Rust

Doug Bee said:
Ok. So you actually have never worked with a narrative drama amorer. Everything you know is what you e read in this thread and from your own experiences working non-narrative drama with non narrative scenarios, much less in the US.

Good to know where you are coming from.

You really want the idiotic conspiracy theories to have oxygen and I find it kind of disgusting and a distraction.

If you truly knew US drama conventions for working with firearms you would know none of these scenarios would ever fly.
Click to expand...

I haven't worked on a US union set. That is correct.
Though I have worked in the US.
You are arguing that somehow that a US union narative drama has different firearms safety to everything else in the world?
 
morgan_moore said:
If doesnt matter if a Chinook flew in from Afghan landed and dumped the rounds in boxes out the back door.
The armouer should assume every round is live and only forward ones they could be sure were not.
Click to expand...

Been there done that and fired the rounds.

morgan_moore said:
If they were not in a position to check using thier skills and equipment with 100% certainly then round is binned
Click to expand...
They are fairly easy to check.
 
JAMedia said:
I haven't worked on a US union set. That is correct.
Though I have worked in the US.
You are arguing that somehow that a US union narative drama has different firearms safety to everything else in the world?
Click to expand...

No. Just pointing out I can tell by the way you are ignorantly speaking and making claims about the topic. The claims you make show you have no experience with actors working with firearms in the US because you would not make those claims if you had.
 
“They are easy to tell”

”i cant see any way .. (of telling)”

Which is it?
—-

If they were told that is why she is in court not them.
 
Doug Bee said:
No. Just pointing out I can tell by the way you are ignorantly speaking and making claims about the topic. The claims you make show you have no experience with actors working with firearms in the US because you would not make those claims if you had.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that US Union sets are different to everything else?
I do have experience with actors and firearms.
 
morgan_moore said:
“They are easy to tell”

”i cant see any way .. (of telling)”

Which is it?
—-

If they were told that is why she is in court not them.
Click to expand...

That was two completley different scenarios.
Military rounds out the back of a military helicopter or rounds on a film set.
 
From what I heard the armorer didn't hand it directly to the actor because of Covid protocols limited the number of people allowed in a small space. So either she handed it to the AD or he took it directly off the cart.

I'm neither an expert or defending her actions or lack of actions just pointing out that reality is often more complex than we imagine. I've hear an armorer say that the job requires back bone, to stand up to anyone on set who is acting unsafe or interfering with the armorer from doing his job.

It's clear she either lacked the experience, desire, or backbone to meet the responsibilities the position required. I'm not cutting her any slack because of her age because everything I've heard about her has confirmed she was reckless irresponsible person.

Who brought live ammo on set may only be important in a legal argument as further evidence of her misconduct or used by the defense to mitigate her punishment if PDQ inadvertently included live rounds without her knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Peter C. said:
Who brought live ammo on set may only be important in a legal argument as further evidence of her misconduct or used by the defense to mitigate her punishment if PDQ inadvertently included live rounds without her knowledge.
Click to expand...

Quite... as they are arguing this in court when the live ammunition was introduced, and who by, is important.
This is quite a complex situation and it is not as easy as some people seem to think.

BTW As it is clear the producers were trying to err.... be economical, was this a Union Shoot or not?
 
Peter C. said:
From what I heard the armorer didn't hand it directly to the actor because of Covid protocols limited the number of people allowed in a small space. So either she handed it to the AD or he took it directly off the cart.

I'm neither an expert or defending her actions or lack of actions just pointing that reality is often more complex than we imagine. I've hear an armorer say that the job requires back bone, to stand up to anyone on set who is acting unsafe or interfering with the armorer from doing his job.

It's clear she either lacked the experience, desire, or backbone to meet the responsibilities the position required. I'm not cutting her any slack because of her age because everything I've heard about her has confirmed she was reckless irresponsible person.

Who brought live ammo on set may only be important in a legal argument as further evidence of her misconduct or used by the defense to mitigate her punishment if PDQ inadvertently included live rounds without her knowledge.
Click to expand...

my film was the next week - and backbone was needed - in my case to look after the dop.

i get its hard in a tight space - i handed a dedo to a dop onece as the gaffer “could not fit in”

of course the light cable was tripped over. Lesson learned. Get backbone - even if you have to clear the set to go in amd set a c47
 
JAMedia said:
You seem confused. What point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...

You are factually wrong and constantly making suppositions that have nothing to do with fact or understanding of firearm safety protocols on US movie sets.

I mean you just posted the at the AD thought the weapon was safe.

what you left out from that shows your ignorance of what is supposed to happen.

Hint. The AD did not know the weapon was safe and it was not handed to him and told it was safe. You are misrepresenting how the weapon got into the ADs hand.

That fact alone seems to be consistently forgotten in your incessant posting about how live bullets made it to set or primer colors not being the right way to tell dummy rounds from live rounds.

That massive failure of protocol tells anyone who has so rked with firearms a great deal but you are on sessing over other details that are less consequential.

Ive corrected you many times and you just gloss over it to fit your own decided upon narrative.

Youre making ignorant statements about the union status of the show. I am not going to correct you but once again it shows your continued ignorance.

Ive seen firearms accidents on set first hand. Camera department crew are the most likely to be injured of any department on set including stunts. I just wants facts and you just are speaking from a perspective of an outsider who has no idea what is supposed to happen vs what did happen, vs what you think happened.
 
Daniel B. Yeager in a paper published in the Georgetown University American Criminal Review describes a type 3 scapegoat as a person who is set up to be a fall person, to take sole blame for an act committed in concert with others. Type 3 thus singles out a manifestly guilty person (here, Hannah Gutierrez Reed) for an otherwise just punishment, which is rendered unjust by inequality of treatment.

Scapegoating Type 3 can occur where parties rely on division of labor; Within that division of those who control and profit most from the enterprise leave the dirty work to functionaries. An upshot of such hierarchy is that these functionaries, or bit players, end up taking the fall. Those who control will profit and are the most insulated (Halls and Baldwin).

In People v. Kauffman, six men conspired to burgle a cemetery, but abandoned the plan when they saw an armed guard at the scene, after which one of them (Woods) fatally shot a police officer (Robinson) who intercepted them on foot on their way home. Concluding that a plan to break into a safe at the cemetery implicitly included a plan to avoid arrest while coming and going, California’s high court held all six conspirators guilty of murder, including Kauffman, who was unarmed with his hands up when Officer Robinson appeared. While Kauffman is no aberration, it is important to clarify that holding Kauffman responsible in addition to Woods (the shooter) is not an act of scapegoating, though it would be if Kauffman had remained on the hook while Woods got off. The common law of group criminality long guarded against the practice of allowing bit players to take the fall for their superiors by precluding the conviction of accessories to felonies without the prior conviction of their principals.

With that in mind, a prior conviction of a superior exists already from the case and punishment against the A.D. Dave Halls, six months probation for the charge of unsafe handling of a firearm. If Hannah were found guilty and sentenced to more than Halls got, there would likely be grounds for appeal on the basis that she was set up to be a fall person that would take the sole blame for an act committed in concert with her superiors. Her attorney has already stated this possibility in Defense's opening statements.

Baldwin like Gutierrez Reed is also charged with involutary manslaughter but not the evidence tampering charge. The state needs a stronger case against him however, or at least a stronger sentence than Gutierrez Reed to avoid the possibility of a conviction against her overturned, but the facts that lay more culpability on her will be the same facts that lessen the culpability of Baldwin.

Accordingly, the way this ends as I see it, is the case against Baldwin goes nowhere and the state should have left it dropped, and Gutierrez Reed gets probation.
 
Tom Roper said:
Actually, the evidence tampering charge could be the bigger problem for Hannah that might land some hard time.
Click to expand...
People might disappointed with her possible short sentence. I heard 18 months and that two of the charges can't be stacked, and the evidence tampering has a longer sentence, which is the ridiculous nature of the law. Wasn't the evidence tampering her trying to hide she had cocaine in her hotel room? There was talk that someone on set was dumping rounds out of the other guns and wasn't even charged.

Even if she gets 18 months, sentence will get greatly reduced with good behavior etc. I'd be surprised she even serves a year for contributing to someone's death but that's how the legal system works.
 
Tom Roper said:
a person who is set up to be a fall person, to take sole blame for an act committed in concert with others.
Click to expand...

The thing is that certain jobs. grip, armourer, fire risk assesor, bridge designer you are in a special place.

If you are not of the character to say "no means no" then that is not the job for you.

Of course it gets more complex when the employer picks someone who they know will not say no and trade on that weakness. Maybe an early twenties who wants to be 'on set' for example.

I might suggest her guilt is clear (it would set a bad precident if not?). That does not mean other parties are not more guilty.

Not knowing law but maybe guilt with a mitigating circumstance would lead to a pepper corn sentance. Different from trying to argue not guilty.
 
Exactly how I see it Sam, 100%, except the other mitigating circumstance not in her favor is the evidence tampering charge if proved.

Involuntary manslaughter is loss of life that justice cannot serve a price on. And often it doesn't try to. For example, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter if someone jumped your fence and drowned in your swimming pool while you were away. The loss of life is terrible but you would likely not face hard time. On the other hand, no one dies from an evidence tampering charge but the criminal lie is what justice serves to punish. Criminal justice tries to punish certain behaviors while being fair about unintentional things that are accidental. It doesn't always get it right obviously.
 
In the uk failing to have a fence or maintain it could draw a level of responsibility.

The usual example case is that owners of abandoned deep mine shafts need to keep the site signed, fenced and blocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top