Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On "Rust" Movie Set Spells Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report

[Ubiquitous]

An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.

The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.

The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.

In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."

Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."

The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.

Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.

"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."

"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Rhino]

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

It doesn't sound like an FBI investigation in which they took the lead
on detective work. I see no violation of federalism in calling in outside
forensic investigators.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

It doesn't sound like an FBI investigation in which they took the lead
on detective work. I see no violation of federalism in calling in outside
forensic investigators.

BTR confirms you're right :-)

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

The Bureau was asked by the locals to do the forensic work. They're not
running the investigation.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

The Bureau was asked by the locals to do the forensic work. They're not
running the investigation.

Were the locals too rusty then?

[Ubiquitous]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

The Bureau was asked by the locals to do the forensic work. They're not
running the investigation.

Were their forensic skills rusty?

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

The Bureau was asked by the locals to do the forensic work. They're not
running the investigation.

Thank you, that makes sense. Even Bosch, in the Connelly books,
sometimes calls in the FBI for forensics, profiling or to do joint
investigations on occasion.

[RichA]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by Ubiquitous
An FBI forensic report has reportedly concluded that the revolver that
was used during the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
on the set of the movie "Rust" could not have been fired without
pulling the trigger.
The report comes in response to actor Alec Baldwin shooting Hutchins on
the movie set after he claims that he believed he was handling a
firearm that was not loaded with live ammunition.
The FBI report obtained by ABC News says that the .45 Colt revolver
"could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger" while in a
quarter-cocked position, a half-cocked position, and a fully-cocked
position.
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is a
standard way that a revolver operates.
In an ABC News interview late last year with George Stephanopoulos,
Baldwin said that he pulled "the hammer as far back as I could without
cocking" it and then he "let go of the hammer" and "bang, the gun goes
off."
Baldwin said in the interview that "the trigger wasn't pulled," "I
didn't pull the trigger," "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull
the trigger at them," and "someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet
that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The Washington Post published a fact-check article after the interview
that quoted various firearm experts who expressed skepticism over
Baldwin's claims.
Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwie effectively said in a
statement earlier this month that nothing was being ruled out in terms
of what prosecutors could do.
"Once the First Judicial District Attorney's Office (`FJDA') receives
the completed investigation from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
(`SFSO'), the FJDA will begin the screening process and any necessary
follow-up investigation," she said in a statement. "To date, my office
has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still
awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited
to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing
on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of
Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico
Office of the Medical Investigator."
"Once SFSO receives those-and any other outstanding items-and completes
its supplemental reports, the screening process will begin, and my team
and I will make a charging decision," she continued. "To expedite the
FJDA review process, I have added retired Ninth Judicial District
Attorney, Andrea Reeb to the team, as a special prosecutor for this
case. To remain transparent to the local and national community, the
FJDA will proactively disseminate information as it becomes available."

Why is the FBI involved in this case in the first place? Shouldn't this be
a matter for the local/state police?

The Bureau was asked by the locals to do the forensic work. They're not
running the investigation.

Thank you, that makes sense. Even Bosch, in the Connelly books,
sometimes calls in the FBI for forensics, profiling or to do joint
investigations on occasion.
--
Rhino

The FBI is used by countries worldwide for forensic work.

[Ed Stasiak]

Ubiquitous
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?

Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.

Loading Image...

That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn’t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.

Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022

This is the ULR Ubi-the-shithead hid in his headers:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report

Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.

He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.

Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table. The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.

The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.

I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[shawn]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:41:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set? Did the prop master
serve in her stead watching over the firearms or were they really just
left on the table with no one watching over them?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.

This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.

I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set? Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[shawn]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:01:27 -0400, Rhino

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set? Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

The live ammo was there because the actors got bored and had access to
weapons that they normally would never get (the antiques) so they
wanted to play with them during their down time. So someone brought
the live ammo to the set so they could shoot off the antiques and then
someone just mixed the unused ammo with the blanks. Could have been
the same person or anyone on the set. As to why they mixed them
together, my guess is it was someone who didn't have a clue or think
about blanks versus live ammo, so likely not the prop master or the
armourer, but that still leaves a lot of people that could have done
it.

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[Rhino]

Post by shawn
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:01:27 -0400, Rhino

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set? Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

The live ammo was there because the actors got bored and had access to
weapons that they normally would never get (the antiques) so they
wanted to play with them during their down time. So someone brought
the live ammo to the set so they could shoot off the antiques and then
someone just mixed the unused ammo with the blanks. Could have been
the same person or anyone on the set.

If that is true, it's a massive dereliction of duty and professionalism
on the part of the producers who were ultimately responsible for the
set. Bringing live ammo onto a set because people were bored is
appalling! Comingling live ammo and blanks as if they're the same is
even more so.

I remember seeing a video on how training is done in the British (? or
US) army and they take enormous care to distinguish between live and
blank ammo and keep them separate so that no one can possibly get them
confused. Each type of ammo has its use but they must NEVER be mixed
lest people get hurt unnecessarily.

Post by shawn
As to why they mixed them
together, my guess is it was someone who didn't have a clue or think
about blanks versus live ammo, so likely not the prop master or the
armourer, but that still leaves a lot of people that could have done
it.

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set? Also,

Because the crew was allowed access to the guns and ammo to go shooting for
fun on the weekends and stuff got mixed up.

Post by Rhino
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[Adam H. Kerman]

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.

My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

Hadn’t he been fired off a couple previous jobs for being an idiot?

Here’s some of the complaints about him

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/us/baldwin-shooting-assistant-director.html

Also here’s the armorer. If she’s beauty pageant material they’ve lowered
their standards.

https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

[Rhino]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

Hadn’t he been fired off a couple previous jobs for being an idiot?
Here’s some of the complaints about him
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/us/baldwin-shooting-assistant-director.html
Also here’s the armorer. If she’s beauty pageant material they’ve lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

I wonder if she did target shooting during the talent portion of the
contest?

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Rhino

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

Hadn’t he been fired off a couple previous jobs for being an idiot?
Here’s some of the complaints about him
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/us/baldwin-shooting-assistant-director.html
Also here’s the armorer. If she’s beauty pageant material they’ve lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

I wonder if she did target shooting during the talent portion of the
contest?

Lol

Another thing in that article, it said that the gun was supposed to be
unloaded. I wonder if they are counting “full of blanks“ as the same thing
as “unloaded“

I wouldn’t

If it was supposed to be an unloaded revolver and Baldwin is telling the
truth (he’s not, he’s lying, no matter what he says at any given moment)
you would think somebody would notice the bullets which are clearly
visible. Hell, the woman he murdered, he says she was looking at him
telling him where the point the gun right at her. She should’ve noticed the
damn thing had bullets in it.

[Rhino]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Rhino

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

Hadn’t he been fired off a couple previous jobs for being an idiot?
Here’s some of the complaints about him
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/us/baldwin-shooting-assistant-director.html
Also here’s the armorer. If she’s beauty pageant material they’ve lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

I wonder if she did target shooting during the talent portion of the
contest?

Lol
Another thing in that article, it said that the gun was supposed to be
unloaded. I wonder if they are counting “full of blanks“ as the same thing
as “unloaded“
I wouldn’t
If it was supposed to be an unloaded revolver and Baldwin is telling the
truth (he’s not, he’s lying, no matter what he says at any given moment)
you would think somebody would notice the bullets which are clearly
visible. Hell, the woman he murdered, he says she was looking at him
telling him where the point the gun right at her. She should’ve noticed the
damn thing had bullets in it.

If she was any distance away, I don't think she's have been able to
tell. If the gun was able to fire ANYTHING (blanks or live ammo), as it
obviously was, she would have needed the eyesight of an eagle to see the
bit of bullet that was visible in the revolver when the cylinder was in
place. I very much doubt she'd have been able to distinguish between
blanks and live ammo either unless she was inches from the gun. The
person LOADING the weapon should have been able to tell very easily but
anyone further away would have had a VERY hard time telling. I doubt
she'd bother anyway, trusting to the propmaster instead unless she hated
her and knew she was incompetent.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

Hadn't he been fired off a couple previous jobs for being an idiot?

Unless the firing is done with a gun incorrectly stated to be "cold"
pressed against his temple, there's nothing to prevent him from being
hired again in a future movie production.

Here's some of the complaints about him
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/us/baldwin-shooting-assistant-director.html
Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

[shawn]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

[A Friend]

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.

No, I didn't.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by A Friend

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.
No, I didn't.

My mothers best friend used to call her and tell her to make me take out
her daughter.

Now the thing is, the daughter was tall (same height as me) and beautiful.

But she was mean to me.

[A Friend]

In article

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by A Friend

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.
No, I didn't.

My mothers best friend used to call her and tell her to make me take out
her daughter.
Now the thing is, the daughter was tall (same height as me) and beautiful.
But she was mean to me.

Oh, I get that. The neighborhood I grew up in was full of 'em.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by A Friend
In article

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by A Friend

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.
No, I didn't.

My mothers best friend used to call her and tell her to make me take out
her daughter.
Now the thing is, the daughter was tall (same height as me) and beautiful.
But she was mean to me.

Oh, I get that. The neighborhood I grew up in was full of 'em.

Sounds scenic at least.

[A Friend]

In article

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by A Friend
In article

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by A Friend

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.
No, I didn't.

My mothers best friend used to call her and tell her to make me take out
her daughter.
Now the thing is, the daughter was tall (same height as me) and beautiful.
But she was mean to me.

Oh, I get that. The neighborhood I grew up in was full of 'em.

Sounds scenic at least.

The scenery was nice, but you didn't want to eat there.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by shawn

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

You mean a town like Shootersville?

Which only had three girls in it and two of them were gorgeous and the
third was a redhead.

[Ed Stasiak]

The Horny Goat

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

*meh* I'd hit it...

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

The Horny Goat

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

*meh* I'd hit it...

Though I'd never put it so crassly, me too...

[anim8rfsk]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
their standards.
https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

“I know!” – Craig Ferguson

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 03:18:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the guy that handed Baldwin the
gun is an idiot.

I'll dispute it. Idiot isn't the right word. He was negligent for
picking up the weapon, then failing to check for live ammunition as he's
required to do. But at the point he declared "clear" and handed the
loaded weapon to Baldwin, he became reckless.
My question is: Is the A.D. criminally reckless?

I think that's an appropriate question to put to a jury - and I say
that knowing what's required to get it to a jury.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.

Because the film crew was shooting off the antique weapons between
takes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.

Because the film crew was shooting off the antique weapons between
takes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I’m picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

In the unsourced trivia for The Public Enemy (1931) at IMDb:

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.

If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.

There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.

That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.
If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.
There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.
That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

Exactly: someone had to tolerate that drunken behaviour and I think it
has been well-established that "someone" was the producers.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.
If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.
There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.
That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

Exactly: someone had to tolerate that drunken behaviour and I think it
has been well-established that "someone" was the producers.

The weapons were removed from the gun safe by the propmaster, sober. The
propmaster is the boss. He knew there was no assistant armourer and that
the armourer wasn't attending the weapons and ammo at all times guns
were out of the safe. The weapons and blanks were left unattended by the
armourer, sober. Whomever brought live ammunition to the set was sober. The
armourer was sober loading the weapon with what she claimed were blanks,
but she's lying because she couldn't be bothered to check. The A.D. picking
up the unattended weapon, declaring it "cold" without verifying that
there was no live ammunition in it, was sober. Alec Baldwin was sober.

Even if there is something to anim's accusation of drunks shooting off
antique weapons with live rounds, it's the SOBER behavior that was
incredibly dangerous.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.
If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.
There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.
That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

Exactly: someone had to tolerate that drunken behaviour and I think it
has been well-established that "someone" was the producers.

The weapons were removed from the gun safe by the propmaster, sober. The
propmaster is the boss. He knew there was no assistant armourer and that
the armourer wasn't attending the weapons and ammo at all times guns
were out of the safe. The weapons and blanks were left unattended by the
armourer, sober. Whomever brought live ammunition to the set was sober. The
armourer was sober loading the weapon with what she claimed were blanks,
but she's lying because she couldn't be bothered to check. The A.D. picking
up the unattended weapon, declaring it "cold" without verifying that
there was no live ammunition in it, was sober. Alec Baldwin was sober.
Even if there is something to anim's accusation of drunks shooting off
antique weapons with live rounds, it's the SOBER behavior that was
incredibly dangerous.

Indeed.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.
If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.
There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.
That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

But it can all be blamed on Alec Baldwin.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Post by Rhino
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Can you elaborate on that?

The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
of machine gun bullets.
If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.
There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
live ammunition was used on movie sets.
That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
have been achieved with blanks.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Rhino
Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
boxes and mixing them up in the process.

But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
behavior.

But it can all be blamed on Alec Baldwin.

No, it really can't. Baldwin's responsibility could be for hiring if his
role as "producer" was management over the production. Baldwin was
criminally reckless; he committed manslaughter.

The rest of them are entirely responsible for their own bad acts since a
whole lot of people acted in concert to put that loaded weapon in
Baldwin's hand:

The A.D. declared the gun "cold" without checking it didn't have live
ammunition in it. I'd still like to know if he can be charged with a
crime that requires proving criminal recklessness, which I think is
proveable. If he'd handed Baldwin the gun without checking saying nothing,
that would have been negligent but not criminal.

The armourer loaded the gun with live ammunition without checking. That's
reckless, not negligent, given that it was her area of expertise and the
reason she was hired. I'm not sure if her reckless act was criminal. Both
the armourer and propmaster are responsible for the armourer's failures,
but these acts don't appear to be criminal. The weapons were left
unattended, the ammunition was left unattended unattended, live rounds
were allowed to be brought to the set, failed to separate live rounds
from blanks when they got mixed together.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.

Because the film crew was shooting off the antique weapons between
takes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're alluding to here.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Agreed.
I continue to wonder why they had live ammo on set in the first place.

Because the film crew was shooting off the antique weapons between
takes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
short by a couple of inches.

It seems that there HAVE been uses of live ammo on set in more recent films:

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/84171/has-a-major-film-ever-intentionally-used-live-ammunition-to-film-a-scene

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Also,
I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from blanks
just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two mixed up?

Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
movie set gave a shit about safety.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

This article implies that a gun that can fire blanks has to be
explicitly (but minimally) modified to be able to fire a blank cartridge.

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/are-real-guns-used-in-movies/9199#9199

Also, I did a search for pictures of blank ammo to see if it really is
visually different from live ammo:

Loading Image...%3Fv-cache%3D1541702333

In the pictures I looked at EVERY SINGLE BLANK either had its tip
crimped or the tip was not there at all. I don't know if any of this is
ammo for vintage weapons like the ones used in Baldwin's film but this
tends to support the contention that blanks and live ammo look
noticeably different. That means whoever loaded the weapons should have
had an easy time of distinguishing them. If they continued to load live
ammo instead of blank, they can only be construed as being massively
incompetent/impaired or maybe even malicious.

Is it possible this was all some bizarre plot to get someone killed,
although not necessarily the person who was actually killed? For
example, maybe someone wanted that ass Baldwin shot and loaded live ammo
in a gun that was supposed to go to whoever was going to be in a
shootout with Baldwin but Baldwin got the live gun instead and ended up
shooting the wrong person? I know it's probably far-fetched as theories
go; maybe I've watched too many movies with far-fetched plots ;-)

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by Rhino
Rhino
Also, I did a search for pictures of blank ammo to see if it really is
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=blank+ammunition&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.volusion.com%2Fjodua.csmpx%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fphotos%2FSA41-2.jpg%3Fv-cache%3D1541702333
In the pictures I looked at EVERY SINGLE BLANK either had its tip
crimped or the tip was not there at all. I don't know if any of this is
ammo for vintage weapons like the ones used in Baldwin's film but
this tends to support the contention that blanks and live ammo look
noticeably different. That means whoever loaded the weapons should
have had an easy time of distinguishing them. If they continued to
load live ammo instead of blank, they can only be construed as being
massively incompetent/impaired or maybe even malicious.

During the scene where Baldwin shot the director gal, she was directing
him to point the revolver at the camera (and thus her) while cocking the
hammer, so she could get a close-up on the revolver.

For a shot like that, blanks aren’t used as viewers would be able to see
the crimped end of the blank cartridge so instead dummy rounds are used,
which use a cartridge case with a spent/removed primer, a real bullet and
no gunpowder with a hole(s) drilled into the side of the case.

Loading Image...

In one of the earlier articles about this incident, it was mentioned that the
trailer used to store the guns, ammo and other gear was a total mess, with
shit scattered about all over the place and blanks, dummies and live ammo
mixed together in ammo boxes and just laying out on the work benches.

Clearly the armorer gal and/or prop master didn't bother checking what
kinda ammo they were grabbing and loading into the guns, which is how
this unfortunate shooting happened.

[Rhino]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by Rhino
Rhino
Also, I did a search for pictures of blank ammo to see if it really is
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=blank+ammunition&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.volusion.com%2Fjodua.csmpx%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fphotos%2FSA41-2.jpg%3Fv-cache%3D1541702333
In the pictures I looked at EVERY SINGLE BLANK either had its tip
crimped or the tip was not there at all. I don't know if any of this is
ammo for vintage weapons like the ones used in Baldwin's film but
this tends to support the contention that blanks and live ammo look
noticeably different. That means whoever loaded the weapons should
have had an easy time of distinguishing them. If they continued to
load live ammo instead of blank, they can only be construed as being
massively incompetent/impaired or maybe even malicious.

During the scene where Baldwin shot the director gal, she was directing
him to point the revolver at the camera (and thus her) while cocking the
hammer, so she could get a close-up on the revolver.
For a shot like that, blanks aren’t used as viewers would be able to see
the crimped end of the blank cartridge so instead dummy rounds are used,
which use a cartridge case with a spent/removed primer, a real bullet and
no gunpowder with a hole(s) drilled into the side of the case.
https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_19081/gi_101095796/Pair-of-50-BMG-Dummy-Rounds_101095796_19081_503E10FFAAF14066.jpg

Thanks Ed, that was very helpful. I appreciate when you and/or BTR step
in to share your expertise on matters like this!

Post by Ed Stasiak
In one of the earlier articles about this incident, it was mentioned that the
trailer used to store the guns, ammo and other gear was a total mess, with
shit scattered about all over the place and blanks, dummies and live ammo
mixed together in ammo boxes and just laying out on the work benches.
Clearly the armorer gal and/or prop master didn't bother checking what
kinda ammo they were grabbing and loading into the guns, which is how
this unfortunate shooting happened.

A truly disgraceful display of negligence and/or incompetence. Of course
that extends to Baldwin as well for not checking the weapon and, wearing
his producer hat, for not making sure the people on set did their jobs
correctly.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ed Stasiak

. . .

During the scene where Baldwin shot the director gal, she was directing
him to point the revolver at the camera (and thus her) while cocking the
hammer, so she could get a close-up on the revolver.

You conflated the two victims: The cinematographer, shot dead, was
female, Halyna Hutchins. The director, shot but not killed, was Joel
Souza.

Post by Ed Stasiak
For a shot like that, . . .

Thank you for the explanation. That was very helpful indeed.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by Rhino
Rhino
This article implies that a gun that can fire blanks has to be
explicitly (but minimally) modified to be able to fire a blank cartridge.
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/are-real-guns-used-in-movies/9199#9199

A self-loading firearm needs to be modified with either a baffle at the muzzle
(the military call them "blank firing adapters") or for a movie gun, a new barrel
with an internal baffle, as without a bullet to create sufficient back pressure,
the gun won't automatically cycle and load another round, becoming a single
shot firearm.

Loading Image...

Blank firing adapter:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

A manually operated revolver or lever-action rifle as would be used on a
cowboy flick like this, will of course work fine with blanks.

[Rhino]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by Rhino
Rhino
This article implies that a gun that can fire blanks has to be
explicitly (but minimally) modified to be able to fire a blank cartridge.
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/are-real-guns-used-in-movies/9199#9199

A self-loading firearm needs to be modified with either a baffle at the muzzle
(the military call them "blank firing adapters") or for a movie gun, a new barrel
with an internal baffle, as without a bullet to create sufficient back pressure,
the gun won't automatically cycle and load another round, becoming a single
shot firearm.
https://i.postimg.cc/43MrBcNv/Luger-slow-motion.gif
https://www.bevfitchett.us/m16a1-m16a2-rifle-marksmanship/images/3187_1800_146.jpg
https://assets.milcoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/S20-085-1.jpg
A manually operated revolver or lever-action rifle as would be used on a
cowboy flick like this, will of course work fine with blanks.

Thank you for illustrating what the article described in words!

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She

Really? Because IIRC she wasn’t exactly doable.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
wasn't on set to attend the working firearms (and nonworking firearms)
left sitting on a table.

Was there a reason that she wasn't on the set?

She wasn't working for whatever reason.

Post by shawn
Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant

I thought lots of people had access to the gun safe so they could go
shooting for fun on the weekends.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
that the guns had to be on that table once the propmaster removed them
from the safe. Movie set safety protocols require that guns left out never
be unattended. I have no idea who loaded them. The asshole A.D. grabbed
the working gun needed for the next scene to be shot, called out "clear"
despite failed to verify that there was no live ammunition in the gun,
then handed it to Baldwin, who also failed to verify that there was no
live ammunition.
This workplace shooting was 100$ avoidable if any party handling that
gun had must taken a moment to check for live bullets, if live bullets
were never mixed with blanks, and if the guns were never left
unattended.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The propmaster didn't give her access to the
gun safe, anyway. There was live ammunition on the set, an extreme
violation of safety protocols, because between takes, the crew was just
shooting off the antique weapons. The live ammunition and the blank
cartriges were mixed together in a box. The assistant director who took
the loaded weapon off the table, that he also failed to check, to hand
to Baldwin called out "clear", yet another extreme safety violation. One
cannot declare "clear" if one failed to check. Upon being handed the
weapon, Baldwin failed to check.
The A.D. was hired despite having a known history of safety violations
on the sets of other movie productions.
I think those are the highlights but I may have forgotten other safety
violations.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She

Really? Because IIRC she wasn't exactly doable.

I'm wrong. She had been a model. Her father is a well-known armourer but
he never taught her to give a shit.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant

I thought lots of people had access to the gun safe so they could go
shooting for fun on the weekends.

No one else had access to the gun safe. The propmaster took the guns
out each morning then locked them up at night. During the day, the guns
were left unattended.

The armourer claimed that she loaded the gun with blanks but the blanks
were mixed together with live ammunition in the same box.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous

Once again, Ubi-the-shithead committed full-text copyright infringement
of an article written by someone else whom he refuses to credit.
Damning FBI Report On Fatal Shooting On 'Rust' Movie Set Spells
Potential Trouble For Alec Baldwin: Report
By Ryan Saavedra
The Daily Wire
Aug 13, 2022
https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-fbi-report-on-fatal-shooting-on-rust-movie-set-spells-potential-trouble-for-alec-baldwin-report
Ubi-the-shithead has nothing to say and makes no contribution to Usenet,
but loves to take credit for articles written by others.

Post by Ed Stasiak

If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

Post by Ed Stasiak
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn=E2=80=99t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

I'd say that's a MUST, not a SHOULD.
He's one of the producers. He's literally responsible for safety
procedures.
Let's recall: The armourer was a former beauty pagent contestant. She

Really? Because IIRC she wasn't exactly doable.

I'm wrong. She had been a model. Her father is a well-known armourer but
he never taught her to give a shit.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Did the prop master serve in her stead watching over the firearms or
were they really just left on the table with no one watching over them?

The guns needed for the scenes being shot that day were laid out and
loaded, plus whatever antique weapons the crew had been playing around
with. No one but the propmaster had access to the gun safe, which meant

I thought lots of people had access to the gun safe so they could go
shooting for fun on the weekends.

No one else had access to the gun safe. The propmaster took the guns
out each morning then locked them up at night. During the day, the guns
were left unattended.
The armourer claimed that she loaded the gun with blanks but the blanks
were mixed together with live ammunition in the same box.

I am sure one of the earlier articles said that the crew went shooting for
fun on the weekends. If so, somebody was either leaving guns and ammo out
or was there in a crack for safe open.

Of course we don’t know if the ammunition actually went in the safe at all.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

. . .

I am sure one of the earlier articles said that the crew went shooting for
fun on the weekends. If so, somebody was either leaving guns and ammo out
or was there in a crack for safe open.

That must have been the propmaster, the only one with the safe's
combination.

Post by anim8rfsk
Of course we don't know if the ammunition actually went in the safe at all.

I assume not, but this is why on a properly-functioning movie set,
neither weapons nor blank ammo are to be left unattended, and live
ammunition is never brought to the set.

[Rhino]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

. . .

I am sure one of the earlier articles said that the crew went shooting for
fun on the weekends. If so, somebody was either leaving guns and ammo out
or was there in a crack for safe open.

That must have been the propmaster, the only one with the safe's
combination.

If he was not careful to hide what he was doing, a bystander could
potentially see what the combination was (or where the key was if the
safe used a key). Or maybe the propmaster was so lax that he simply TOLD
people the combination and encouraged them to "have fun".

Mind you, he may not have realized that there was live ammo on the set
or in the safe; others on the set may have acquired the live ammo and
even mixed it with the blanks without telling him. Clearly, the
investigation needs to do a lot of interviews with those on the set to
figure out exactly what happened and what each participant knew and
didn't know.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk
Of course we don't know if the ammunition actually went in the safe at all.

I assume not, but this is why on a properly-functioning movie set,
neither weapons nor blank ammo are to be left unattended, and live
ammunition is never brought to the set.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

. . .

I am sure one of the earlier articles said that the crew went shooting for
fun on the weekends. If so, somebody was either leaving guns and ammo out
or was there in a crack for safe open.

That must have been the propmaster, the only one with the safe's
combination.

If he was not careful to hide what he was doing, a bystander could
potentially see what the combination was (or where the key was if the
safe used a key). Or maybe the propmaster was so lax that he simply TOLD
people the combination and encouraged them to "have fun".

None of that was suggested.

According to news reports, no one else had the combination and there is
no theory that soemone read the combination over his shoulder to remove
guns from the gun safe.

The propmaster supervised the removal of the guns from the gun safe as
he had the combination and no one else did. He supervised the return of
the guns to the safe, taking inventory to ensure that there were no guns
unaccounted for.

He allowed all weapons removed from the gun safe to remain unattended on
a table.

Post by Rhino
Mind you, he may not have realized that there was live ammo on the set
or in the safe; others on the set may have acquired the live ammo and
even mixed it with the blanks without telling him. Clearly, the
investigation needs to do a lot of interviews with those on the set to
figure out exactly what happened and what each participant knew and
didn't know.

If he wasn't the one who brought the live ammunition to the set and he
never checked or made sure that the armourer checked whether there was
any live ammunition on set, then that's willful ignorance.

It's irrelevant that he may not have realized. It's his job to make sure
that something like that would never happen. He's the one in charge.

Post by Rhino

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk
. . .

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-responsible/story?id=81490389&cid=social_twitter_abcn
December 02, 2021

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.”

What happened next remains a mystery. It's the subject of intense public scrutiny and an investigation fronted by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.

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."

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-responsible/story?id=81490389&cid=social_twitter_abcn
December 02, 2021
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.”
What happened next remains a mystery. It's the subject of intense public scrutiny and an investigation fronted by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.
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."

One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

*Legal* responsibility, I agree. But of *moral* responsibility, he may
not even get the lion's share.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
to own up to his own failures.

At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

[shawn]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:44:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
to own up to his own failures.
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
to own up to his own failures.
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

No, shawn, there's no "even if". He's lying. It's deliberate. The more
he repeats it, the more likely the judgment against him will be larger
and the more likely he'll be found guilty by a jury at his criminal
trial.

No lawyer can afford to put Baldwin on the stand as it would violate
legal ethics. The lawyer knows Baldwin intends to lie.

At this point, the lie is provable.

[moviePig]

Post by shawn
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:44:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
to own up to his own failures.
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

Yes, he may well believe it, even he entirely fabricated it. People
fool themselves all the time, and fwiw Baldwin does seem to have been
genuinely shaken. (Note that Adam describes exactly that circumstance,
even as he calls it "willful lying".) Fortunately, hard evidence has
been offered that the gun couldn't fire without a trigger pull, and if
that holds up, then Baldwin's recall is moot (as it may be anyway).

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig
Yes, he may well believe it, even he entirely fabricated it. People
fool themselves all the time, and fwiw Baldwin does seem to have been
genuinely shaken. (Note that Adam describes exactly that circumstance,
even as he calls it "willful lying".) Fortunately, hard evidence has
been offered that the gun couldn't fire without a trigger pull, and if
that holds up, then Baldwin's recall is moot (as it may be anyway).

Just because he's responsible doesn't mean he HAD to concoct a highly
implausible story.

I know one guy who accidentally killed his wife in a motor vehicle
accident who was NOT charged criminally even though the evidence is
quite clear he screwed up behind the wheel.

Just because something terrible happened doesn't mean he's facingg
charges and if he IS facing charges there's more to the case than
immediately meets the eye - and that very much DOES seem to be the
case here.

Just because Baldwin is a celeb it doesn't mean the book is going to
be thrown at him. In the case cited above the guy WASN'T a celeb and
the sheriff did not recommend charges to the DA.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 22:03:06 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

I don't seriously believe this is murder.

What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
reasonable change.

Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
seriously FUBARed.

[A Friend]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 22:03:06 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

I don't seriously believe this is murder.

Of course it's not. At worst, it's involuntary manslaughter.

Post by The Horny Goat
What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
reasonable change.
Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
seriously FUBARed.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman
At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

I don't seriously believe this is murder.

Who the hell said murder charges should be brought? It's a manslaughter.

Post by The Horny Goat
What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
reasonable change.

This goes beyond negligence. It's recklessness.

Here's the difference: One is negligent for failing to perform a
required duty. One is reckless for taking an action following the
failure to perform the duty of care.

Failure to check that the gun was loaded with live rounds was negligent.
Aiming and then pulling the trigger after failure to check for live
rounds was reckless.

The prosecution does not prove intent in a manslaughter charge as he
would in a murder charge. He must prove recklessness, however.

I'm not sure what the difference is between criminal negligence and
criminal recklessness, and yeah, some state criminal codes seem to blur
the line between those two terms.

Post by The Horny Goat
Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
seriously FUBARed.

But that's negligence. The negligent parties can be sued for their role
in the personal injuries and wrongful death but I don't think they
committed a crime.

The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He failed
to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.

I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.

Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the “John Wick” movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don’t want to fuck up and kill someone.

Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a “safe” gun (pro-tip: there ain’t no such thing).

[shawn]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the “John Wick” movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don’t want to fuck up and kill someone.

In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
performance.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a “safe” gun (pro-tip: there ain’t no such thing).

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

The ultimate responsibility is with the boss of the production company.
That's where the decision was made not to have a full-time armourer and
to willfully violate safety protocols.

But everyone is individually responsible for his own job. Both the
propmaster and armourer should have quit given the safety procedures
that the two of them had no ability to follow given the lack of a
full-time armourer.

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

She had complete control of whether she loaded that live round. That's
not true, shawn. She didn't have control that she was assigned to other
duties when she should have attended the guns and ammunition.

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
between takes.

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

What makes you think that occupational health and safety laws don't
apply to low-budget movie productions?

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
. . .

[shawn]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:13:46 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

The ultimate responsibility is with the boss of the production company.
That's where the decision was made not to have a full-time armourer and
to willfully violate safety protocols.
But everyone is individually responsible for his own job. Both the
propmaster and armourer should have quit given the safety procedures
that the two of them had no ability to follow given the lack of a
full-time armourer.

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

She had complete control of whether she loaded that live round. That's
not true, shawn. She didn't have control that she was assigned to other
duties when she should have attended the guns and ammunition.

Given what we know I wouldn't bet on her having loaded the gun before
Baldwin used it. It's certainly likely she did so but by no means
certain she was the one to do so given her part time job.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
between takes.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect the actors and other crew members to worry
about that (even if they should.) The propmaster and armourer had the
oversight of those weapons/ammunition as being part of their jobs so
they definitely should have been concerned. Also any of the producers
should be concerned with it as they would with anything that forms a
potential risk to the production.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

What makes you think that occupational health and safety laws don't
apply to low-budget movie productions?

Nothing but I'm not aware of any OHSA laws that regard the care and
use of weapons on a movie set. Also what would be the consequences if
they ignored such laws. Certainly it's going to be less than what we
all expect the actual cost for the poor woman's death will be.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

The ultimate responsibility is with the boss of the production company.
That's where the decision was made not to have a full-time armourer and
to willfully violate safety protocols.
But everyone is individually responsible for his own job. Both the
propmaster and armourer should have quit given the safety procedures
that the two of them had no ability to follow given the lack of a
full-time armourer.

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

She had complete control of whether she loaded that live round. That's
not true, shawn. She didn't have control that she was assigned to other
duties when she should have attended the guns and ammunition.

Given what we know I wouldn't bet on her having loaded the gun before
Baldwin used it. It's certainly likely she did so but by no means
certain she was the one to do so given her part time job.

No shawn. News stories have reported that she told investigators that
she's the one who loads the weapons as they were removed from the gun
safe, then set them on the table.

The weapons and ammo were left unattended so she can defend against it
by claiming she loaded blanks or dummies, whatever they needed for
shooting that day, and someone else might have just fired it (as per
usual) and replaced the cartrige.

She has no defense against that box of rounds being a mixture of blanks,
dummies, and live ammo. That's deriliction of duty on her part. That's
what the state occupational safety investigation found.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
between takes.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect the actors and other crew members to worry
about that (even if they should.)

Yeah. It's not like everyone knowing about the live rounds so that the
weapons can be shot off between takes could possibly lead to a situation
in which someone gets killed and someone else gets shot.

Oh. Wait. Maybe one can't ignore a lack of safety in the workplace.

Post by shawn
The propmaster and armourer had the oversight of those weapons/ammunition
as being part of their jobs so they definitely should have been concerned.

They definitely should have not allowed it. They definitely should have
never allowed anyone else to play with those weapons. They definitely
should have not allowed there to be live ammunition on set.

Post by shawn
Also any of the producers should be concerned with it as they would with
anything that forms a potential risk to the production.

. . . and they have to defend against P.I.

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

What makes you think that occupational health and safety laws don't
apply to low-budget movie productions?

Nothing but I'm not aware of any OHSA laws that regard the care and
use of weapons on a movie set. Also what would be the consequences if
they ignored such laws. Certainly it's going to be less than what we
all expect the actual cost for the poor woman's death will be.

The state fined the movie production, so the state believes such laws do
apply to low-budget movie productions.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:13:46 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
between takes.

I continue to shake my head that that was contemplated much less
actually done.

That's NOT a function of being "low budget" - that's being wilfully
blind deaf + dumb!

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they're willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I'm surprised MORE
people aren't killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the JOHN WICK movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don't want to fuck up and kill someone.

In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
performance.

Keanu:

Keanu and Halle Berry:

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a "safe" gun (pro-tip: there ain't no such thing).

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they're willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I'm surprised MORE
people aren't killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the JOHN WICK movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don't want to fuck up and kill someone.

In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
performance.

http://youtu.be/_yk7K8-HnfI
http://youtu.be/Unp4PaMKezY

Yep, I've seen those before. Clearly they were going way beyond any
training needed for safely using their weapons. Something that is very
visible in the final product when you watch the movies.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by Ed Stasiak
Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a "safe" gun (pro-tip: there ain't no such thing).

[anim8rfsk]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they're willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I'm surprised MORE
people aren't killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the JOHN WICK movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don't want to fuck up and kill someone.

In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
performance.

http://youtu.be/_yk7K8-HnfI
http://youtu.be/Unp4PaMKezY

Berry may have never fired a gun before but she’s long since mastered the
art of hit and run.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman
The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.
I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally=10 HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

In other articles that I read, she was doing two jobs, assistant
propmaster and armourer. She wasn't acting as armourer. All she did was
load weapons and put them on the table. She wasn't the one with the
combination to the gun safe, so that meant she wasn't in position to put
the guns away when she did other duties.

Her boss, the propmaster, only took the guns out then inventoried them
as they were being returned to the gun safe.

It appears that she's the one who loaded the weapon with live ammunition
but there's no way to prove that as the guns and rounds were left unattended
live rounds were mixed together with blanks and maybe dummies, and
clearly anybody could have stuck that live ammo in the gun.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Of course there are. If you read the state occupational safety report, it
goes through a massive list of safety violations, some of which were
under state law and regulations, others noncompliance with industry
norms.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they=E2=80=99re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

That's always true with regard to on-the-job safety, isn't it. Unless
everyone gives a fuck about it and unless people are willing to walk
away from a work site with serious and continuing safety violations,
then each worker's life and health is in danger.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I=E2=80=99m surprised MORE
people aren=E2=80=99t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

I don't think you can generalize.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.

I thought the armourer loaded and unloaded, and in observing proper
safety protocols, both the armourer and actor verified that the
cartridges were either blank or dummies.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

There is zero reason for there to be live rounds on a movie set. Ever.
If there is a reason to film a gun with a live round being discharged,
then hire a professional to shoot the weapon and DO NOT have actors nor
other than minimal crew around.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the =E2=80=9CJohn Wick=E2=80=9D movi=
es
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don=E2=80=99t want to fuck up and kill someone.

But there were no live rounds on set of John Wick movies.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a =E2=80=9Csafe=E2=80=9D gun (pro-tip: there ain=E2=80=99t no such thing).

I agree. Whether he should have known and didn't doesn't make his act
any less reckless. Ignorance doesn't excuse reckless conduct.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:07:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In other articles that I read, she was doing two jobs, assistant
propmaster and armourer. She wasn't acting as armourer. All she did was
load weapons and put them on the table. She wasn't the one with the
combination to the gun safe, so that meant she wasn't in position to put
the guns away when she did other duties.
Her boss, the propmaster, only took the guns out then inventoried them
as they were being returned to the gun safe.
It appears that she's the one who loaded the weapon with live ammunition
but there's no way to prove that as the guns and rounds were left unattended
live rounds were mixed together with blanks and maybe dummies, and
clearly anybody could have stuck that live ammo in the gun.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Of course there are. If you read the state occupational safety report, it
goes through a massive list of safety violations, some of which were
under state law and regulations, others noncompliance with industry
norms.

Thanks for a good summary.

However what I totally fail to see is why a movie set NEEDS to have
live ammo on hand in the first place. Unlike most of the gear used by
stuntmen, live ammo is intended to hit with lethal effect on its
target - anybody who confuses it with a taser or other non-lethal
weapon isn't paying attention.

Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:07:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In other articles that I read, she was doing two jobs, assistant
propmaster and armourer. She wasn't acting as armourer. All she did was
load weapons and put them on the table. She wasn't the one with the
combination to the gun safe, so that meant she wasn't in position to put
the guns away when she did other duties.
Her boss, the propmaster, only took the guns out then inventoried them
as they were being returned to the gun safe.
It appears that she's the one who loaded the weapon with live ammunition
but there's no way to prove that as the guns and rounds were left unattended
live rounds were mixed together with blanks and maybe dummies, and
clearly anybody could have stuck that live ammo in the gun.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Of course there are. If you read the state occupational safety report, it
goes through a massive list of safety violations, some of which were
under state law and regulations, others noncompliance with industry
norms.

Thanks for a good summary.
However what I totally fail to see is why a movie set NEEDS to have
live ammo on hand in the first place. Unlike most of the gear used by
stuntmen, live ammo is intended to hit with lethal effect on its
target - anybody who confuses it with a taser or other non-lethal
weapon isn't paying attention.
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws. E.g., per Wiki:

"Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful
and reckless or wanton, and *likely* to produce death or grievous bodily
harm to another person."

There would appear to be a nasty escape clause in that "likely",
inasmuch as each of our several proposed bad actors could claim his own
negligence would've had no effect without the *unlikely* occurrence of
all the others'.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.

Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

I'd argue that leaving the skateboard is 'reckless endangerment'.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

I'd argue that leaving the skateboard is 'reckless endangerment'.

You could argue that but it wouldn't get you anywhere with a grand jury
or a district attorney.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

I'd argue that leaving the skateboard is 'reckless endangerment'.

You could argue that but it wouldn't get you anywhere with a grand jury
or a district attorney.

Would it get me somewhere if it were an unsheathed Bowie knife rather
than a (likewise dangerous) skateboard?

[trotsky]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

I'd argue that leaving the skateboard is 'reckless endangerment'.

You could argue that but it wouldn't get you anywhere with a grand jury
or a district attorney.

Would it get me somewhere if it were an unsheathed Bowie knife rather
than a (likewise dangerous) skateboard?

I feel sorry for Eunuch Derp now, he comes off as a consistently stupid
asshole:

Under California law, a skateboard can be considered a deadly weapon.
California defines a deadly weapon as an object that is inherently
dangerous and likely to produce great bodily injury.

Using A Skateboard As A Weapon - William Kroger
https://www.laattorney.com/using-a-skateboard-as-a-weapon.html


Last I heard Eunuch Derp as a resident of Cali. And he claims to be a
lawyer, and yet all he sounds like is a consistently stupid asshole. He
might as well literally drive off a cliff again now.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime.

That's a load of bullshit you fucking stupid asshole. There's NO WAY
you're a lawyer. Even lawyers on TV are smarter than you. How many
times is it necessary for me to make you my bitch?

[anim8rfsk]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

At one point, the crew was alleged to have off-hours target practice.

With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

...*if* they broke laws.

You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

But I don’t have mail service, the only reason the mailman has to be on my
property is to steal my ballots or census forms, which is got to be some
sort of federal crime, so isn’t he entirely at fault?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
You don't have to break the law to be legally required to pay for your
mistakes.
Leaving a skateboard on my front steps isn't a crime. There's no law
against it. But if the mailman steps on it and takes a tumble, breaking
his back, well, I'm gonna pay big time when he sues.

At the same time you do not owe that duty of care to a trespasser - if
the same skateboard is in the backyard there is no one except guests
to our home who has access to our backyard. The meter reader USED to
but for the last 5 years we've had a wireless meter that transmits the
current reading to the holder of the power company's app device. It's
only range 30' or so but he can do that easily from the locked gate to
our back yard.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat
With all due respect if they needed after hours entertainment and
didn't want booze they should have just bought them xBox's or similar.
Somebody's dead and they're going to pay for this big time.

"Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful
and reckless or wanton, and *likely* to produce death or grievous bodily
harm to another person."
There would appear to be a nasty escape clause in that "likely",
inasmuch as each of our several proposed bad actors could claim his own
negligence would've had no effect without the *unlikely* occurrence of
all the others'.

True though I was primarily thinking of the production company and
their insurers.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In other articles that I read, she was doing two jobs, assistant
propmaster and armourer. She wasn't acting as armourer. All she did was
load weapons and put them on the table. She wasn't the one with the
combination to the gun safe, so that meant she wasn't in position to put
the guns away when she did other duties.
Her boss, the propmaster, only took the guns out then inventoried them
as they were being returned to the gun safe.
It appears that she's the one who loaded the weapon with live ammunition
but there's no way to prove that as the guns and rounds were left unattended
live rounds were mixed together with blanks and maybe dummies, and
clearly anybody could have stuck that live ammo in the gun.

Post by Ed Stasiak
The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Of course there are. If you read the state occupational safety report, it
goes through a massive list of safety violations, some of which were
under state law and regulations, others noncompliance with industry
norms.

Thanks for a good summary.
However what I totally fail to see is why a movie set NEEDS to have
live ammo on hand in the first place.

We've known this from the beginning.

The production did not call for live ammo. With complete disregard for
safety, the crew brought live ammo to the set so they could shoot off
the antique weapons between takes. On a movie production with well
implemented and well respected safety protocols, live ammo is never
brought to the set, and no one in the crew is ever allowed to just play
with the firearms.

If someone wants to shoot the guns, fine, but it's done somewhere other
than the movie production location.

Post by The Horny Goat
Unlike most of the gear used by
stuntmen, live ammo is intended to hit with lethal effect on its
target - anybody who confuses it with a taser or other non-lethal
weapon isn't paying attention.
Now to be sure even blanks have an explosive effect - I've seen a
university open house presentation (physics dept) where a pistol
loaded with blanks at a range of about 5' shattered paper into a
zillion pieces and they did warn the audience that even blanks could
cause injury if not properly handled.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

Well let's face it - had it merely been a dud safety inspector's
report we would not be having this conversation.

Somebody failed in their duty and someon DIED as a result. This isn't
a simple speeding ticket or crosswalk violation.

[Alan Smithee]

He will settle and walk.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver
prevents fanning the hammer.
In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
of the way?

Post by Ed Stasiak
. . .

I had no idea what that article was talking about.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver
prevents fanning the hammer.
In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
of the way?

Post by Ed Stasiak
. . .

I had no idea what that article was talking about.

Holding the trigger 1/4 or 1/2 cocked, then letting go of it to see if the
firing pin can them be strucked without one's finger on the trigger? The
test must have showed that the hammer didn't move to strike the firing
pin without a trigger pull as Baldwin lied.

If the hammer were fully cocked, that's notched, and the hammer stays
cocked till the trigger is pulled. That's not even an issue.

Instead of shutting the fuck up, Baldwin told an absurd lie that's
easily disproved. Of course he's at fault.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg

Thank you for clarifying. Does that prevent fanning the hammer?

No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver
prevents fanning the hammer.
In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
of the way?

Post by Ed Stasiak
. . .

I had no idea what that article was talking about.

Holding the trigger 1/4 or 1/2 cocked, then letting go of it to see if the
firing pin can them be strucked without one's finger on the trigger? The
test must have showed that the hammer didn't move to strike the firing
pin without a trigger pull as Baldwin lied.
If the hammer were fully cocked, that's notched, and the hammer stays
cocked till the trigger is pulled. That's not even an issue.
Instead of shutting the fuck up, Baldwin told an absurd lie that's
easily disproved. Of course he's at fault.

Yep

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver prevents
fanning the hammer.

Some of the articles mention that Baldwin’s gun was a Pietta modern day
reproduction of an oldy timey cowboy revolver and would most likely have
a transfer bar safety.

https://www.emf-company.com/store/pc/1873-GWII-SA-and-Pietta-Transfer-Bar-Models-c510.htm

Though I understand some models are available without the transfer bar
safety (though probably not anymore…) but regardless, it wouldn't fire
unless Baldwin pulled the trigger.

Post by shawn
In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
of the way?

An oldy timey cowboy type Colt Single-Action Army revolver does not use
a swing-out cylinder like modern revolvers, (or a break-action, like British
military revolvers up thru WWII) the cylinder remains in place and a loading
gate on the back side must be opened, with the hammer cocked to 1/4
or 1/2 notch which allows the cylinder to rotate, exposing the chambers
to load and eject the rounds.

Loading Image...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn
Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak
No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
claims otherwise.

The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver prevents
fanning the hammer.

Some of the articles mention that Baldwin’s gun was a Pietta modern day
reproduction of an oldy timey cowboy revolver and would most likely have
a transfer bar safety.
https://www.emf-company.com/store/pc/1873-GWII-SA-and-Pietta-Transfer-Bar-Models-c510.htm

Thanks for finding that.

Though I understand some models are available without the transfer bar
safety (though probably not anymore
) but regardless, it wouldn't fire
unless Baldwin pulled the trigger.

Post by shawn
In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
of the way?

An oldy timey cowboy type Colt Single-Action Army revolver does not use
a swing-out cylinder like modern revolvers, (or a break-action, like British
military revolvers up thru WWII) the cylinder remains in place and a loading
gate on the back side must be opened, with the hammer cocked to 1/4
or 1/2 notch which allows the cylinder to rotate, exposing the chambers
to load and eject the rounds.
https://kapszli.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6-shot-cylinder.png

Wow. You really must be careful not to have your finger on the trigger
while loading it since live ammunition could indeed be under the hammer.

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Ubiquitous
If the hammer on the revolver was in the de-cocked position, the
firearm could discharge a round by striking the hammer, which is
a standard way that a revolver operates.

Why does the media continue to get this wrong?
Modern revolvers are equipped with a transfer bar safety that
prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the
trigger is pulled.
https://i.youguan5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6-1556248534.jpeg
That said, Balwin is right in that firearm safety procedures
were horrible and there shouldn’t have been any live ammo on
the set of the movie production but HE should have checked
the revolver himself.

Even if this has been mentioned earlier, here it is again:

"The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to
avoid the accident that caused the harm. Therefore, a negligent
plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had
the last clear chance to avoid the accident."
-Cornell Law School

And, afaics, that'd be when Baldwin didn't inspect the chamber.