Rust

You knew it was going to go poorly when asked for his credentials and he responded you want the long or short version and proceeded to start with when he was a Boy Scout. People in chat were rolling with laughter. To call him an expert is an insult to the word.
 
I missed the boy scout bit... (I have a real life and been working :-) ) However he ain't Bruce Willis.
I was not impressed with what I saw of him.
 
Geez JAM careful, you are contorting yourself trying to catch up here without showing your ignorance.

Hannah deserves to be found guilty. She is the armorer. There are others that also contributed but they are not on trial here.

No matter that she was not experienced. She knew what that job was and did it very poorly.

A newly licensed driver is just as culpable for negligent driving as an experienced driver.
 
I'm getting real sick of it. What's the matter with you people? This kid is guilty! She's got to burn! We're letting her slip through our fingers here.
 
I think she'll be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter but will get off of the evidence tampering since they couldn't prove it was cocaine even though it most like was. So that's 18 months max but considering her lack of experience and this being her first offense I could see 8-12 months with good behavior 6 months. For killing someone that's a light sentence.
 
JAMedia said:
I agree with that. Those culpable are the prop master who was given immunity and PDQ. Also, the producers running the set and Baldwin.
Gutierrez is the patsy in all this.
Click to expand...

She's hardly the patsy--it's not like someone else loaded that gun and put it in Baldwin's hands. But I have a strong belief as I have mentioned here before that the producers and UPM who created an unsafe environment on set by poor hiring choices and ignoring safety concerns and complaints who need to be implicated. Anyone who feels that Baldwin is culpable as a producer needs to research who exactly was making the decisions about all of the above on set in a direct fashion, and use their names in the same sentence at the very least.
 
CharlesPapert said:
it's not like someone else loaded that gun and put it in Baldwin's hands.
Click to expand...

I may have missed it, (been busy the last few days and not watched all the stuff in court)
but I thought the AD handed the gun to Baldwin?
Also, the guns were on an open cart and could have been loaded or reloaded by someone else.
There is no evidence as to who brought the live rounds on to set, nor when.
The police screwed up the forensics and chain of evidence,
Didn't the prop master remove evidence after the shooting?

Initially I would have said the armourer was 100% responsible, but in the chaos of this set there are too many other factors.
 
I agree she’s not a patsy. People always try to interject their agenda on a case like this but it was a simple case of negligence. Her job was to check the ammo before loading the gun. She didn’t do her job so she’s responsible. There are others who also contributed to the unsafe environment but that doesn’t relieve her of her responsibility. She probably could have gotten a lighter sentence if she plead guilty but she lawyered and blamed everyone else.
 
Peter C. said:
I agree she’s not a patsy. People always try to interject their agenda on a case like this but it was a simple case of negligence. Her job was to check the ammo before loading the gun. She didn’t do her job so she’s responsible. There are others who also contributed to the unsafe environment but that doesn’t relieve her of her responsibility. She probably could have gotten a lighter sentence if she plead guilty but she lawyered and blamed everyone else.
Click to expand...

You would agree then that a nurse dispensing a pill from a mis-labeled bottle is guilty of felony manslaughter if that patient dies, and no proof of how the mix up happened is needed.
 
Tom Roper said:
You would agree then that a nurse dispensing a pill from a mis-labeled bottle is guilty of felony manslaughter if that patient dies, and no proof of how the mix up happened is needed.
Click to expand...

Oh Tom you trying to use that poor argument that the defense was using? In the Tylenol poisoning the pills were indistinguishable where as the live ammo was. The armorer is supposed shake and inspect each and every cartridge. Only the ones that had a hole or rattled were suitable to put in the gun. She skipped that test to verify they were safe.
 
Tom Roper said:
You would agree then that a nurse dispensing a pill from a mis-labeled bottle is guilty of felony manslaughter if that patient dies, and no proof of how the mix up happened is needed.
Click to expand...

In this case the Person in charge of the armourer has been given immunity despite having also tampered with the evidence.
I think that person was also assisting with the loading of guns and handling ammunition.
 
The case against the armourer is inherently unsound.

What actually happened was whilst the Armour was away from the cart, someone else put live rounds into the gun knowing it would be used on set.
When picking up the gun and giving it to the Actor, the AD didn't check the gun.
Due to the slack procedures on set, the perpetrator counted on the AD not checking the gun.

Can anyone show me evidence to disprove this?

In any case, there were 5 different types of dummy round used on set. Only one of which rattled.
So it is likely the AD would not expect the gun to "rattle" Besides if it was rattling could you tell if it was 6 or only 5*

Until the source of the live rounds is determined and the time they arrived on set, this verdict is unsound. Especially as the person in charge of the armourer, who also removed evidence and could have removed the other live rounds, has immunity. Which is rather convenient.


*Cue (in an Eastwood voice) Well Punk, do you feel lucky?
 
Last edited:
You guys are so ignorant. Even following the case you’re making ridiculous claims and drawing very long bows.
 
Doug Bee said:
You guys are so ignorant. Even following the case you’re making ridiculous claims and drawing very long bows.
Click to expand...
Ignorent? I assume you are talking from your personal experience of being involved in a US court case involving negligence and fatalities?
 
Doug Bee said:
Yeah. You’re ignorant.

Theorising about the source of the live round like there is a conspiracy for a set up.
Click to expand...
Yep. Any sort of big news event the conspiracy theorist come out of the wood work. I get its fun acting like your smarter than every else. But it gets tiring. I lived near Newtown and had to endure the same conspiracy theories. Not worth trying to talk reason. Moon landing, JFK, Flat Earth, Evolution, etc
 
Doug Bee said:
Yeah. You’re ignorant.

Theorising about the source of the live round like there is a conspiracy for a set up.
Click to expand...
I assume you are talking from your personal experience of being involved in a US court case involving negligence and fatalities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top