So we can talk about a “live cartridge”, “dummy cartridge” or “blank cartridge” (or synonymously “round”), indicating a cartridge case with various different contents, right?
Seems okay to me. The real errors are when someone refers to the whole thing as a ‘bullet’, or who talk about something being hit by a .44 cartridge, or something like that.
I think most people would use ‘round’ for those things most of the time. A blank round, a dummy round, I bought 50 rounds, etc. Usually when you hear shooters talking about cartridge casings it is in the context of reloading activities (not reloading the gun, but reloading the cartridge casings with fresh primers, powder, and bullets).
But I’m not a huge gun guy. I’ve been around them all my life, but I don’t collect them or anything. This is strictly a laymen’s perspective.
I haven’t been following this case for a while. But, if live ammo was found mixed in with dummy rounds onsite, has anyone involved with the case suggested that it may have been put there on purpose by a disgruntled employee with murderous intent, or just stupid enough to think it would cause mayhem, but not risk someone’s life?
It’s possible, but I think more of us are inclined to think of Hanlon’s Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Yeah. A cartridge with powder and BBs is called a special thing: a shotshell; in pistol calibers, snake shot.
In other words, a specific type of live round.
I retract my recommendation. The FAA does a great job partly because there is industry-wide support for unusually high aircraft safety. Upon reflection, the same can’t be said of Hollywood. Sure, they would love to curb firearm deaths because of the bad press. But empowering OSHA would lead to greater regulation of general workplace safety on the set, something that doesn’t have the same consensus that lead to beefed up air safety. So the analogy fails.
I do think that the Hollywood mucky-mucks should establish an armorer certification program. Currently I understand there are no particular educational requirements. In practice this would involve paying them more. I suspect that would be acceptable. Another reform would be to have the armorer report directly to whomever is in charge of the production. Yes, I get that sometimes directors run the show, sometimes producers do. The point is to give them leeway and the expectation to jump the chain of command if standards aren’t being met. Liability insurance standards could also be reviewed.
Eventually armorer certification could be required by law, sort of like becoming a barber. This would garner industry support because it would enable the unionized sector to impose standards on the non-unionized sector.
All opinions should be treated as hypotheses. I am not a movie director.
I didn’t have time to watch Mondays trial. I found these articles on the main witness testimony for Feb 26.
Addiego was working in the church when the gun discharged. He gave first aid to, Joel Souza, the director while others helped Halyna Hutchins .
The Defense rested this morning. They only called 4 witnesses.
Thell Reed didn’t testify. I expected that he would explain Hannah’s training. I guess the defense didn’t think it would help.
Nothing new came out in trial except the OSHA investigation and fine against Rust production.
I did learn the DA investigated Seth Kenney and determined the 45 cal ammunition he had was different from the live rounds found on the Rust set. He was eliminated as a source.
It’s up to the jury now.
I can’t see how it would help unless there was room to infer that she did everything right and a live round got into the gun anyway, through no fault of hers. Which seems like a non-starter: obviously she did something wrong, otherwise there wouldn’t have been real bullets in the gun, regardless of who put them there, regardless of where they came from, and regardless of how one ended up being discharged into two human beings on a film set.
Otherwise, all his testimony would do—at best—is underscore just how grossly she failed to adhere to standards.
At worst, the prosecution tears him apart on cross and makes him and his daughter both look like incompetent (and dangerous) buffoons who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a film set or a gun, let alone be responsible for multiple guns on a film set.
It’s interesting that six month OSHA investigation found many violations that didn’t meet Motion Picture safety guidelines. Rust was fined the maximum (130k). They knew the crew was concerned about safety on Rust. It was one reason the camera crew quit.
Production should have remedied the situation by either replacing Hannah or making her work under a more experienced armorer. The day they had two accidental misfires was clearly the time for Production to act.
Is she criminally guilty for Halyna Hutchins death? I’m not sure how the jury will decide. There no question she was incompetent.
I hope this awful defense lawyer didn’t convince his client to reject a plea deal. He didn’t get anywhere cross examining witnesses, his own had little useful to say. I’m listening to his closing argument right now and it’s pathetic. On a jury I’d have a hard time finding her not guilty. She clearly did not do her job to ensure gun safety on the set, witnesses testified to this and there substantial photographic evidence of that as well. I think the jury won’t convict her on the charge of hiding evidence related to a little bag of cocaine. The state had no credible evidence that there was cocaine or even if it was that it was relevant to the matter at hand. On every other matter I think the state has made her look like an incompetent and thoughtless armorer and the shooting was an inevitable event. Despite the defense trying to say she is being scapegoated the jury is aware that Alec Baldwin has also been charged because of his failures of responsibility as a producer and actor handling firearms.
DId anybody see the news article this morning about the defense’s expert witness being admonished by the judge for pointing a revolver at the judge before demonstrating to the judge and everyone else that it was unloaded. The article was in the Santa Fe New Mexican.
That had to be a very serious “oh crap” moment for the defense attorneys.
Was he by any chance Clement Vallandigham?
Yeah, when your “expert” demonstrates incompetence and negligence that freaks the judge out, you just lost what credibility you might have had, if that was the best you could do for a witness.
Hope they didn’t pay this guy much.
I only saw the part of the cross linked in that video. I don’t think the cross was devastating. I don’t know know about this guys qualifications, but he held up fine on cross examination.
Except for putting his own competence and qualification to even be there in serious doubt.
“No, no, it’s OK. I know what I’m doing.”
Guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Not guilty of tampering with evidence