Ok, according to the AD my speculation is wrong. If we believe him, then she is mostly or entirely at fault.
Jerking the trigger, as inexperienced shooters do, pulls the muzzle off the aiming point toward the firing hand. It’s one of the first habits people have to unlearn while they’re shooting.
In fact, Baldwin is so inexperienced that we can’t even be sure his initial aiming point was correct.
Yeah, compensation for Coriolis is always hard to remember. I have to do the right-hand rule thing, but then is the bullet spinning the other way? Way too much trouble; lasers are so much simpler.
There’s still the matter that there was a real, non-dummy bullet in the weapon. Whether she was involved with the scene or not, that seems like the absolute lowest bar for the job of the armorer… to ensure that no real bullets are ever loaded into a weapon designated as a prop. There is simply no reason that real bullets should be on the set, let alone anywhere near a prop weapon.
It really sounds like, in this case, the armorer was not the very seasoned and serious firearms expert that armorers are made out to be.
Moderating: This discussion of aiming vs. pointing vs. where the bullet actually ends up has become a hijack. I’ve only highlighted the most recent instance, but everyone please drop it.
A more plausible, but still very unlikely revenge scheme is “I’ll put this live bullet in the box, and when it’s discovered, the filming will be shut down for days while everyone tries to figure out how this happened, and how to make the filming safe again”
I see this as falling under “You had one job!” She’s not supposed to miss it. It’s her job not to miss it.
Not arguing for or against your point, but I got to wondering: One billion rounds fired during the past 100 years would be about 27,000 rounds every single day.
Are you taking into account the Rambo franchise?..
Although my understanding is that she had two jobs, and was also in charge of props or something.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but removing the spent casing after the tragedy did ensure that her fingerprints being on the (formerly) live round can be explained in a way that doesn’t involve her being the one who originally put it in.
True but there could be plenty of other damning circumstantial evidence to fill in the gaps. Can police find her fingerprints on the other live cartridges they reportedly seized on set? Can police find those kinds of live cartridges in her house or office? Can other people testify that they saw her shooting live rounds with the prop guns? (This seems less likely since news reports haven’t further substantiated the claim that crew were shooting guns on or near the set. By now, I would have expected the news to have found sources confirming and providing more details about the on-set plinking if it really happened.)
It might also fall under the category of “Guns don’t need safeties. My trigger finger is my safety!”
Or, more generally, the sort of complacency that may arise after familiarity, and lead one to disregard a layered protection scheme built around redundancy due to their own failures of imagination. Here, for instance, one might have assumed a live round just the right size to fit the gun couldn’t possibly find its way onto set (understanding there remain uncorroborated ,reports of target shooting during off periods) and so any sort of visual inspection could be dispensed with, provided there were also no blanks loaded and ready to use.
It was a replica of an 1873 Colt SAA. You have to half cock the gun to move the cylinder, and you can only look into/inspect/eject from one cylinder at a time. There is an ejector rod built into the gun underneath the barrel for ejecting cartridges out of the cylinder. So… not so obvious an in a gun with a break-open action or a swing-out barrel. Not a problem if you know what you’re doing but as I’ve said before, Baldwin was hired to act, not to be a firearms expert. That’s what the armorer was for.
The armorer should have been aware of where those guns and the ammunition was at all times. She shouldn’t have been expected to do two jobs. The gun props and accessories should not have been left unattended on a cart, for just anyone to be able to grab without her knowledge.
Now, it is possible that someone currently unknown mixed live round in with the dummy props. It is the job of a lawyer to defend their client, including proposing unlikely or at the very least unproven theories. The trick for Ms. Gutierrez-Reed and her lawyers is proving that.
Except she was hired to do TWO jobs. Not just one. Which was one of many errors made during this production.
If it gets to a criminal trial, they’ll be happy if able to just introduce reasonable doubt.
It’s especially implausible when you remember that
Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office investigators have collected hundreds of rounds of ammunition — some suspected to be live — from the set of the Western film Rust at Bonanza Creek Ranch
“Some” is more than one.
Yeah, sounds like that’s not a valid excuse… As I quoted upthread:
[Bolding was mine in the original post.]
You can continue to hand-wave gun safety away all you want. Movie sets have the same due-diligence as any other occupation using guns.
The cavalier attitude defending this lack of control in movies is the reason someone is dead. In this unfinished movie alone there were 3 other incidences. That’s not a good record at all.
The expectation of an armorer is that they look at the cartridge they are loading.
The thing is that normal gun safety is incompatible with making movies. It’s hard to point a gun at someone’s head while also following the “don’t point a gun at somebody” rule. So there needs to be alternative safety measures that mitigate the additional risk presented by having to break some of the standard safety rules. This means that movie set gun safety and off-set gun safety are different, but should be just as safe. Criticising the lack of normal gun safety rules in the context of a movie set is just a big red herring. The established rules for movie sets seem to be just fine, as long as they are followed.
To put into another context that you are also familiar with. Airplanes flown at airshows break lots of rules that apply to airplanes not flown at airshows. To mitigate the additional risk, alternative rules are put in place to make it as safe as possible while also allowing the activity to occur.
It would be ridiculous to criticise the pilot who crashes at an airshow for not following the usual non-airshow rules, and yet that is what you are doing here by insisting on applying standard gun safety rules to a non-standard situation.
The chain of custody of this gun is very unclear at the moment. Someones obviously lying since all the different stories are not compatible