See https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf page 14 of 65 “GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS” entry #1.

“Halyna Hutchins’ Widower Vows To Take Alec Baldwin Back To Court Over Fatal Shooting Of ‘Rust’ Cinematographer”

Had Michael Massee checked the ammunition it may have made no difference; the defect was that subtle; a live primer, no powder, in a dummy round. Still, they did change the rules. And if Baldwin went to prison the rules would be changed a lot more.

Simple - aside from being a major investor in the production and certainly able to alter that decision, even a lowly actor can decide against using a real operating firearm. But he wanted to use a real operating firearm that was intentionally designed to be capable of killing people in his movie about people using…

Baldwin fired the gun. He aimed at people and fired the gun. He alone is responsible for firing the gun. Why would I complain about anyone not involved in loading and aiming the gun?

I like to think she went out with a bang.

$5 billion isn’t what it used to be.  

Critical systems should not depend on a single point when the failure of that point has adverse or deadly results. Having the armorer being solely responsible is creating that failure point.

The key part is “Gun safety in Hollywood is many orders of magnitude more robust.”

Yes. And one person is dead because of those rules. Those rules aren’t law. 

The cast and crew had been plinking using live rounds on the set in the evenings after filming was over. Part of the film crew quit partly over gun safety that morning. 

A gun is not a nuclear device. It is as simple to operate as a toaster. Put the bullets in and pull the trigger. It’s a bad faith argument to say they are tampering. The actor would confirm with the armorer at the hand-off that the gun has the correct ammunition or fake ammunition.

Shooting people with a gun is a crime. Not being in control of the ammunition makes that crime possible. No one has a job of aiming a gun on a movie set and actually shooting people. The reason drunk driving is a crime is sometimes careless drunks kill people. Here a careless gun handler killed someone.

In thinking it over I think it was a brilliant stroke to poison the evidence. Hannah’s step-father muddying the waters with unrelated rounds not available on the set set a trap for the prosecution.

SAG-AFTRA was hundreds of miles away because Baldwin, among others, made sure to be out of their sight. SAG-AFTRA would have shut down this set on the first day for all the gun crap. The original film crew left over safety concerns.

You make an interesting point. Should a guy who gets drunk and hits and kills a child be let go free because other drunks didn’t run over and kill children?

He went to a non-Union state to have a non-Union set to shoot a non-Union movie.

The case was simple. He was holding a device designed as a lethal weapon that was in perfect mechanical condition so as to not fire without the user pulling the trigger. He aimed it at a person and pulled the trigger and the gun fired. He wasn’t expecting the gun to fire, but had taken no measures to ensure that it…

The prosecutor offered to be questioned by the defense, under oath, about the nature of the evidence and its handling. The defense had claimed the prosecution was lying. I guess the judge agreed. 

The live rounds were supplied by someone who has a problem with the person who supplied ammo to the Rust production by walking them into a police station after Gutierrez-Reed was convicted. So, there’s no link to the Rust set, no chain of custody, and a clear motive to suggest the guy who did supply ammo was the one…