Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

Sounds like an issue of semantics. There was no live ammunition "on set" yet people were shooting bottles in the nearby dessert during breaks.

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

There are actual photos of Alec and his family in that DM article. Pap photos of Alec from Backgrid.

Because they wouldn't be looking for him right now if he d give them a call. No one is interested in Alec Baldwin right now...

Oh, please. The Baldwins are always courting paps. Alec could hole himself up in his Hamptons home if he wanted privacy. Instead he’s out and about “looking distraught” again. And retweeting articles blaming others for the shooting.

He should not be retweeting. Especially since they are still investigating.

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

There are actual photos of Alec and his family in that DM article. Pap photos of Alec from Backgrid.

Because they wouldn't be looking for him right now if he d give them a call. No one is interested in Alec Baldwin right now...

Oh, please. The Baldwins are always courting paps. Alec could hole himself up in his Hamptons home if he wanted privacy. Instead he’s out and about “looking distraught” again. And retweeting articles blaming others for the shooting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Who are you that you keep spewing this bs. Alec had ultimate responsibility to check the gun. He was the one who pulled the trigger. You think if the scene called for him to point gun at himself he wouldn’t have made sure it was empty?

How many times are these opposing opinions going to be restated. Agree to disagree already.

It is getting old and serving no purpose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Who are you that you keep spewing this bs. Alec had ultimate responsibility to check the gun. He was the one who pulled the trigger. You think if the scene called for him to point gun at himself he wouldn’t have made sure it was empty?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check