The 24-year-old head armorer of Alec Baldwin's movie 'Rust' told a podcast she 'almost didn't take' her last job because she wasn't sure if she was 'ready'

Dude, you can't see the business end of the round when you open the cylinder - you see the primer end. The round must be removed from the cylinder to see the other end.

Decayed Brain Martter wrote: =============================

The rare slang term " wheel gun" refers to a type of gun. The bullet " cylinder " is known everywhere only by that name.

FOAD you Schizo POS asshole .

...... Phil

Flyguy wrote: ==========

You do not even need to open the f****ng cylinder:

...... Phil

Which is fair enough but they shouldn't have lead bullets in them if they are intended as stage props for close ups. Live ammunition is distinctly nose heavy. There is no reason why stage props have to be so.

The key point appears to be that at least one live round somehow got mixed up with the look alike close shot dummy rounds.

Anyoe with any good training at all would know not to point a gun at theirselves , especially to check to see if it was loaded.

The old western guns cylinders do not swing out. There is no way from the back end of the gun to give it a quick look. The loading gate must be opened and the cylinder rotated by hand so each hole will pass by to check to see if anything is in the gun.

From what I am seeing is that some of the stage people were using live rounds to shoot to pass time when not working.

That should have never been allowed.

If not Baldwin himself. At least with him knowing. The 24 yro was only on the job for days, still figuring out how to get to the restroom.

So you think Baldwin knew all about getting to the restroom which makes him responsible for the actions of a professional and expert in a field?

I think we should hold Caltran responsible! If they provided free movie props, the filming would have been in California where safety is more important than getting work done with the only shooting being with a camera.

Well, he is responsible for firing the previous armorer and hiring the new armorer. But until the new armorer is up to speed, the boss is still responsible for what happened. If i am her, i would say:

Defendent absolutely and category deny any responsibility to the incident. I was hired to the job only days before the time of the incident, and was still in the process of the transition of taking over the task. When the transition task is completed, i would secure the properties (firearms and bullets) in my absolute and total control, including but not limited to, checking all inventories and changing all locks. However, this defendent was not yet in total control of the situation, and despite my suggestion, the primary defendent went ahead with production before the proper transition was completed.

The same armorer had previously handed a gun to a child actress, an 11 year-old girl, without adequately inspecting it. Nobody would hold the girl responsible if there had been an accident.

Ralph Mowery snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

I agree. Any shooting range should be constructed at least 50 yards from any set and facing away from it.

Naaaaw... I really do agree with you, pay no atention to that joke. There is a time and a place for extracirricular activities and that is after shooting... and OFF set. And one's guns and ammo belong off set as well.

In NYC one has to keep one's gun in their trunk and disassembled and the ammo elsewhere. Stemmed out of the old mob days when, I guess, Sicillian drive bys and barbershop assassinations were occuring. But they put your ass in prison for years for getting caught with a ready to go and loaded weapon, so folks just don't do it (other than the criminals of course). And couriers can get them if they handle cash.

So part of it is a mentality which then fosters an atmosphere of casuality and then procedural doctrine mistakes occur, then then procedural actual mistakes occur and they then get declared as having been an accident.

One more reason this is so bad is that sets of events such as this can be staged pretty precisely to appear as random happenstance. And that is bad because we will never know.

How many different ways can a live round that fits an on set real firearm get put together on a set where no such pairing is supposed to happen?

That's why it would be a good movie for the making of "Murder by Rehearsal of a Movie". One good plot is for the actor to silence the actress after an affair. Not saying this is related to any fact at all. Just a good movie script. Possibilities are endless.

It's great how Phil straightened you out...

I think that has been done many years in the past. That is someone wanted someone dead so a live round was put in the prop gun.

Decayed Brain Matter wrote: =============================

FOAD you vile, schizo pile of s*it.

...... Phil

Why is Baldwin responsible for anything. Is Baldwin head of personnel? Did he do the background investigation on the armorer himself? If she worked for IBM, would you want to hold Arvind Krishna personally responsible?

BTW, what happened to waiting until all the facts are known?

What part of being the armorer was not yet in her control? Wasn't she the person who secured the equipment and indicated the prop was "cold"?

If this her defense in court I would convict her. She needs to provide something we call "proof", i.e. evidence that someone was interfering with her doing her job. Once a new armorer is on the job that person should have total control and responsibility. You keep talking as if she was a kid being trained on the job. No one has indicated that was the case. The job was hers and hers alone.

I think you mis-attributed. Ed Lee would hold the 11 year old responsible.

Because he was/is still the executive producer. He was/is not just an actor.

Yes, we still have to wait for the facts. But legal defend do not have to depend on the facts, just enough reasonable doubt.

We still don't know how secure the properties were. Who could and had access to them.

From another post:

Certainly not. May be the parents for letting the 11 yro in the situation.

Rick C snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No Bang Bang Shoot Shoot? Just Shoot Shoot only? Sounds like a boring movie.

They pulled the release from the theaters "The Machurian Candidate" way back in 1963 because it was just as Kennedy had been shot. It was 1988 when I got my LaserDisc of the title. Only one airing between all that in 1974. They probably had only real guns and blanks back then.