Printable View
No, being adult means being responsible, and hence a loss of innocence, ala Peter Pan. She could have spoke up if things were going wrong, but she didn't assume the responsibility for control. Now she, through her lawyer, is claiming innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Some one getting killed on a movie set is not just objectionable its a tradgedy, keep in mind it could be bad wiring or unsafe stunts not necessarily poor control of weaponsQuote:
Originally Posted by old goat
there were apparently 3 instances of gun safety infractions on that set if you were the person in charge of gun safety and you either lack the expertise to control the situ or people arent listening would you soldier OR quit ?
The armor is supposed to demonstrate that the gun barrel is clear and that the chambers are empty to the assistant director. At that point it is up to the Assistant Director to declare the gun “cold“.
Clearly multiple people did not do their jobs properly. If either of these two had followed their proper safety checks, none of this could’ve occurred.
You sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Attachment 391288
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
Both amusing and frustrating...Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
At the airline level, each person is responsible for what they've received training for. Cross-checks are expected only within the parameters of said training. Beyond that, there are company operations manuals and specific job category manuals that outline exactly what the duties of any given position are. So the pilots don't know how to fix the airplane, the flight attendants don't know how to fly it, etc.
So in that sense, Baldwin (the actor) is theoretically only responsible for what he's been directed to do.
BUT, the pilots do review the maintenance log, and perform preflight inspections that include walk arounds, and might come across something that isn't technically something they've been trained for, nor defined by a company manual as a responsibly specific to their position, but just doesn't seem right. In that instance 'good airmanship' should be applied.
So had Baldwin exercised 'good gunmanship' maybe this tragedy could have be averted. And going forward, the industry's SOPs definitely need to change, but as it stands I'm still of the opinion that it's a "but you're not as confused as Nigel. It's not your job to be as confused as Nigel!" situation.
No, but I used to use that line all the time " Does the jet pilot fix his own airplane ? no I don't know how to operate that computer but i can fix it " so all that was really required is that the the customer bought the line and they always didQuote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker
I don't think an actor should be required to know gun safety, instead they should be handed an unloaded weapon
Shouldn't anyone using a gun know gun safety 101?Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
and then violate the 101 rules they learned because that's what the script demands? if you go bungee jumping at a commercial outfit, and they put a harness on you, make sure it is sized correctly and is tight, they rig the bungees and connect you, are you supposed to know "climbing 101" to know how to inspect the harness for proper fit, the rigging for the correct knots, etc, or are you entitled to rely on the people paid to correctly do those exact things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
So, is this then the passengers fault for not double checking on the pilot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...;v=gCQyKJr6pJA
The term pilot applied somewhat loosely. smh
Hope he got a refund.
You're not probably gonna kill anyone but yourself bungee jumping, or is that subtle difference lost on you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
If you ever handle a gun with that mentality, please make sure nobody is anywhere near you.
I just want to say how impressed I am that Y'all figured out the causes and blame without the help of pure/antigravity
Carry on
are you using it as " a gun " or " a movie prop " i think there is a differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
as a gun you wana hit what you intend to hit and don't hit what you don't wana hit
as a movie prop you are most likely trying to look like you are killing something
So it was the wind?Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
So who would be better flying a prop plane on a movie set without killing anyone... Alec Baldwin or Harrison Ford? Same question on a treadmill
Who do you want dead? Just the actor, or some bystanders as well?
Whoa whoa whoa, stay in your lane bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
We take gun safety advice from MTT.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Snort.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47bp
She says she did speak up about unsafe practices, repeatedly. Or did you not bother to read the link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin
Obviously someone getting killed was a tragedy. I never said it wasn't. But unsafe practices on the set are not by themselves a tragedy and that is what I am talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
If there is anyone here who quit every time they saw something unsafe, unethical, or illegal at work--every time--then they should be canonized. If that is only what they expect of others they are pontificating hypocrites.
Until it is determined how real ammo wound up on the set and how it wound up in the gun there is no way to know if the armorer was wholly or partly responsible.
I dunno, I came in 48th place out of 53 last SaturdayQuote:
Originally Posted by AK47bp
Not a movie set
Attachment 391325
When I have fucked up at work people are disappointed at lack of communication.. occasionally it's legit.
Usually it's miscommunication which isn't actually my fault, but sometimes has been.
No one ever has ever died.
If life or death were a part of my job it would be a whole different story..
#justsaying
were you shooting a gun or a movie prop ?
couldn't you have been written into the script as coming 1st ?
maybe if you tried a little harder to play the part & wore at least SOME Camo ?
Prepare yourself for lefty jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Depends on if I’m paying for a flight on relaxing vacation or part of the crew making the flight arrive at the destination safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound
I wonder what mrs JPH would say ?
not so far
I have a couple videos but ? I suckQuote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
I have not seen any real updates on this. Kinda quiet? I even checked TMZ
I don’t know what to think about the armourer. I suspect her career has come to a screeching halt. Or ?
The armorer was a 24 year old woman on her second gig on a movie set. IM (limited) E, movie sets are just full of entitled, pushy assholes. She was likely way inexperienced and I wouldn’t be surprised if she was marginalized as well as either ignored or overridden or both. I hope she has another career path handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Quoted for posterity……Get some help dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
There is a New York post story about her last words but I don’t think it’s news.Quote:
Originally Posted by seano732
I think I like this one better. You can see the spent shell mid flight as the gun bucks
Attachment 391350
All the help I need. A clean relaxing hobby
I’ve never met MTT, likely never will. I think he posts some stupid shit sometimes, not sure if he’s hurting or trolling sometimes. But given your frequently touted career in helping people, your constant baiting of him comes off as super petty, juvenile, and likely harmful. That goes for everyone else baiting him too, but a career in saving lives? Check yourself, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by seano732
Lighten up, Francis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
Maybe she can become a life coach to soccer moms who want to dabble in a little gun play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
How's her hat game?
IIRC, being a life coach didn't end well for Coach in Parvo's stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
The lawyers are getting to work. Here’s an interesting spin on the weapons specialist’s role.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...7604663c8.html
Quote:
Two New Mexico attorneys representing Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer working on the Rust film set, appeared on NBC's Today show Wednesday morning to share their theory that the fatal shooting Oct. 21 at Bonanza Creek Ranch was the result of sabotage.
Jason Bowles said Gutierrez-Reed loaded the gun with rounds she had grabbed from an ammunition box labeled "dummy." He proposed a live round — or several live rounds — may have been placed in the box.
"We're assuming somebody put the live round in that box," Bowles said. He is one of two Albuquerque-based attorneys representing Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the prop firearms used on the set, where Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office investigators say actor Alec Baldwin fired a revolver with a live round during a rehearsal in a church building, killing renowned cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, and wounding film director Joel Souza, 48.
The sheriff's office has not yet filed any criminal charges in the shooting but is continuing to investigate the incident to determine how a live round got into the revolver Baldwin was using on the set and why no one noticed the error until after the fatal shot.
"The person who put the live round in the box of dummy rounds had to have the purpose of sabotaging the set — there is no other reason you would do that," Bowles said on Today.
It was the second time this week a New Mexico attorney representing a film worker who may have handled Baldwin's revolver appeared on national television to defend their client.
Assistant director Dave Halls' attorney, Lisa Torraco, told Fox News on Monday he was "not responsible" for the tragedy.
"My client didn’t load the firearm, didn’t point the firearm at anyone and didn’t pull the trigger,” Torraco told reporter Martha MacCallum.
She also suggested Halls was not the person who handed Baldwin the firearm.
Halls and Gutierrez-Reed have come under heavy scrutiny since the incident. Search warrant affidavits written by sheriff's office investigators say Halls had grabbed the gun from a cart of weapons set up by Gutierrez-Reed and gave it to the 63-year-old Hollywood star and producer, and yelled, “Cold gun,” meaning it had no live rounds.
But Sheriff Adan Mendoza said Tuesday there have been "conflicting statements" about what occurred on the set that day.
Investigators are trying to schedule follow-up interviews with key witnesses, the sheriff said — he indicated those include Halls and Gutierrez-Reed — but have had "difficulty."
Robert Gorence, the second attorney representing Gutierrez-Reed, also spoke on Today, noting the revolver was left on a cart unattended from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. the day of the shooting. The ammunition was left in a "prop truck," he added.
Guns on set normally were locked in a safe, Gorence said.
The prop truck "was completely unattended at all times, giving someone access and opportunity," he said. "The tray was outside the church for over two hours after [Gutierrez-Reed] had prepped them for what was going to be an afternoon filming session."
The scenario contradicted what investigators described in a search warrant affidavit. The document said Gutierrez-Reed had told them the firearms were secured in a safe on the prop truck when the crew broke for lunch. She said the ammunition was left unsecured on a cart, according to the affidavit.
The attorneys told Today Gutierrez-Reed at one point showed the gun to Halls and spun the chamber, which was loaded with what she believed to be six dummy rounds.
Halls later took the gun into the church, where Gutierrez-Reed was not present, Gorence said.
Gutierrez-Reed had two roles on the set, he added. She also served as a key props assistant and was only paid "part-time" for her position as head armorer.
"At 11 [a.m.], nothing was going on at that point," Bowles said. "She had the guns prepped. She had them laid out on the cart. They then went to lunch. She had another duty and responsibility as key props assistant, and so she had gone to do that right after she had provided the handgun to Mr. Halls."
Sounds like her lawyers just accused her of negligence and lying to police.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skistack
"Investigators are trying to schedule follow-up interviews with key witnesses, the sheriff said — he indicated those include Halls and Gutierrez-Reed — but have had "difficulty."
Robert Gorence, the second attorney representing Gutierrez-Reed, also spoke on Today, noting the revolver was left on a cart unattended from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. the day of the shooting. The ammunition was left in a "prop truck," he added.
Guns on set normally were locked in a safe, Gorence said.
The prop truck "was completely unattended at all times, giving someone access and opportunity," he said. "The tray was outside the church for over two hours after [Gutierrez-Reed] had prepped them for what was going to be an afternoon filming session.""
Basically, I failed to control custody and access to firearms in the established 'normal' practices of my profession and role. FAIL.
To me, this reads more like - "oh shit, I know our shit n giggles plinking got someone killed so I'm going to sacrifice my armorer role fail in hopes of casting doubt about how a live round made it onto set - "maybe someone else did it?""
All you surmise may be true. However that does not let off the Assistant Director. Her job was to show him that the gun was clear and his job was to declare that the gun was clear. Or one or both of them did not complete the two-step process needed to declare the gun “cold”.
No argument. Like most horrible things - several failures needed to align.Quote:
Originally Posted by m2711c
" we are assuming " means nothing, its just some random FUD from a lawyer in a polyester suit
a random live round in a box ( box or 50 ? ) of ammo means nobody knows if it would have gone in a gun on this set even in this movie,
it could have even ended up in a gun that killed somebody everyone hates
in fact a live round could have ended up in the box from another movie
which is why this armorer was suposed to check