation, as it develops, reminds me more and more of this genius who bought a helicopter...you've all seen the vid, but just cuz this guy crashed, doesn't mean we grounded all helicopters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwwKoz8Diw

meecrob wrote:

This situation, as it develops, reminds me more and more of this genius who bought a helicopter...you've all seen the vid, but just cuz this guy crashed, doesn't mean we grounded all helicopters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwwKoz8Diw

How in the world have I never seen that?

That is... amazing.

cairns wrote:

It was just someone else's daughter.

You believe she had value only because she is someone's daughter.

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

So, it's not obvious to you that a "device designed to kill" should be verified safe by the end user prior to use as a prop?

This is a much better example a group assuming their microcosmic standards are universal —and being wrong about that— than it is about someone else being incompetent. The are a million obvious things you do not know about working a set. We will gloss over that in favor of focusing on a detail that hobbyists who do not work there think.
That is not unique to gun people, but they are loud about it.

johns624 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

So, it's not obvious to you that a "device designed to kill" should be verified safe by the end user prior to use as a prop?

This is just more of the "bad gun" mantra of the anti-gunners. It's always the bad gun and never the person behind it.

That's why the armorer is at issue here. There is enough commentary from set handlers and actors about proper procedures handling guns on set to clearly show that 'industry standard' is a malleable concept depending on the people involved - varying levels of professionalism and expertise, no doubt. What nobody has disputed is that armorers have a well-defined job description and responsibility, and at the very least, there was incompetent handling on her part.

At the end of the day the production's liability insurance will be paying out.

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well it’s still amazing that a device designed to kill is simply to be made safe by what enthusiasts think is obvious and therefore everyone else should know too somehow.

So, it's not obvious to you that a "device designed to kill" should be verified safe by the end user prior to use as a prop?

Evidently, I mean why do you think this thread exists?

johns624 wrote:

This is just more of the "bad gun" mantra of the anti-gunners. It's always the bad gun and never the person behind it.

Who’s that directed towards? I’m sure fr8mech isn’t an anti gunner and neither am I?

When a gun is shot the interesting thing is it’s always the person and it’s interestingly always the gun, the event cannot realistically happen without either.

I’m anti-unwanted interaction between the two. I’m anti ‘unsuitable people being allowed to operate guns’

meecrob wrote:

I am by no means pro-gun, but I can't help but feel that one or more people in this chain of failure lacked experience and/or were ignorant of proper procedures. I'd bet if this was given the oversight it should have, this tragedy would never have happened.

This situation, as it develops, reminds me more and more of this genius who bought a helicopter...you've all seen the vid, but just cuz this guy crashed, doesn't mean we grounded all helicopters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwwKoz8Diw

I agree and we shouldn’t expect laws to stop things happening completely. There should have been a chain of things that should have happened and the Swiss cheese effect happened I doubt but one should be ensuring that each piece of cheese had less holes.

The man in the helicopter, when did he go from not breaking a law to breaking a law? It was before he crashed I’d wager. In the case of the shooting, even when the bullet was in flight had a law been broken? Has a law been broken even now?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DIRECTFLT wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

So, pretty much what those of us that have handled firearms have said, the ultimate responsibility to ensure the firearm is in a safe condition belongs to the person handling the firearm.

When it comes to deadly weapons... the answer to that is YES !!! BINGO !!

The responsibility to drive safely belongs to the driver, yet we have speed limits and licensing. The responsibility to provide safe food belongs to the manufacturer/grower yet the FDA still exists. It is the responsibility of a builder to make sure any buildings are safe yet building regulations and inspectors exist.

Interestingly in all the above cases it is not only responsibility but also ACCOUNTABILITY to a standard PRIOR to an unsafe condition existing.

At what point are gun owners ACCOUNTABLE for the firearm being in a safe condition?


Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fr8mech wrote:

casinterest wrote:

An attorney for the armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer said Wednesday that he believes someone might have been trying to sabotage the set by putting a live round in a box of dummy ammunition.

So, were they supposed to be blank rounds or dummy rounds? There’s a difference. Anyone familiar with firearms should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round.

Dummy rounds are a little different. There are obvious dummy rounds, such as snap caps, that look different from a live, or blank. But, some dummy rounds are simply rounds that have had the primer and powder charge removed. There will be a small hole drilled in the case, and/or the primer seat will be empty. I’ve also seen cases that have been crimped along their length to indicate they we dummies.

So you're saying a dummy has no explosive ? It wouldn't be useful for a movie, then.

Aesma wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So, were they supposed to be blank rounds or dummy rounds? There’s a difference. Anyone familiar with firearms should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round.

Dummy rounds are a little different. There are obvious dummy rounds, such as snap caps, that look different from a live, or blank. But, some dummy rounds are simply rounds that have had the primer and powder charge removed. There will be a small hole drilled in the case, and/or the primer seat will be empty. I’ve also seen cases that have been crimped along their length to indicate they we dummies.

So you're saying a dummy has no explosive ? It wouldn't be useful for a movie, then.

It would have one use, and only one use that I can think of. That is if you wanted to show the actor loading the gun. Blanks would be obviously fake. A dummy would look "real" under cursory inspection.

Yeah or maybe for a close-up view of a revolver's barrel.

Did anyone catch Alec Baldwin's interview with George Stephanopoulos? You know at first I had sympathy for Baldwin even though I never cared for him...Now I have lost any sympathy I might have had. This asshat is the epitome of a true narcissist. He is blaming everyone including the victim herself for that accident except himself. The reason I disliked Trump was he also was a true narcissist, People like them never blame themselves or own any mistakes it is always someone else's fault. All I know is if my negligence caused anyone's death I know I personally could not live with it.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/alec-bald ... interview/

stratosphere wrote:

Did anyone catch Alec Baldwin's interview with George Stephanopoulos? You know at first I had sympathy for Baldwin even though I never cared for him...Now I have lost any sympathy I might have had. This asshat is the epitome of a true narcissist. He is blaming everyone including the victim herself for that accident except himself. The reason I disliked Trump was he also was a true narcissist, People like them never blame themselves or own any mistakes it is always someone else's fault. All I know is if my negligence caused anyone's death I know I personally could not live with it.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/alec-bald ... interview/

Zero ownership, no taking any responsibility, pathetic. Summing up the interview: "The gun fired itself, I don't feel responsible, I didn't do anything wrong, but someone else is responsible, just not me"

Total narcissist.

stratosphere wrote:

Did anyone catch Alec Baldwin's interview with George Stephanopoulos? You know at first I had sympathy for Baldwin even though I never cared for him...Now I have lost any sympathy I might have had. This asshat is the epitome of a true narcissist. He is blaming everyone including the victim herself for that accident except himself. The reason I disliked Trump was he also was a true narcissist, People like them never blame themselves or own any mistakes it is always someone else's fault. All I know is if my negligence caused anyone's death I know I personally could not live with it.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/alec-bald ... interview/

If he were Black (and still this stupid), he would already be a in jail. This is exactly how people get to jail. They are extremely stupid and cannot control their anger. Obviously, Alec Baldwin suffers from both of these terrible problems. And now an innocent woman is dead, because of his behavior disorders and his gun use.

I think it would be a healing thing to admit that even a rich white man can go to jail for exactly this type of event. The same laws can actually be applied to a rich white man just as we do to others. Even if he “doesn’t agree.” I think 20 years in jail might even do him some good.

Here is an article on what was said during the interview.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/al ... d=81490389

Gun in hand, Baldwin said he and Hutchins began blocking out the scene. She was directing his every move, he said: “Everything is at her direction.”

“This was a marking rehearsal,” Baldwin said. “And [Hutchins] says to me, ‘Hold the gun lower. Go to your right. Okay, right there. All right, do that. Now show it a little bit lower.’ And she's getting me to position the gun.”

“She's guiding me through how she wants me to hold the gun for this angle,” he said. “I'm holding the gun where she told me to hold it, which ended up being aimed right below her armpit.”

So Hutchins is directing the actor and gun around. There is going to be some scrutiny of this.

To get the shot, Baldwin said he needed to cock the gun, but not fire it: “The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger.”

“I cock the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’” Baldwin said. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”

“So, you never pulled the trigger?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“No, no, no, no, no,” Baldwin said. “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them.”

Torraco, Halls’ attorney, corroborated Baldwin’s account on Thursday, saying Halls told her “from day one” that he was watching from three or four feet away and “the entire time Baldwin had his finger outside the trigger guard parallel to the barrel … that Alec did not pull that trigger."

So if his hand was outside the guard, and they were blocking the scene, there are a lot of questions investigators are going to have to look into.

But having Halls statement is an interesting addition to this case.

The four rules of gun safety still apply.

I'm sure Baldwin had no ill intent to harm either person.

But the four rules apply.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/10727638 ... et-shootin

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer and key props assistant on Rust, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court on Wednesday saying the production bought live ammunition that she believed to be dummy rounds.

The complaint names PDQ Arm and Prop and founder and managing member Seth Kenney as defendants.

"Hannah relied upon and trusted that Defendants would only supply dummy prop ammunition, or blanks, and no live rounds were ever to be on set," the lawsuit reads.

This doesn't' seem to square with the stories we have heard of off set shooting. Or were they using different ammo for those events?

Either way, it looks like armorer is looking to save her skin in this case from manslaughter charges.

casinterest wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072763841/the-rust-armorer-is-suing-the-films-ammo-supplier-over-the-deadly-on-set-shootin

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer and key props assistant on Rust, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court on Wednesday saying the production bought live ammunition that she believed to be dummy rounds.

The complaint names PDQ Arm and Prop and founder and managing member Seth Kenney as defendants.

"Hannah relied upon and trusted that Defendants would only supply dummy prop ammunition, or blanks, and no live rounds were ever to be on set," the lawsuit reads.

This doesn't' seem to square with the stories we have heard of off set shooting. Or were they using different ammo for those events?

Either way, it looks like armorer is looking to save her skin in this case from manslaughter charges.

Pretty sure, as the armor, she should have verified the type of ammunition loaded in the weapon.

FlapOperator wrote:

The four rules of gun safety still apply.

I'm sure Baldwin had no ill intent to harm either person.

But the four rules apply.

They apply in what sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nothing wrong with that lawsuit to spread the blame a little.

OK I'm no arms expert but on a basic revolver, if you let the hammer go after almost having cocked it fully, but not enough, it's basically the same as pulling the trigger, no ? If there is no safety of some kind.

I see various safeties exist, but on old revolvers there might be no safety : https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-w ... he-trigger

flipdewaf wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The four rules of gun safety still apply.

I'm sure Baldwin had no ill intent to harm either person.

But the four rules apply.

They apply in what sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

I have two friends who are SWAT snipers and I will still check any gun they hand me even when they swear it is unloaded and they do the same to any gun I hand them even if they had handed the gun to me a minute ago. It is such a habit that most people who know firearms check without realizing they started the check.

Lightsaber

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072763841/the-rust-armorer-is-suing-the-films-ammo-supplier-over-the-deadly-on-set-shootin

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer and key props assistant on Rust, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court on Wednesday saying the production bought live ammunition that she believed to be dummy rounds.

The complaint names PDQ Arm and Prop and founder and managing member Seth Kenney as defendants.

"Hannah relied upon and trusted that Defendants would only supply dummy prop ammunition, or blanks, and no live rounds were ever to be on set," the lawsuit reads.

This doesn't' seem to square with the stories we have heard of off set shooting. Or were they using different ammo for those events?

Either way, it looks like armorer is looking to save her skin in this case from manslaughter charges.

Pretty sure, as the armor, she should have verified the type of ammunition loaded in the weapon.

Oh no doubt. I would expect movie sets will have to seriously rethink their gun safety plans after this incident. Actors will probably have to be required to take on more intensive training.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072763841/the-rust-armorer-is-suing-the-films-ammo-supplier-over-the-deadly-on-set-shootin



This doesn't' seem to square with the stories we have heard of off set shooting. Or were they using different ammo for those events?

Either way, it looks like armorer is looking to save her skin in this case from manslaughter charges.

Pretty sure, as the armor, she should have verified the type of ammunition loaded in the weapon.

Oh no doubt. I would expect movie sets will have to seriously rethink their gun safety plans after this incident. Actors will probably have to be required to take on more intensive training.

I'm sure insurers are already hard at work on it.

Or simply ban real guns and only use completely disabled ones/props, with a clear way to recognize them (big red mark on the grip or something).

Aesma wrote:

Or simply ban real guns and only use completely disabled ones/props, with a clear way to recognize them (big red mark on the grip or something).

Green. This way it can be edited out more easily in post.

lightsaber wrote:

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

Most important is rule 5.

Do Not assume someone who has no reason to know these things would or even should. This is a glaring mistake I see the gun people in this thread making, and it raises good questions about the general level of responsibility.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

Most important is rule 5.

Do Not assume someone who has no reason to know these things would or even should. This is a glaring mistake I see the gun people in this thread making, and it raises good questions about the general level of responsibility.

I flat out ask people to recite the gun rules if I do not know the person. No one should handle a gun without knowing the rules. Now my old dear friends and their families have recited them back enough I don't ask again.

I've been handed loaded guns, thankfully always by someone who gave me a heads up they were loaded. But no one should assume.

Lightsaber