He didn't treat it like it was loaded and deadly, especially knowing that they had live ammo on set.
he pointed a loaded weapon at someone and pulled the trigger
1. was he instructed to pull the trigger as part of the shot? i'm confused, if you treat it like its loaded and deadly, you'd never pull the trigger and shoot in any film.
2. why did he know there was live ammo on set? was that proven? In January, Gutierrez Reed sued Seth Kenney, who supplied most of the guns and ammunition used on “Rust,” alleging that he had negligently mixed dummy and live rounds, leading to the tragedy.
"Investigators would later find seven other suspected live rounds on the set, mixed among dummy rounds. All of them — plus the round that killed Hutchins — were Starline Brass. But that didn’t make any sense. Starline Brass is the dummy round of choice for movie sets. This company doesn’t produce live ammo,”
to me, the part i'm bolding is the bigger problem here:
Gutierrez Reed acknowledged that she had only been working as an armorer for a few months, and had no formal training. There is no official certification process for film armorers.
You know 90% of old west pistols are revolvers, right?I don't see how this sticks. An actor is handed a gun, with a round already in the chamber, and is told, either in that moment, or it is implied by the general procedure of shooting films with firearms, that the round is a blank, and that he is to pull the trigger at x time. He has no reasonable opportunity to verify that the round is a blank. Ejecting the round either totally fucks up the shot, or introduces a new, equally unknown round into the chamber. The only way this sticks is if Baldwin actually circumvented procedure and picked up a gun or magazine that he wasn't supposed to.
What I don't understand is how the armorer could let this happen. There is exactly ZERO reason for any live ammunition to be on-set at all. It doesn't belong there, period.
The only scenario I can imagine where this happens without either intent or VERY gross negligence, is if someone (Baldwin or the armorer) is a daily-carry person, and decides to use their personal weapon in the shot instead of one from whatever collection they're supposed to draw from, and swaps to a magazine of blanks, but forgets to eject the live round in the chamber. Perhaps this is what happened. Baldwin does sort of strike me as the kind of guy who might carry. And if he made a decision to use his personal weapon, I can see why they would charge him. But then to also charge the armorer? I guess if they allowed it then they bear some responsibility.
Its EVERYONE'S responsibility to check the gun. The armorer, the shooter, the person being shot at. Would you let you neighbor point a gun at you? Would you pull a trigger of a gun if you didn't verify it was empty / using blanks? Why does it being on a set exclude the actor from responsibility?not watching all of that. sorry. what i skimmed i can't say i agree with. you think it wouldn't be burdensome to expect every actor handling a gun in a movie to take out every bullet and inspect to make sure its not a live round vs a dummy? especially when there is no reason or explanation why there would be a live round on the set in the first place? i suppose it'd be easier with a revolver like this to do so, but think about a movie with a lot of automatic weapons, and dozens of people holding them in any given scene. it's someones responsibility to check before handing it to an actor, but its not the actor, right?