it’s pretty clear they attorneys on either side will say anything to win, regardless of how ridiculous
Do remember that, in court, neither the defense nor the prosecution lawyers are under oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Neither, is the judge, for that matter.
we also heard testimony some if not many armorers place the cold or hot gun directly into the holster or wherever its to be for the start of the scene . If thats even somewhat true how is an actor ever supposed to check and see if the gun is loaded ?
IDK but I have a suspicion either Alec Baldwin a professional armor or both is going to get up on the stand in Baldwin trial and say the actor never unloads the gun and checks the ammunition before a scene
My understanding of the applicable SAG rules is that the guns are not supposed to be loaded with anything when brought to the set. The ARMORER then loads the gun IN FRONT OF THE ACTOR, director and everyone else, shaking each dummy in front of the actor to hear the rattle of the BBs inside proving it is not a live round, then places the "loaded" gun into the actor's holster or hands. No one else touches the gun.
Testimony that the actor never unloads the gun to check the ammunition before a scene would be accurate and truthful, because, IF the rules were followed, the actor doesn't need to do that, he SAW and HEARD that they were dummies, when the gun was loaded in front of him, and no one else has touched it, and the gun has not been out of his sight, or physical control.
As I understand it, under the movie rules, IF the "loaded" gun does get out of the actor's sight, and physical control, the armorer is supposed to unload the gun, then repeat the loading process completely, again, so everyone can see that dummies or blanks are used.
Also, as I understand it, the rules require that the armorer bring the guns to the set, and be present as long as the guns are there. And that guns should not be on the set when they are not required for filming. As I understand it, when the guns are not required to be on the set for filming, they are supposed to be secured under lock and key and the armorer is supposed to be the only one with the key.
Having worked in industry where this rule applied to certain things, I can tell you that there is almost never "just" one key. There is nearly always a second key, and it is kept by management, secured so that no one else has access to it without direct approval by the manager in charge of the keybox. It is there for emergency response use only if the authorized key custodian cannot be reached, and not for the use as a convenience to the production schedule. And, of course, there is always the "master key" (boltcutters) if needed, but use of the master key leaves evidence it was used (cut lock) while someone using the "spare" key (with or without management permission) does not.
SO, consider this "hypothetical" situation...
The crew is going to /or on the set to rehearse, check camera angles, lighting, etc. Guns are not needed for this, so the armorer is sent to a different location, to conduct other property management duties.
Then someone with the "boss" authority decided they do want the guns on the set, to enhance the realism of the rehearsal. They don't recall the armorer from where they were sent, the send someone else (with the spare key) to get the guns, and ammo, and bring them to the set.
Then on the set, someone who is not the armorer (because they are not there) loads the guns and hands them to the actors. The actor(s) "know" the guns are not loaded with live ammo, because they have been told so, and since they "know" the guns are "harmless" they screw around with them, practicing drawing operating the mechanisms, without regard for who or what the guns are pointed at. That day, on that set, during rehearsal, that resulted in a woman being killed and a man injured.
How many industry rules with broken or completely ignored? Nearly every one. How much of that is actually the armorer's fault??
we don't know if the hypothetical I just proposed was what actually went on at the RUST site or not, but it seems plausible to me. Hopefully we will eventually have sworn testimony covering what happened.
