Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Defence lawyers will always put forward the best defence for their client(s) it's their job. In the court, it's up to the jury to decide if it holds water. That's not to say this is perfect, because there are instances of injustice, where innocent people have been found guilty or guilty people found innocent. The reasons for this can be various and include flaws in society, the justice system, the political system, so it's not perfect, but it's a good lawyer's job to do the best by their client. This can include muddying the waters.

In this case, until a full picture can be established, we can't tell the full chain of events that lead to the fatal shot being fired. There are certainly answers required to a number of questions.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Indeed they did:
"“We have people who had left the set who had walked out because they were disgruntled. We have a timeframe between 11 and 1 [p.m.], approximately, that day in which the firearms, at times, were unattended. So there was opportunity to tamper with the scene. And yes, we’re looking at that possibility.”

As many have pointed out here, they don't have a direct connection to this incident. I do. One of the crew that walked out that morning was a friend and colleague. Another was on set hours later when the shot was fired. As much as I am familiar with the MO of lawyers, which is to use whatever is in their disposal to exonerate their client, I am furious at this allegation--which doesn't even make sense within its own argument. It is documented and so far undisputed that the camera team that left was off the set by 8 a.m., so the (unfathomable) idea of them sabotaging that box of rounds when they were left unattended between 11 and 1 was not possible. The very wording of this statement is cleverly avoiding making an actual allegation that connects these two incidents other than placing them in adjacent sentences and it is nothing short of disgusting.
Click to expand...

That statement was retracted and a new statement is now proffered. Leaving guns laying about for two hours ... the lawyer may have realized the other implications of that statement and is now reeling it back in.

From Insider "The lawyers for the armorer on "Rust" retracted their account of how long the gun that killed Halyna Hutchins was left unattended, ...

Earlier Wednesday, the lawyers, Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence, told the "Today" show that there had been a window of about two hours, roughly 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., during which the firearm was unattended, suggesting that had left room for tampering. ....

But Bowles later walked back that statement, telling the paper that he had since consulted with Gutierrez-Reed and learned that the gun had been locked up over lunch and therefore was not accessible."
 
Paul F said:
That statement was retracted and a new statement is now proffered. Leaving guns laying about for two hours ... the lawyer may have realized the other implications of that statement and is now reeling it back in.

From Insider "The lawyers for the armorer on "Rust" retracted their account of how long the gun that killed Halyna Hutchins was left unattended, ...

Earlier Wednesday, the lawyers, Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence, told the "Today" show that there had been a window of about two hours, roughly 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., during which the firearm was unattended, suggesting that had left room for tampering. ....

But Bowles later walked back that statement, telling the paper that he had since consulted with Gutierrez-Reed and learned that the gun had been locked up over lunch and therefore was not accessible."
Click to expand...
I agree they must have realized that while saying the gun was left unattended would support the sabotage theory it would also mean that she was negligent. So it's better for her to say she locked the gun up and someone accessed the safe without her knowledge.
 
IMO, a lot will depend on how aggressive the local DA is in squeezing people for testimony. Usually, one wants to turn the lower rank against the higher but, in this case, the higher is a popular celebrity. Sabotage leading to the homicide charges would be pretty difficult to prove unless there's a trail of threats made against a particular person and even that would be a nigh impossible task. Negligence, on the other hand, is a much lower standard and can ensnare a larger catch.
 
That's right. The sabotage theory came from the defense, not the prosecutor. I doubt it will be pursued without some scrap of evidence.

Usually, one wants to turn the lower rank against the higher but, in this case, the higher is a popular celebrity.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still thinking the production company, much more than the star, is vulnerable, if they wish to go after big fish. That set had multiple malfunctions. (Yes, Alec Baldwin is a producer.)
 
If this was on Judge Judy, we can all imagine her questions. Somebody gave you a gun with a live bullet in it? Have you ever fired a real gun. So you know what can happen? Did you check it yourself? You’re partially to blame then. then she’d look at the person who gave him the gun and ask the same questions. An actor with no experience or understanding of guns would rely on the experience of the other person, somebody who knows about guns, could double check very simply and quickly. Trusting somebody else when you have the understanding and skills to check is negligence. Pilots on their own don’t get in an airplane and fly it without double checking just because the licenced engineer says it’s fine. Actors cannot escape common sense.if Baldwin knows about guns, he should have checked, especially if people had been playing with them!
 
One could easily write a different Judge Judy narrative. "Who was responsible for the gun? Who's specific job was it on this production to deal with the guns? What was your job description? Did you check the gun before you handed it to someone who does not specifically have the job of inspecting the gun? Did the other person know that it was your job to be checking the guns and that the routine before ever handing the gun over was that you would inspect it for safety?"

See, it's pretty easy to tell a different tale.
 
Mitch Gross said:
One could easily write a different Judge Judy narrative. "Who was responsible for the gun? Who's specific job was it on this production to deal with the guns? What was your job description? Did you check the gun before you handed it to someone who does not specifically have the job of inspecting the gun? Did the other person know that it was your job to be checking the guns and that the routine before ever handing the gun over was that you would inspect it for safety?"

See, it's pretty easy to tell a different tale.
Click to expand...

I think what changes if it is relevant for the actors to check the guns or not depends on how smoothly things have been running. I basically think it is wrong to just go a head as normal if there has been prior accidents under production with the guns. Under normal conditions I guess Baldwin shouldn't be liable, but seeing how many accidents there were before, that "should" raise red flags for everyone involved, including actors. Especially true if the actors have taken gun safety lessons.

Would anyone driving a car on set be willing to speed up to 100 mph if there had been three prior times when brakes on the cars didn't work? Wouldn't you double check or actually ask around if the person or people responsible for the previous brake fails have been replaced by a pro (I guess and hope most people would demand new brakes and people working on the cars)? I don't know if Baldwin knew about the previous misfires, but if he did I think that shifts more blame onto him. Not necessarily more than any other of the two prime candidates right now (Armorer and AD), just that, he "should" have been more cautious. My point being, when does it become so bad that waving a gun around without checking it should be considered negligent or straight up reckless during a production? 1 misfire and no consequences (like no new rules/protocols on set, people that failed getting kicked, etc.), 2 misfires, 3 misfires? I wonder how many times there weren't an issue with the guns, so one can get a figure if the misfires were something that happened 25% of the time or 2% of the time. Not that it really matter, 2% is still too much, but just that if there were issues basically every 4th time they were gonna use a gun, that is pretty damn terrible.
 
I’m looking at 92 pages of safety documents for a production starting next week, plus a licence from the police, dates and time of deliveries of explosive material and visits to confirm storage, safety and usage. I have sound protection monitoring, and exposure limits plus ear protection for some people. I have people doing aerial work with their own equipment, safety and storage rules, plus I have the covid testing and monitoring to coordinate. Forgive me if the standards on this movie are shameful and unworthy of being tagged professional. Clearly, they were a bunch of amateurs despite having a name. Maybe the star simply trusted that their standards were the same as the big studios? Where he holds out a hand a a coffee appears, or he holds out the other hand and a weapon is put in it. That could well be the problem. He didn’t know he had to think for himself.
 
I suspect the Health and Safety legislation is somewhat different in the USA. There, it may vary from state to state.

In the UK, it's still based on the EU rules, so involves a lot of paperwork, which do force you (at least) to think about your arrangements. I know someone who works in HS on dramas and other productions in the UK.
 
One could build a case for negligence leading to the death of Hutchins but the "long drive" mentions are far too tertiary to it.
 
Well, on face value - that interview says absolutely nothing important or useful at all. He felt unsafe, yet didn't say why - he was exhausted. That is hardly unheard of!
 
paulears said:
Well, on face value - that interview says absolutely nothing important or useful at all. He felt unsafe, yet didn't say why - he was exhausted. That is hardly unheard of!
Click to expand...

That video is a short version of what aired. The full version goes in to details. He blames the producers.
 
Here is what the producers have to say about Mr. Luper -" In a statement to CNN, "Rust" producers called Luper's allegations regarding the film's budget and safety "patently false," adding it "is not surprising considering his job was to be a camera operator, and he had absolutely nothing to [do] with, or knowledge of, safety protocols or budgets.""

Biting my tongue. NTSB. NTSB ... Biting....
 
Yes. Read my other posts in this thread for that to make sense.

The implications of the producer's statement are significant.
 
What is very clear is that somebody is going to be crucified. Time will tell. I must admit that I'm surprised at the slow speed of the investigation - usually the US do the blame game very quickly and law enforcement goes at the same pace to try to not prejudice the court cases?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top