but the obvious logic that, no matter what anyone else did, had the armorer performed her job (or whoever did in her stead)--no live round would have ever made it into the revolver for Baldwin to fire is pretty compelling.
I think Branca addressed that aspect pretty well when he said something along the lines of it doesn't matter if everyone else had failed, it doesn't matter if the ammo supplier gave them thousands of rounds of live ammo, it doesn't matter who said what--if the armorer had done their job--a very simple one at that, no live round would have been fired. Everything after that is incidental to the actual cause of the killing. Was Baldwin stupid in pointing the firearm at anyone and not following SAG guidelines? Yes. But it could have happened to any idiot on the set who didn't know what was actually in the gun. All that said, where I think Baldwin IS most vulnerable for charges is, at least how it appears to me, is ignoring previous signs of trouble and hiring people who were likely not qualified (which is why I suggested there needs to be some rigorous way of determining adequate and provable experience and training that assures that anyone would know whether or not someone is qualified). He should be roasted, and so should Ms Pickle (or whatever her name was).It is compelling, and it is true, but it doesn't get Baldwin a pass in my book.
Either way.
First, as head of the production, it was his responsibility to see that the people hired did the jobs they were hired to do correctly. He did not.
and in the end, as the man who pointed the gun and operated it, he did not personally verify it was a "cold gun" he just took the word of the guy who handed it to him. Even if the gun had been fully loaded with live ammo, if Baldwin had not done what he did, no one would have been shot.
To me, that is the overriding factor. Everyone else's failure to follow the rules are contributing factors. Baldwin not following the rules is the reason a woman was killed. I don't see how you can argue against that.
Then why hire an armorer to begin with?And I would offer the exact opposite:
That it didn't/wouldn't matter what ANYone else did or didn't do...
if the last man in the chain had done what anyone/everyone should
always do... check the gun.
That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?
I haven't watched the full videos of every day of the trial, but I'm not aware that any witness has testified that she was present in the church during that rehearsal.mehavey said:That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?
IMHO a better question is, "Why hire an armorer and then not allow her to perform the duties required of an armorer?"stagpanther said:Then why hire an armorer to begin with?
Doesn't matter; whoever she did hand off to (apparently Halls) does not constitute "passing the buck" to someone else; unless there is conclusive proof that he somehow deliberately altered what was in the revolver, of which so far there is 0 evidence submitted to that effect as far as I know. You can't speculate on conspiracy theories, sunspot activity, interference by Venezuelan dictators (my personal favorite) etc. as to why what was in the revolver wasn't put there by the armorer without evidence.I haven't watched the full videos of every day of the trial, but I'm not aware that any witness has testified that she was present in the church during that rehearsal.
This is just a wild ass guess, the armorer position was added as extra safety. It was never intended to take away the responsibility of the shooter.Then why hire an armorer to begin with?
The comment you responded to was in reference to the possible guilt of Baldwin for pointing and firing the firearm. Your response is in reference to the possible guilt of Baldwin and the production company for their hiring practices and how the armorer was controlled or not controlled.Other, experienced, armorers they approach told them they needed at least TWO full-time armorers due to the number of firearms. Instead, they hired ONE young rookie, and made her only a part-time armorer. Then they supplemented her with two other young women, who knew nothing about firearms.
It's not productive to keep doing what person 2 is doing in the following discussion:There are two separate issues here and they need to be kept separate.
1. Did the person who was holding the gun at the time it discharged/was discharged and killed one person and injured another commit a crime?
2. Did the person/persons running the organization commit crimes that led to a person holding a gun being discharged and killing/injuring persons on set.
COINCIDENTALLY, the person in both questions is the same person, but the two issues are still separate and need to be discussed separately because the two crimes, and therefore the laws that apply are different.
Trying to constantly switch back and forth just muddies the water.
There are no "shooters" on set.This is just a wild ass guess, the armorer position was added as extra safety. It was never intended to take away the responsibility of the shooter.
I think Branca addressed that aspect pretty well when he said something along the lines of it doesn't matter if everyone else had failed, it doesn't matter if the ammo supplier gave them thousands of rounds of live ammo, it doesn't matter who said what--if the armorer had done their job--a very simple one at that, no live round would have been fired. Everything after that is incidental to the actual cause of the killing. Was Baldwin stupid in pointing the firearm at anyone and not following SAG guidelines? Yes. But it could have happened to any idiot on the set who didn't know what was actually in the gun. All that said, where I think Baldwin IS most vulnerable for charges is, at least how it appears to me, is ignoring previous signs of trouble and hiring people who were likely not qualified (which is why I suggested there needs to be some rigorous way of determining adequate and provable experience and training that assures that anyone would know whether or not someone is qualified). He should be roasted, and so should Ms Pickle (or whatever her name was).
That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?
Doesn't matter; whoever she did hand off...
unless there is conclusive proof that he somehow deliberately altered what was in the revolver, of which so far there is 0 evidence submitted to that effect as far as I know.
Do we now know who actually loaded the gun that (Ass't Dir) Halls was reputed to hand to Baldwin calling out out “cold gun” ?"...your boss gave you the keys to the tractor that
he just wrongly repaired the brakes on . . . ."
Negligence is about failing to take ordinary care.If you're trying to suggest that it doesn't matter whether she was present or not, it matters a great deal. You can be my boss, in charge of me, AND EVEN responsible for my actions to our employer. If you are gone, and I take actions in your absence that leads to a death, then how are you CRIMINALLY liable (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) for my actions? Absent direct orders from you to take the action that I took, or that you intentionally (or negligently, if the statute allows for negligence) set the stage and circumstances for my actions that deliberately guides my actions, with witnesses backing that up; you are largely off the criminal hook.