Well I’ve certainly been saying it, and, strictly speaking, it’s technically correct. The best kind of correct, really.
But, as I have also said, industry standards may be strong evidence of what a reasonable person would do, which is generally what negligence comes down to.
To be clear, are you saying that the industrial standards for negligence don’t matter and that it’s what counts as negligence in the state?
I’m saying that industry doesn’t make law. Industry standards are evidence of what a reasonable person might do (and that, generally, is what the law of negligence is about: what a reasonable person might do), but the law is not bound by industry standards.
OK, so this is a “technical” argument rather than what actually will be used in the trial. In the Gutierrez-Reed trial, the prosecutor presented an expert witness to testify what the industry standards are and why those standards were not being followed in Rust and directly linked that as evidence of Gutierrez-Reed guilt.
As they didn’t use your arguments, then that debate seems more of a theoretical GD discussion.
As someone who got sucked into the armorer’s trial, and will likely follow Baldwin’s trial, I’ll stick to the issues relevant to this case.
20 posts were split to a new topic: Safety, industry standards, law, and regulation (hijack from baldwin thread)
Nah. It’s not cool (but i know you were being sarcastic). A women is dead because the armorer and the AD fucked up in a very big way. Baldwin of course was just doing his job.
It’s not a given that Baldwin was “just doing his job.” In my post above, 2697, I detailed a number of items which the prosecutors have argued in the Gutierrez-Reed trial that Baldwin was negligent.
As I wrote in that post, the prosecutors believe that both the armorer and Baldwin are at fault.
Moderating: About 20 posts hijacking this thread have been moved to
Please try to stick to breaking news relevant discussion in this thread.
Part of that post:
Reports at the time were that he was rehearsing a scene where he cross draws (is that the term?) to point the gun at the camera. Also multiple people (Baldwin and the guy standing right next to him) say he did not pull the trigger. That he was practicing the cross draw and trying to get the action correct when the gun went off.
This prosecution claim seems to be their own and not based on any witness account of what happened.
They will have to present evidence for any such claims at his trial.
IANAL, but it’s my understanding that the prosecution cannot make claims in either their opening or closing arguments that are not supported by evidence.
Obviously, the defense can present their contradictory evidence and then it will be up to the jury to decide which they believe.
As far as Baldwin’s claim that he didn’t pull the trigger, evidence was introduced at the Gutierrez-Reed trial that the gun could not have discharged without pulling the trigger.
Here is an article from prior to the trial:
A FBI forensics expert testified a Gutierrez’s trial that the gun could not have malfunctioned as Baldwin claims.
It’s typical for there to be conflicting claims, which is why we have trials in which evidence is introduced, including sworn testimony.
A jury heard evidence again the armorer and conviced her. Baldwin will have his day in court, and we will see what happens then.
I feel like every time someone mentions the whole ‘they tested the gun’ thing, it should also be mentioned that they broke the gun in the process of testing it. They then proved that the gun, fitted with brand new parts, couldn’t be fired without pulling the trigger.
Ziegler said he used the rawhide mallet to strike the gun
During that test, he broke several components of the gun. The fractured parts included the tip of the trigger, the sear and the hammer.
That expert, Lucien C. Haag, studied the gun and rebuilt it with new parts. “The trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver,”
The FBI report said that during testing, analysts could not fire the gun when the hammer was cocked, unless they pulled the trigger. However, the report did note that when the hammer was in the “rest” position, the gun could fire “without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly” by another object.
My emphasis
I don’t know enough about all this, but when they broke the gun, I figured that would have been the end of this. Even then, ISTM, that they could get the gun to fire without pulling the trigger, IMO, means “it won’t fire unless the trigger is pulled” is a false statement.
It is absolutely mind boggling that they could destroy the evidence, and then test the thing they recreated claiming that such says anything about what the gun would or would not do before they destroyed (tampered with) it.
Yeah we destroyed the rape kit but we put new semen on it and have proven the rapist could not be the accused.
But what is the story they want believed? Imagine that they tested the gun before it was tampered with and it showed it would not have gone off on its own. Why did he, in their minds, perform a reckless act of intentionally pulling the trigger?
Baldwin intentionally pulled the trigger when not instructed to because he thought it would funny to scare the crew having the blank go off, prankster that he is?
That’s a hard thing to prove. Or to get anyone to believe is remotely likely.
Is there any believable, let alone provable, scenario under which he pulled the trigger with intent?
The defendant claimed that his brakes failed before the collision. While inspecting the brakes, a mechanic broke the master cylinder. He replaced it with a new master cylinder, then determined that the brakes were in proper working condition.
I’m pretty sure this is why it broke. They were trying to find a way to make it fire without pulling the trigger, and the gun broke before it would fire.
I get that Baldwin doesn’t think he pulled the trigger. He pulled the trigger.
Does it really matter if he pulled the trigger or not? There was no live ammo on the set, right?* and he was told that the professional responsible for prop gun safety had cleared the prop for use.** The only thing you can say about Baldwin vis-a-vis the trigger pull is he may have either lied about it or was honestly mistaken about it. Either way, it’s in NO WAY his fault for the DP’s death because how could he have even imagined that a pro would fuck up her job so completely. It’s like saying it would be the pit crew’s fault if at a professional auto race the wheel lug nuts the crew were supplied with had faulty threading and a wheel came off resulting in a fatal crash,
*Wrong. There was and that’s not Baldwin’s responsibility unless it can be shown that he brought the live ammo onto the set.
** This "professional did not do her job. She failed miserably and that resulted in a death. Not Baldwin’s responsibility.
Yes, if he, for some reason did it with intent.
Intent to make the gun go click?
If it can be demonstrated that he wanted to frighten someone by being irresponsible with the gun, I’d listen to that evidence, but boy, you have a tall road to climb to make me think someone holding what is supposed to be a cold inoperable prop can intend to cause harm by pulling the trigger.
From the article linked a few posts up:
However, the report did note that when the hammer was in the “rest” position, the gun could fire “without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly” by another object.
Either the gun could fire without the trigger being pulled or it can’t. It sounds to me like it can.
True. The original gun, well used and old, may have been defective, so rebuilding it then saying “See the proves it” is bogus.
I would expect the defense will have at least one gun expert who can hammer that point home, and explain how the gun could indeed have fired without a trigger pull based on its condition before damage and repairs.