[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Sounds more like Kenney was able to prove his rounds were clean.

I feel what best fits the evidence is Gutierrez-Reed’s dad mixed them up, but this was such an unfathomable mistake from a world renowned pro it took longer than it should have to catch.

In the days following the shooting, Kenney went with the “it’s her fault no matter what because she’s the armorer” defense. This implies he felt his ability to prove the rounds he supplied were clean was in question.



Orphaned on last page:

Originally Posted by reader50 

Side question, for you rather than the case. Is it odd for multiple parties to bring ammo to a set? Feels like a security concern, and a liability issue. I'd expect all ammo to be accounted for through a single person, perhaps called an armorer.

The armorer is going to be the only person authorized to bring ammo to the set.

Kenney handed his supply over to the armorer.

[subego]

A friend of Thell Reed brought ammunition to the police he said was pertinent to the killing. The prosecution deemed it irrelevant, but failed to inform or make it available to the defense.

The prosecution decided to publicly defend this to the judge, and the special prosecutor walked in protest.

Judge didn’t buy what the prosecution was selling. Case dismissed with prejudice. Baldwin’s a free man.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

A friend of Thell Reed brought ammunition to the police he said was pertinent to the killing. The prosecution deemed it irrelevant, but failed to inform or make it available to the defense.

The prosecution decided to publicly defend this to the judge, and the special prosecutor walked in protest.

A Brady violation, seriously? No matter what you think of the case, I think you can expect Baldwin to have top notch legal representation and lots of public attention to the case.

I wonder whether this has any implication for the armorer's case, too. (I haven't kept tabs, but I reckon this is something to file an appeal if one hasn't been filed already.)

[subego]

FWIU, the armorer wants to add it to her appeal, which is already in progress.

Not sure how that would work though. Introducing new evidence to an appeal is tricky. Also, it’s not like the evidence comes from a disinterested party. Lastly, IIUC, he didn’t give it to the police until the day the jury in her trial delivered a verdict.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIU, the armorer wants to add it to her appeal, which is already in progress.

Not sure how that would work though. Introducing new evidence to an appeal is tricky.

Yeah, I was following the Adnan Syed story for many years and learnt how difficult that is even if the prosecution's or police's behavior is egregious. So I have no idea. But in the end, this might tip the conviction. It did in Syed's case, it just took two decades.

[reader50]

I'm annoyed that Baldwin's role as producer wasn't allowed to be considered. While a court determined the armorer was the immediate cause, the root cause was likely cheapskate producers cutting corners to save money. If so and it isn't punished, it will keep happening.

[OreoCookie]

@reader
I agree. That’s the pity here. A court case is also for the public to better understand what has happened. It would have been worthwhile to figure out the culpability of top management to judge the actions of the armorer or Baldwin-the-actor.

The armorer got less lucky as the (potential) Brady violation was disclosed well after she got sentenced. (Just to be clear, I don’t know whether the disclosure would have changed her verdict or set Baldwin free, but it should have been weighed.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm annoyed that Baldwin's role as producer wasn't allowed to be considered. While a court determined the armorer was the immediate cause, the root cause was likely cheapskate producers cutting corners to save money. If so and it isn't punished, it will keep happening.

Here’s the relevant part from the judge on this

“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that as a producer he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore as an actor Mr. Baldwin did all of these things wrong that resulted in the death of Ms. Hutchins because as a producer he allowed these things to happen,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said. “I’m denying evidence of his status as a producer.”

Which I would summarize as “you have to pick one”.

I personally would pick producer, because as an actor he’s innocent.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which I would summarize as “you have to pick one”.

I personally would pick producer, because as an actor he’s innocent.

I agree with this. Baldwin as an actor might have been careless (pointing a gun at someone during warmup), but that seems weak. No one has alleged Baldwin had anything to do with the live ammo getting on set.

However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.

btw, I also agree with Oreo about understanding what happened. I was looking forward to the court determining where the live ammo came from. Yes, the armorer didn't catch them - but who provided them in the first place? We've heard several theories, but it never got settled.

[subego]

AFAIK, the shot was being framed, so the gun needed to be pointed where it was to be pointed during actual filming.

As for how the ammo got on the set, the best theory I’ve heard so far is my own.

Thell Reed mixed them up and then handed them off to his daughter, who didn’t check them because she assumed her dad wasn’t a fuckup.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I agree with this. Baldwin as an actor might have been careless (pointing a gun at someone during warmup), but that seems weak. No one has alleged Baldwin had anything to do with the live ammo getting on set.

Yeah, which is why I think the criminal case of Baldwin-the-actor was relatively weak.

Originally Posted by reader50 

However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.

Yeah, that would have been much more difficult to establish, but ultimately it is what IMHO should have mattered.

Originally Posted by reader50 

btw, I also agree with Oreo about understanding what happened. I was looking forward to the court determining where the live ammo came from. Yes, the armorer didn't catch them - but who provided them in the first place? We've heard several theories, but it never got settled.

Yes, and it would have mattered at least for sentencing.

[Waragainstsleep]

Given the overlap (or near overlap) of trials of Baldwin and Trump, it occurred to me that it could be amusing/interesting if by chance they had ended up in a cell together.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

However, Producer Baldwin apparently provided some of the budget, and probably had a lot to do with general safety sloppiness. Most likely to save money.

The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.

The specific safety sloppiness most relevant to the killing was the armorer failing to inventory the dummies. I don’t see how that can be pinned on the production cheaping-out.


Edit: for example, Baldwin has been criticized for not respecting safety meetings. Well, no amount of safety meetings would have fixed the problem of the armorer inserting a live round instead of a dummy.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.

Saving money on personnel. Not paying for a more experienced armorer, perhaps not paying for an assistant armorer, maybe not paying for overtime, so she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?

Possibly cheaping out on emergency medical personnel on site, resulting in a victim bleeding out?

Saving money almost always involves skipping things. People, safety margins, having extra resources sitting around doing nothing - until they're needed.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more I think about this, the more I’m wondering how production is responsible.

The specific safety sloppiness most relevant to the killing was the armorer failing to inventory the dummies. I don’t see how that can be pinned on the production cheaping-out.

There are tons of similar cases when it comes to e. g. air plane crashes. One example is forcing policies on pilots and crew that would not leave them enough time to rest. Or pressuring pilots not to divert, because diversions are very expensive for airlines. Or airlines not spending enough on pilot training.

In my mind it would have been very important to adopt this lens for part of the investigation. After all, I reckon that shoestring budgets and the like are not unique to Rust, but that on most movie sets people are luckier.

If you look back at my post, I was very skeptical as to whether you can conclude that there is criminal negligence by any one party. Now you were right and I was wrong about predicting the outcome of the armorer's trial. Despite that, I think a proper trial is the right forum to decide this question as a society.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Saving money on personnel. Not paying for a more experienced armorer, perhaps not paying for an assistant armorer, maybe not paying for overtime, so she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?

Or having her work overtime for days on end so that she wasn't rested enough.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Saving money almost always involves skipping things. People, safety margins, having extra resources sitting around doing nothing - until they're needed.

Yes, especially since most of the time, emergency personnel is “doing nothing” and “isn't needed”. It is easy to see how an organization can come to the conclusion that you save money here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given the overlap (or near overlap) of trials of Baldwin and Trump, it occurred to me that it could be amusing/interesting if by chance they had ended up in a cell together.

You'd wonder whether Baldwin would just annoy the living shirt out of Trump by interacting with him as him. (Baldwin did a Trump impression on SNL several times.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

she's expected to check ammo at home (from her dad?) while working for free?

Honestly, I expect her to do that, demand more time, or quit. Those are her choices.

“Production didn’t give me proper resources, oh wel… BLAM” is not an acceptable choice on her part.

Further, that very day there was a walkout. She had hours of sudden downtime directly preceding the event.



Edit: to clarify my first sentence, if she had chosen to do it on her own time, that would mean staying late (or arriving early) and doing the inventory on set.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think a proper trial is the right forum to decide this question as a society.

I agree. Likewise, this production appears to have been so crummy it would make an excellent subject of analysis.

The problem I see is while production created an unquestionably unsafe environment, my instincts tell me the critical fuckup occurred independently from the unsafe environment.

To use my pet theory as an example, if the armorer failed to check the ammo because she mistakenly trusted her father? Doesn’t have jack shit to do with production.

Regardless of how the mixup occurred, the fact remains the armorer failed to inventory the bullets.

I posit this must have happened very early in the production, if not even before actual filming took place. If so, it’s very possible many of the (legit) complaints against the production didn’t have time to manifest.

For example, the charge of overworking people. The armorer was so overworked she couldn’t complete her job… on like day two?

Baldwin is accused of, and I imagine is 100% guilty of being an intimidating, pushy, skinflint asshole. Again… on like, day two? I assume Baldwin’s attitude tracked strongly with how over-budget the production was. Like I said, day two. Was the production so phenomenally out of control he was peeling heads this soon after it began? I mean, had she really even had a chance to meet the guy yet?

To put it another way, many (but not all) of the horrible practices we can pin on the production are cumulative problems. Being overworked doesn’t happen on day two, it’s week two. Same with people displaying how much of a flaming asshole they are. Stuff generally needs to go pear-shaped first. That can happen almost immediately, but it’s more commonly a slide.

One of the issues this doesn’t negate is the question of whether production had an obligation to fire the armorer, or knowingly hired someone incompetent. I’ll save that for later.