I think its more fair to put the blame on the Armourer than to blame the actor. Still 3 years in American prison is to much to put on someone with no criminal intent. She should be put on home detention or community service for 3 years.
Baldwin was the primary producer on the film and the set conditions had had numerous safety issues up until this point including 3 other firearm misfires. There was a documented safety issue on this set and while Gutierrez-Reed was part of it, the showrunners clearly were too by not taking steps to address it before the tragedy happened.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
They had 3 other firearm misfires on this set. That alone is unacceptable, but to assume any weapon on set is safe at this point would be insane.
So what matters for a manslaughter case is proving with evidence that the defendant was aware of the risk and ignored it. That is simple enough with an armourer who mismanaged rounds and didn’t do her due diligence. The very nature of her role, why she was hired, was to be aware of and minimize/eliminate the risks.
In Baldwin’s case, you would have to prove that, at the time, he understood that the armourer’s work (and the guy checking her work) was untrustworthy, and yet he pulled the trigger anyway. You can argue that he should have known that until you’re blue in the face. But a prosecutor would have to prove that he did know that, beyond reasonable doubt. The mental state of the individual determines whether the death they caused was murder, manslaughter, or just an accident beyond their control.
From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use.
Several members of the crew walked off set earlier that day because safety protocols were not being strictly followed.
Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.
…
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.If he were a greenhorn actor on his first day on a non-union set I might give him the benefit of the doubt… But do you know how often an actor handling a firearm gets the full run down on weapon safety procedure in our industry? Every. Single. Production.
Here’s what happened in Baldwin’s case. He, a seasoned veteran, accepted a weapon from not just an unauthorized person, but a highly visible person on the set. The 1st AD, the guy who handed him the weapon is responsible for enforcing safety on the set in a general sense to protect a production from liability. Everyone on that set who saw that handoff would have known instantly that was an unauthorized handoff because as regular crew the FIRST rule a newbie learns is you NEVER touch other departments stuff EVER. Someone leaves a box of lenses in your way you call someone from camera to pick it up and move it the nessisary three feet out of your way or else you risk being skinned alive.
But here’s the thing. Baldwin is a Producer. There is an implicit power balance on set. What happens when the guy with instant hiring and firing power, funding the project and given control of the creative and business aspects of production breaks a rule FLAGRANTLY on the set that even the GREENEST of greenhorns would know. A rule that every one knows because of the high profile deaths that caused those rules to come into being… And the chief onset safety officer charged by the production is the one that is the other half of the transaction? What the absolute fuck do you do?
Do you trust the Production Manager with your complaints? They are the one technically above the 1st AD in charge of Production liability and safety concerns but they are still beholden to the producers. Maybe you could call the Union hotline and get the entire thing shut down? Oh…But this wasn’t a union show? Well shit. Well I guess you got to consider taking the hit and quitting because that’s basically your only option. This particular production already had union numbers dropping and leaving production to unaddressed and flagrantly ignored safety concerns. Union members are allowed to work for non-union shows but the union safety training is hardcore and union guys know transgressions when they occur. They renew the main bullet points in safety talks every show start of every day of shooting where those safety concerns are likely to come up. After awhile there’s some you know by heart. Animals on the set, pyrotechnic safety, spfx weather, car stunts, process car guns… Basic basic shit.
No. Everything about this situation screams to me that this show, this Production team specifically, was fucking dirty. People love to forget that Producers are employers. They focus on all the creative stuff they do forgetting that end of day someone is in charge of providing a safe working environment. The big studios have safety committees and oversight to take the weight off producers, the unions can shut you down for bad practice instantly… On union shows.
But not every show has these mitigating checks to producer power and liability. Particularly non-union gigs. That’s the implicit risk of them. Baldwin and every other producer on Rust deserves a slice of the penalty for negligence. They had multiple warning signs and people who took personal financial hits by leaving to protest the culture of safety on their show before this incident because there was no other authority to petition. When there’s no other authority to petition congrats, you are liable when you are found guilty of running a worksite that is flagrantly ignoring well trod industry wide safety standards.
Yeah, it was an AD. Armourer handed the gun to AD, AD shouted “cold gun” and handed it to Baldwin. Baldwin treated it like a cold gun and got someone killed. AD pleaded guilty.
You should blame Alec’s parents for giving birth to him. You know, because they were the ones that caused all this. Without them this wouldn’t have happened. Or maybe we should blame the person that introduced their parents together?
Makes sense to me.
Jesus Christ.
I agree. The entire situation is bad, and it’s gone on for years. I imagine anyone would have been going through hell all this time if they had any connection to the chain of events. Time in prison is pretty harsh at this point.
Edit. I think blaming Baldwin like they are (her lawyers) is also pretty disgusting. Which actually might have determined the harsh sentence for this lady.
Baldwin is responsible as an executive producer (along with whomever else was producing). It’s obvious the armourer was out of her depth and should’ve never been hired. Not saying she doesn’t bear any responsibility, but if you as an employer cut corners to save money, and someone dies because of that, there should be consequences.
That’s not what they’re arguing though. Read the article. They’re arguing he physically pulled the trigger.
I mean, he did. He pointed a gun at someone and shot them. Not saying that Reed is innocent; the fact that live rounds ever made it into the gun seems to be her fault. But Baldwin absolutely should not have pointed a gun at someone in the first place.
That’s standard procedure on a film set. Thousands of blanks a year are fired while pointing at people. That’s literally the point of blanks. I’m not saying that’s actually entirely safe, but it does mean that it is reasonable for the actor to expect it to be. Especially when you’re under the impression that a professional gun safety person has loaded the blanks by hand and that the gun has been checked twice by two separate people before given to you.
That’s standard procedure on a film set. Thousands of blanks a year are fired while pointing at people. That’s literally the point of blanks.
Judging by the downvotes, this seems to be a common thought here. Let me cite some applicable industry standards: https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/
Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/
It is important that everyone treat all firearms, whether they are real, rubber, or replica firearms as if they are working, loaded firearms.
Anyone handling the firearm will refrain from pointing a firearm at any person, including themselves. If it is necessary to aim a firearm at another person on camera, the Property Master will be consulted to determine available options. Remember: a firearm, including one loaded with blanks, can inflict severe damage to anything/anyone at which/to whom the firearm is pointed.
And I want to re-iterate, Baldwin did not shoot another actor who his character shoots in the film. He was not supposed to have his finger on the trigger for this shot, nor was he even supposed to fully draw his weapon. This was not the first time he pointed a gun at a camera person and fired off-script; the footage played in the trial showed him shooting directly at the camera after the director yelled “cut”.
And again: even if it were industry standard to shoot blanks directly at another person: that’s a stupid and reckless standard, and any reasonable person should refuse. I really feel like most of the defense of Baldwin is borne out of well-meaning ignorance.
How else do you film a scene where you point a gun at someone? It’s really common to do this for a movie. That’s the entire point of why the role of the armorer exists, not make things like that safe on set.
You cheat the perspective. You use CGI. You use electronic sim guns.
John Wick, one of the most gun-heavy actions films in recent memory, never had one actor point a live firearm at another, because that’s stupid and dangerous.
I agree with that article, though I’d argue John Wick is the worst example to use as proof it can be done in other ways sure, they’ve got a lot of guns firing, but first is it’s super fast paced, so you can’t actually see a single shot. Second is that with that many rounds firing they probably wouldn’t have a choice, at least for interior scenes. Taking into account multiple takes, that would be so much gunpowder going off that you’d probably have to take a lot of time between takes for the smoke to clear.
For a slow scene with only one or a few rounds fired close to the camera, perspective tricks probably wouldn’t work, and CGI likely wouldn’t look as realistic either. Is that a good enough reason? I don’t know. I’m not a director or actor. I know some directors will go through a ton of effort for a tiny amount of added authenticity. John Wick goes the opposite direction with all their gun-magic after the first movie.
I tend to assume an actor’s idea of executive producer is doing coke in his trailer and making a phone call before filming.
To be fair, I also assume that’s what real executive producers do, minus the filming.
She learned how to be an armourer from her dad and it seems like he was the one who provided her a live round. She had no idea what she was doing, he’s a bad armourer and a bad parent who raised and taught another bad armourer.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
Sentencing hasn’t happened yet, three years is the maximum sentence possible.
Actors literally get paid to point guns at each other, handle them unsafely, and click the trigger.
Could be mistaken, but I think people were going after Baldwin for this because he was a producer? As in, he funded and hired the armourer so ultimately it was his fault.
No, they’re blaming him for physically pointing the gun.
Average Joe because he pulled the trigger.
The prosecutor because he was the one on site, in charge, and allowed unsafe conditions to persist even after many employees walked out due to the dangerous conditions.He didn’t just point the gun. He had his finger on the trigger, and actually pulled it. Ask any responsible gun owner and you’ll get an earful about it.
Even if the armourer was found to be responsible, that does not absolve Baldwin’s grossly negligent behaviour.
Dude it’s a movie set not a firing range. That’s like saying that since it’s dangerous to drive fast that car chase scenes can’t exceed 25mph. It’s a movie set where the scene calls for people shooting at each other. Of course the actor would assume that the group responsible for making sure the weapons are safe did their job and made sure the weapons were safe. I wouldn’t assume an actor has any idea of how a gun works if it was my job to make sure they have something to point and shoot. The job of the actor is literally to point and shoot in a scene.
Cillian Murphy actually became a nuclear physicist so he could play Oppenheimer.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
-
It was a gun. An actual, functioning firearm. He knew it was a gun & told the police as much afterwards. There is never any good reason to point a gun at someone you are not currently trying to kill. Even if you ignore the common sense and assume there are somehow different rules for movie sets & using blanks, the other armorer they brought in testified that no one should ever be in the line of fire. He absolutely roasted Reed for not telling Baldwin to not point the gun at people in the footage they played for him.
-
The scene did not call for him to draw his gun, let alone shoot it. He wasn’t pointing it at another actor and playing a scene where he shoots someone, he was pointing it at someone behind the camera for no good goddamn reason. We saw from the BTS footage played in court that this was not the first time he pointed a gun at the camera and shot it outside the actual filming of the movie.
-
Baldwin neglected to do the training for the seated cross draw, the same maneuver he was doing when he killed someone. No doubt Reed was negligent, but even she tried to get him to do that.
I simply do not understand why people are letting Baldwin off the hook. He pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. People fucking die when that happens.
There is never any good reason to point a gun at someone you are not currently trying to kill.
Yes there is. The good reason is being an actor who is playing a character who’s trying to kill someone.
But, you see, he’s one of the good ones. We must rationalize any way we can to save him. Don’t listen to other actors saying they were taught to verify the guns and ammo. Don’t listen to crazy gun nuts who say you don’t point a gun at people no matter what.
This was purely her fault. Case closed. Do not look any further into it.
-
Actors don’t pull the trigger on guns during a scene?
They absolutely do because the guns often contain blanks. There was a great episode of What Went Wrong about this and about safety on set. There has been a huge push towards realism in gunfights, meaning blanks over sound effects and visual effects. Firing a gun obviously is far more dangerous than not firing a gun. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-went-wrong/id1512847066?i=1000617518180
They do, but not that scene, and they typically stop performing the scene when the director yells cut. On this day though, the scene ended, and a dude decided to play with a gun. That’s just my opinion of the event though, and I haven’t read anywhere near enough about it to make a real decision. From the little I did read though, he wasn’t even supposed to draw the gun in that scene, and the actual shooting took place after the scene was over.
Had he accidentally pushed over a prop house while rough housing and it crushed a person, would we be blaming the carpenter? Its definitely possible, but I think goofing around and playing with weapons should never be tolerated.
In real life yes. In movies, you have armorers who make sure that guns are not loaded or incapable of shooting, so that people can actually do point guns and pull the trigger while pointing at the baddies
Actually, he didn’t pull the trigger. It was a revolver and he fired it by pulling the hammer back.
If people were bored and wanted to plink cans, fine. DON’T USE THE FUCKING OFFICIAL PROP GUNS.
Several lines of responsibility got lazy on that set. The most egregious is that someone other than The Armorer had access to the guns used on set.
I couldn’t find any reference to them plinking cans onset. The version of the story I read says she got the rounds from her dad, and they were “reloaded” rounds that had originally been dummies but were made live by hand. Basically her dad’s a careless armourer who mixes reloaded rounds with dummies and didn’t teach his daughter to check her ammo.
Ok. I heard some story from an online media site (thus not nesc accurate) of bored crew using the guns as real guns for target shooting.
What ever. Your story sounds better? Esp. considering the outcome.
Can I see your story? Something about this whole event grips me. I can’t learn enough about it.
I’ve no idea where it was, sorry. Can’t put in the time to find it right now.
It’s probably incorrect anyway. It’s all a sad story.
This is dumb. Learn like airlines do; only prosecute for malicious intent. In all other cases, learn. Create procedures that make this situation impossible, and make certain that all major productions follow them.
Saying it’s X or Y person’s fault absolves any systemic issues. What training should an armorer have? Can we avoid a single point of failure that results in live ammo on set? Etc etc.
Edit: thank you Lemmy for positive votes. The Reddit threads are absolutely bloodthirsty in comparison. Good change in pace here.
Umm… No. I am sorry but you are about 30 years out of date in believing this is a problem of not having enough proceedure. In the wake of the death of Brandon Lee the industry created a very comprehensive system of weapon checks and requiring all basic prop people to go through licencing and safe handling programs as part of getting their union ticket never mind armourers who require more extensive courses in handling a wide range of weaponry and experience in handling them.
The Rust case IS one where legitimate negligence of stringent industry standard was SO endemic that there is no leg to stand on. This is criminal negligence. Unionized workers were already leaving that production for safety concerns before the incident occured.
Here is a list of things that specifically went wrong in process for this specific incident to happen.
- The weapon was left unattended and not locked in a secure location
- the weapon was used with live ammo to shoot during the work day.
- Each round loaded into the weapon during the workday was not scrutinized to ensure it was the proper load and there were no visually acertainable defects.
- the weapon was picked up and handled by several unauthorized personnel.
- the weapon was delivered to the actor by an unauthorized person from a different department.
- The weapon was accepted by the actor from a recognizably unauthorized person
- a full check of the weapon including each loaded blank and the barrel to check for bad blanks, possible obstructions or debris that can be projected to cause injury was NOT performed at point of hand over in sight of the actor.
- An unauthorized person decreed it a cold weapon without performing even the most basic visual check of the chamber.
Even if the gun were loaded with blanks not submiting to all of this process would leave the door open to someone getting killed on a set. Even blanks can kill. At this point the criminal negligence pie is so big that the slices that get handed out are going to hurt. Before you start calling this case “dumb” understand the industry.
the weapon was used with live ammo to shoot during the work day.
When I heard about this I had a strong feeling about what happened: people were firing the gun for fun while it wasn’t being used for the film. There would be an easy way to avoid the most remote possibility of this happening by accident: no live ammo on the set at all, period.
I mean… It’s not the only problem? If you get killed by an actual bullet on a set something has gone spectacularly wrong. But you could just as easily get killed by something getting lodged in the barrel and getting propelled at bullet speed. Even a fairly small obstruction can be lethal. That’s why whenever you as a props person / armorer hand a gun to an actor you perform a full check of the gun while the actor watches.
If you as an actor get handed a weapon without a check you call foul. If you as a crew member see a props person hand off without a check you call foul.
Even rubber prop weapons that have no capacity to fire and no internal components at all are treated the same as live weapons. Only props people or actors touch them, no one else. They are under lock and key when not actively under supervision or on someone’s person and they have to be demonstrated, checked and explained at handoff with instructions for their safe return… Again… Rubber weapons on your average film set set is treated with more respect then the live weapons on Rust were.
It’s really hard to explain to people how actually fucked up the situation on the Rust set is because they think we’re wild westing all the time.
I’m familiar with that area of New Mexico and also read about how difficult it was for the set staff to deal with various conditions, such inadequate accommodations and being 1 hour+ from the closest vestige of civilization. That’s definitely the middle of f’in nowhere. I don’t even see how driving to Springer, Raton or Cimarron or what, Wagon Wheel would help much. It sounds like it was a poorly organized production in general.
Okay, good point, many other things went wrong with the protocol. I’ve had other discussions where I speculated that they could just use CGI to fill in the gun parts and it would seem about as realistic given the level of capability that has these days, but people have said the trend these days is for ‘realism’ in gun battles in movies.
It’s basically still cheaper to hire one props person or armorer than a whole vfx team. To do good vfx there’s a nessisary on site component and people react more realistically to actual weapon recoil and timing meaning less takes.
Realistically out of all the ways to die or even be injured in film guns are super rare. There have been three gun deaths in the past 40 years of filming and Rust is the first after all the gun safety changes that were made after the death of Brendan Lee on the Crow. The most common ways to die involves falling from a height over 3 ft, mishaps around vehicles and electrical shocks.
The industry is also super interconnected. If someone dies anywhere in the US or Canada on a film set union or not the news is known in every corner of film in about 3 hours.
Yes, I know the list of things that kinda-sorta-shoulda happened. That’s really my point, though. How can a production big enough to star Alec Baldwin and other union actors be able to run with non-union armory and such piss poor procedures?
We know that the whole safety procedures from top to bottom were rotten. So putting criminal blame on one person doesn’t ring honest. How can we know the whole story if everyone is trying to cover their tracks to not land in prison? The people with meaningful authority on set failed, and I’m not convinced that this armorer truly had the authority to shut down production on safety grounds.
Procedural changes might be mandating that productions need armorers who are then protected from dismissal if things get dangerous, so they can stop productions etc. But nothing will change this time, since we have found someone to blame.
Here is what it is. The name of the star isn’t important. Union people are not barred from being on non-union productions. I have had my union card over a decade and I have worked non union on occasion. What the difference is is how much of the liability is sunk by the Producers.
On a union show at any point there is a hotline I can call where a team from the Directors Guild, IATSE and the Teamsters can show up and stop production flat. That’s on a union show. If it’s a big studio there’s a studio hotline that I can call who will check Producers because they protect their investments by enforcing standards.
If you have neither and you front the money and make the decisions at the top and have no regulatory body to which your employees can take their concerns to mitigate the responsibility to then you THE PRODUCER assume the liability for failure to provide a safe work environment. Alec Baldwin among other things is a Producer. He may have forgot that his job is an an employer and not an employee but the law fucking hasn’t.
Yeah, if people are taking falls, Baldwin needs to take one. I am shocked that Halls got 6 mo suspended, too, as he was previously fired after another unexpected discharge among other complaints.
Non-union shows can be a bit of a nightmare for safety because Producers don’t have the checks on power they should. Calling foul using government outsider jobsite regulators comes with potential costs of losing your job and blacklisting you with the other powerful people affiliated with production because Producers don’t want to be bothered. Going out into the middle of nowhere where it’s hard to get someone from OSHA to show up while something fuckity is actively happening is another layer of complexity.
Just like any other kind of work you don’t get burned by liability and manslaughter charges until the bad thing actually happens. Union Film is one of the most regimented workplaces you’re ever likely to encounter. Non-union projects though run the gamut. Anyone can fund them, they can be any size and they can be staffed with anything from people untrained in industry standard to folks with decades of experience. The wise thing for a Producer to do is to cover their ass by staffing with people who will enforce good safety standards but end of day if an aspirant first time Producer on a non-union show wants to hire all newbies there no immediate recourse. It’s no different than if an employer at a regular job hires someone unqualified to do a dangerous job. It is the threat of it coming back to bite you in the ass that keeps you honest.
It’s not like the airline industry. Shows pop up, they incorporate, they shoot then they completely dissolve and disappear within the space of as little as a couple of months and everyone goes back to shopping around for the next gig. Every non-union show is a tiny little bubble. If individuals don’t face consequences things will never get better because there’s no real cohesive industry after a certain point of the non-union world. Like if you work one of those things it’s because you knew somebody who personally asked you to be on show as a personal favor or you’re trying to upgrade your category or get started and show up on a word of mouth recommendation with promises of gaining experience and access to a group of people with money, wild aspirations and enough connections with techs or excitable talented amateurs to make something happen that may pay off further down the line.
The whole damn thing is rubber bands and handshakes.
Nahh. I watched the trial, this is a clear case of criminal negligence. The set was a mess, everything was rushed, someone died. There are dozens of gun heavy sets every months accross the US, yet people dont die. The producers and the armorer are responsible for gun safety on the set, they failes, they need to be held accountable.
I’m pretty sure there are already procedures and those include never having real guns on a set. If you do have real guns on a set (why would you ever have real guns on a set) they should be physically separated, and visually distinct.
Of course the real solution would just be to never have real guns on a set which of course is rule one that she broke. They didn’t need real guns, they had them there for no reason that’s why she’s guilty because she was doing a stupid thing for no good reason.
There’s a bunch of things that should never happen. No real guns on set. No live ammo ever near those guns. No removing guns from set. No pointing guns at people. All the procedures getting skipped when a new person holds a prop.
By blaming a person and one element of it, we leave everything else as it was and more accidents will eventually happen. Sooner or later a studio will want a non-union armorer that they can boss around again, who won’t have the authority to push back on things, and if we don’t learn now then it can all repeat.
Yo, all that shit exists and was presented in the trial. Lmao.
I feel like a slap on the wrist would just incentivize this sort of behavior.
I think what they mean is it would bring about change across the entire industry to prevent this type of thing from happening regardless of who’s in charge.
There are already industry standards to point to the left or right of the target when firing on set, there are already strict procedures and guides for actors and armorers both. This event happened due to multiple levels of gross negligence. To say “only prosecute for malicious intent” is just legalizing murder.
Yeah, I didn’t say I agree too much with the concept, especially with the way airline safety has been pretty sketchy nowadays.
deleted by creator
she’s got a great hairstyle here.
I was thinking that she definitely doesn’t look like what I assumed an armorer would look like
The way she looks in real life before this trial is nothing like she looks during the trial now. They’re trying to make her look as professional as possible
I am a consequentialist, so while I don’t support the current state of “reform” in the USA I still think negligence is just as punishable an offence as malice.
I think Baldwin, responsible for cutting corners resulting in loss of life, should also face prison time.
Baldwin is old enough to remember what happened to Brandon Lee. Add several workers leaving for safety reasons and it makes Baldwin the Producer and decision taker, responsable for turning a blind eye on all the security violations.
He was the one gambling and taking a chance, as always, for a bigger profit.
Gutierrez-Reed was unprofessional and ignored many safety procedures and is very responsible also, and should have walked out also… but being young and on your first jobs can be demanding and difficult to say no. What a wake-up call for her.
Maybe now Hollywood will stop using real guns
Why do they even use real guns? And even when they do why aren’t they guns with locked/incapacitated barrels, blocked ? I am sure that they could have disabled the hammer, detached the trigger so that it did not actually fire or maybe even dont allow real guns and bullets in filming locations?
The actor didn’t actually pull the trigger. He pulled back the hammer on the revolver manually. I guess they needed a working hammer for the scene.
I remember someone saying “there is no way this firearm could have fired, it was a modern reproduction gun with modern safety features like half cock”. So I went off and found the manual for that firearm and it explicitly mentioned things NOT to do, which included banging the gun, releasing the hammer etc. So regardless of modern safety features or not, even the manufacturer gave warnings that correspond to some of the statements Baldwin made about it just going off.
That doesn’t excuse sloppy firearm safety, or the use of live rounds, or the incompetence of the armorer. But like most things, an accident is not just one thing but a chain of events.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Her mother, seated behind her, put her hands on her head and bent forward as the judge ordered her remanded into custody pending sentencing.
During the prosecution’s closing arguments on Wednesday, Kari T. Morrissey told the jury that Gutierrez-Reed “was negligent, she was careless, she was thoughtless.”
But he said he did not realize he had been injured by a live round of ammunition, and when medical personnel informed him at the hospital, “It could not compute for me,” Souza said.
Dave Halls, who was the film’s safety coordinator and pleaded no contest to negligent use of a deadly weapon last year as part of a plea deal, also took the stand.
During opening statements, special prosecutor Jason Lewis called Gutierrez-Reed’s behavior on the “Rust” set “sloppy” and “unprofessional.”
Dana Griffin and Sumiko Moots reported from Santa Fe, and Chloe Melas from New York City.
The original article contains 614 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
