Rust

That is idiotic logic.

There was a crew. Some of them got killed and injured too.

Theres a safety meeting anytime there are stunts or gunplay like this. Most ADs do one every day at call time. Point out the evacuation protocols. Where the nearest hospital is.

It is a daily routine and sometimes more often when there are stunts or something that has a heightened risk.
 
Tom Roper said:
Sarah Zachary testified they were not under pressure that day because there was no film crew present. A safety meeting in front of no one was not believed to be necessary.
Click to expand...
Thats not true. There was a film crew in the room when the incident happened.
 
Peter C. said:
Thats not true. There was a film crew in the room when the incident happened.
Click to expand...

Was it a case (I don't remember) that at the start of the day there was no camera crew yet?
So no safety brief and people started work doing things waiting for a camera crew?
Then when a camera crew did get there they set up, and they started shooting, but there was no safety brief at this point either.

The question is why didn't the new camera crew ask for a safety brief?
You would, well I would, expect the camera operator who is going to be facing the guns and in the line of fire to want a safety brief with the actors s/he has not yet worked with.

The more I see of this case, the more I think that the armourer is a scapegoat and should not have been running show as armourer. Those above her are seriously at fault here.
 
There are so many more people on a set than just those in the camera department.

There absolutely should have been a safety meeting if the crew had started the day.

If they started when the replacement camera dept members showed up then that should held the safety meeting right then making sure the new to set crew knew where the evacuation points where etc.

The crew that left had been asking for safety meetings.
The director had been asking for safety meetings.

The AD runs safety meetings. If they refuse to do it then maybe you just refuse to work at some point. Which is what happened.

I have worked with ADs who did not do a daily safety meeting. I complained to the AD. I complained to production. That is all you can do other than refuse to work.

For a young or inexperienced crew the last step is a pretty big ask. People do not want to speak up and the onus should not be on them to have to do it in an adversarial way.

All freelancers want to do is work. To leave because you don’t believe an experienced senior manager is not following protocols, that can influence your future hiring prospects takes some independent bravery.

I believe the operator was from the original crew and chose to stay a bit longer to help Halyna for the transition to the new crew.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating. So lots of people don't work to these Union rules. In any case it wasn't really a union shoot as many were not union people. And as you say if you argue "that can influence your future hiring prospects" so people don't. It seems all these so-called rules and procedures are optional and bendable.

My comment on the safety brief was that if there was no camera crew at the start of the day and there is no camera shooting, therefore there would be no firearms shooting either.
Probably not much of anything else that required a safety briefing that hadn't already (we hope) been done.

However, this doesn't explain why there was not a safety briefing when the camera crew turned up and shooting of both sorts was going to happen. The only explanation is that people don't bother with them, and it is optional. If the AD isn't bothered, the freelancers don't bother either.

That sounds like a real mess. I wouldn't work like that.

This puts the very inexperienced Armourer in one hell of a spot, and it seems she was not supported by PDQ much either.
 
Peter C. said:
Thats not true. There was a film crew in the room when the incident happened.
Click to expand...

I'm not expressing opinions here. The early morning of the shoot, while it was still dark, there was word on the set that the camera crew would not be showing up, and they had to find a replacement crew. That replacement crew had arrived and was setting up after lunch. That would have been the busy time according to testimony.
 
FFS.

They are not union rules. I have explained it twice already. For the third time the protocols are developed and enforced by contract services which is funded and run by PRODUCERS.

This set is a total outlier. Rules and protocols were not being followed. Tens of thousands of other shows work just fine following these protocols.
 
To summarize, there is plenty of evidence that can point to a conviction for Hannah who is "the one" on trial in this case. To date, the only statement given to investigators that suggests there were a lot of live rounds on the set, came from Sarah Zachary's interview, which she recanted yesterday. The innuendo that there was target shooting or plinking on set with live rounds to this point has found no basis from witness testimony. That suggests an important distinction between reckless, wanton disregard, and unintentional negligence, but not responsibility.
 
And of the (3) live rounds that have been positively accounted for, the testimony that Hannah caused them to be on the set is circumstantial from Corporal Hancock, who has theorized that circumstantially there was a 2nd box of rounds brought to the set by Hannah that was never found. This is why testimony has focused on a request by Hannah to Sarah to bring her purse from the prop cart. No one so far, has raised a question about the contents inside that purse. But if it was a box of dummy or live rounds, it would have weighed at least 2 lbs, in and of itself calling attention which it did not.
 
Tom Roper said:
Sarah Zachary testified they were not under pressure that day because there was no film crew present. A safety meeting in front of no one was not believed to be necessary.
Click to expand...

Tom Roper said:
I'm not expressing opinions here. The early morning of the shoot, while it was still dark, there was word on the set that the camera crew would not be showing up, and they had to find a replacement crew. That replacement crew had arrived and was setting up after lunch. That would have been the busy time according to testimony.
Click to expand...
A day is made up of a morning and an afternoon. This incident happen in the afternoon and the new film crew was there in the afternoon so the statement is factually wrong both that there was no film crew present that day and that they weren't under pressure. They were under pressure more so because the film crew wasn't there in the morning.
 
Last edited:
The context of Sarah's testimony was that film crew had not yet arrived, that Hannah wasn't so busy before their arrival that she couldn't help in props department, but that she stayed away cleaning guns when she was wanted for helping out with props.
 
Tom Roper said:
This might be a difficult concept for you as well but I'll walk you through it. It is NOT my statement, it was Sarah's, and neither did she say film crew was not there "that day," you misquoted. The context of Sarah's testimony was that film crew had not yet arrived, that Hannah wasn't so busy before their arrival that she couldn't help in props department, but that she stayed away cleaning guns when she was wanted for helping out with props.
Click to expand...
Hopefully you can understand this I'm directly quoting the entire post you made so How am I misquoting you and taking it out of context? If anyone took what she said out of context it would be you.


Repeating what someone else said doesn't mean it's factually correct.

Bill said the earth is flat.

It is factually wrong that the earth is flat.

Since we know filming took place on that day then we know the statement is factually wrong.

Tom Roper said:
Sarah Zachary testified they were not under pressure that day because there was no film crew present. A safety meeting in front of no one was not believed to be necessary.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You did not misquote "that day," apologies.


Peter C. said:
A day is made up of a morning and an afternoon. This incident happen in the afternoon and the new film crew was there in the afternoon so the statement is factually wrong both that there was no film crew present that day and that they weren't under pressure. They were under pressure more so because the film crew wasn't there in the morning.
Click to expand...

To the larger contextual point by Sarah's testimony, you are invited to offer your own explanation why (and who) was under more pressure during the absence of a film crew, because Sarah was not asking Hannah for help in props after the replacement film crew's arrival. Her complaint was about when she had spare time before the arrival of the film crew.
 
Last edited:
Tom Roper said:
It's times like these that the court tv viewer wishes he could see the jury reactions to these subtle affectations.
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy that the lawyers are trying to find the truth. Both sides are trying to win their case
In theory, both sides have the same facts, it is how they choose to present them and what inferences they choose to make.
It is pure theatre on how they paint the picture.

Interestingly, the case that we all see on the videos are not what the jury sees. They are inside the bubble, they can pick up on the "vibes" in the courtroom that we just don't sense. They are not fixed to the camera views we see. Furthermore, they will hear some, if not all, the conversations when the lawyers approach the bench. Also, they are going back to the hotel with all the other jurors.

For what it is worth, I don't think the Armourer is guilty. The Producers and Prop Master are.
The Armourer was very inexperienced and was being put in an impossible position by people controlling her and the location.
Large parts of the police response when they arrived on set were appalling too. The forensics and chain of evidence went completely out of the window, as did handling of suspects.Though to be fair this is with hindsight and there were only 1 or 2 police initially on a large location with lots of people.
 
She could be guilty - as a failure to resign/down tools is a failure. That doesn't mean other parties are not more guilty.

The punishment for such guilt could be minimal. Or not.
 
morgan_moore said:
She could be guilty - as a failure to resign/down tools is a failure. That doesn't mean other parties are not more guilty.

The punishment for such guilt could be minimal. Or not.
Click to expand...

Not according to Doug. As he said, Freelancers just have to get on with it if they want to work again, and he knows about US Union narrative productions.
Many people were working on that set despite what seems a complete disregard for any protocols.
You would have thought the prop master would also have been pushing for better protocols rather than, it seems, adding to the problems.

That said, Had I been the Armourer on this film, I would not have put up with the way it was being run and not go past day one.
But then I have a few decades more experience with using and instructing the use of firearms
 
Last edited:
Yesterday was a disaster for the defense. Their PI looked ridiculous under cross. Just when you could not think it could get any worse their gun expert managed to top the PI. Pulling out a gun pointing it at the judge and having the marshal to physically force the barrel down and the judge have to admonish him for doing the same thing that accused did, not check the gun and demonstrating it wasn’t loaded. Both shocking and hilarious.

Also there has been cumulative circumstantial evidence the live rounds came from Hanna. Details like she received one box of dummies from pdq but they were running out but pdq didn’t have anymore so she brought her own in.
 
Last edited:
I agree the Defence firearms expert wasn't.... He is a financial person with an interest in guns.
The prosecutions expert was an ex SWAT film armourer with over 20 years experience.
WTF are the defence playing at?

Why did they need their own firearms expert?
What ever reason you get an expert not a mate who can claim expenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top