OT

Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
without the phone conversations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share

What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
of 5 bullets rattling from 6?

BTW, I'm sure the part after the ? is essential for non-subscribers to
be able to read this article (in addition to, or in place of, whatever
number of free articles everyone gets. Does the NYT still give free
articles to everyone? Probably. How many per month? But this link
wouldn't come out of one's quota.)

On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
> OT
>
> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
> without the phone conversations.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>
> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>

IMO, she got off easy. There is no reason for live ammo to be anywhere
around there.

I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
NO LIVE AMMO for any reason. The gun used should have been modified
somehow to prevent live ammo too. Even a wad of bubble gum in the
barrel may have saved her.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
<esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
>> OT
>>
>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>> without the phone conversations.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>
>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If

I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.

Plus someone wrote that he was executive producer and people had
complained, to him iiuc, about sloppiness of some sort on the set. So
the picture is liable, he's liable, maybe others are individually
liable. I'm no lawyer.

>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>
>
>IMO, she got off easy. There is no reason for live ammo to be anywhere
>around there.

It was the maximum for manslaughter.
>
>I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.

I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
of being attacked by fierce salamanders.

> The gun used should have been modified
>somehow to prevent live ammo too. Even a wad of bubble gum in the
>barrel may have saved her.

On 4/15/2024 8:14 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT
>>>
>>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>>> without the phone conversations.
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>
> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>

Correct, all he had to do was aim a bit off center. Evidently, you
cannot trust the armorer, nor should you. Roy Rogers never had these
problems.

On 4/15/2024 5:14 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT
>>>
>>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>>> without the phone conversations.
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>
> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>
> Plus someone wrote that he was executive producer and people had
> complained, to him iiuc, about sloppiness of some sort on the set. So
> the picture is liable, he's liable, maybe others are individually
> liable. I'm no lawyer.
>
>>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>>
>>
>> IMO, she got off easy. There is no reason for live ammo to be anywhere
>> around there.
>
> It was the maximum for manslaughter.
>>
>> I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>> NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
>
> I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
> of being attacked by fierce salamanders.

There were reports of a previous target practice session by some of the
crew.

>
>> The gun used should have been modified
>> somehow to prevent live ammo too. Even a wad of bubble gum in the
>> barrel may have saved her.

In article <uj7r1j54ep24dmvoiun41r8qjb5i0s9n7i@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07
@fmguy.com says...
> T
>
> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
> without the phone conversations.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>
> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>
>
>

Baldwin was a producer or something like that. In other words part
owner.So it should have been his job to see that there were no live
rounds on the set. From what I recall there was some target shooting
going on. Wih all he rounds fired on many of the sets it is the armor
job to have the guns checked instead of the actors.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:57:36 -0400, Ed P
<esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>
>> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
>> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
>> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
>> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
>> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
>> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
>> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
>> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>>
>
>Correct, all he had to do was aim a bit off center. Evidently, you

Did he have to do anything? Was this part of a rehearsal or just
piddling around during breaks?

>cannot trust the armorer, nor should you. Roy Rogers never had these
>problems.

He had Dale to back him up.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:02:23 -0700, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/15/2024 5:14 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
>> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> OT
>>>>
>>>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>>>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>>>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>>>> without the phone conversations.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>>
>> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
>> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
>> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
>> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
>> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
>> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
>> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
>> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>>
>> Plus someone wrote that he was executive producer and people had
>> complained, to him iiuc, about sloppiness of some sort on the set. So
>> the picture is liable, he's liable, maybe others are individually
>> liable. I'm no lawyer.
>>
>>>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>>>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>>>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>>>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>>>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>>>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>>>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>>>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, she got off easy. There is no reason for live ammo to be anywhere
>>> around there.
>>
>> It was the maximum for manslaughter.
>>>
>>> I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>>> NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
>>
>> I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>> of being attacked by fierce salamanders.
>
>There were reports of a previous target practice session by some of the
>crew.

Now that's ridiculous. How can you hit the target with blanks? If I
were competing I'd have a perfect score. I'd hit every salamander I
shot at and no one could say i missed, since they were blanks.

Oh, you mean they needed real bullets. Like kids in the desert, they
wanted to shoot guns, pretend they were cowboys.
>
>>
>>> The gun used should have been modified
>>> somehow to prevent live ammo too. Even a wad of bubble gum in the
>>> barrel may have saved her.

On 2024-04-16, Ralph Mowery <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
> In article <uj7r1j54ep24dmvoiun41r8qjb5i0s9n7i@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07
> @fmguy.com says...
>> T
>>
>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>> without the phone conversations.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>
>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Baldwin was a producer or something like that. In other words part
> owner.

Possibly. Producer might mean:
"The star wanted more money/prestige so he got credit as a producer"
"The guy coughed up some of the money for the production"
"The guy hired the writer, director, and other top jobs"
"The guy is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the film"

Rust had seven producers.

> So it should have been his job to see that there were no live
> rounds on the set.

Or one of the other six producers, or perhaps the Line Producer,
Gabrielle Pickle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_producer

> From what I recall there was some target shooting
> going on. Wih all he rounds fired on many of the sets it is the armor
> job to have the guns checked instead of the actors.

IMO, the guns should never have had live rounds put through them
while the movie was in production.

--
Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> IMO, the guns should never have had live rounds put through them
> while the movie was in production.
>
> -- Cindy Hamilton

Why do they even need guns?

These are far-left Hollyweird libtards.
The gun-grabbin democrats should confiscate all their guns.
In fact, guns should be banned from all libtard-produced movies.

micky wrote:
> OT
>
> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
> without the phone conversations.
>
>

She got off easy. She's lucky she's not a Trump.

On 4/16/2024 2:30 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2024-04-16, Ralph Mowery <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>> In article <uj7r1j54ep24dmvoiun41r8qjb5i0s9n7i@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07
>> @fmguy.com says...
>>> T
>>>
>>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>>> without the phone conversations.
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Baldwin was a producer or something like that. In other words part
>> owner.
>
> Possibly. Producer might mean:
> "The star wanted more money/prestige so he got credit as a producer"
> "The guy coughed up some of the money for the production"
> "The guy hired the writer, director, and other top jobs"
> "The guy is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the film"
>
> Rust had seven producers.
>
>> So it should have been his job to see that there were no live
>> rounds on the set.
>
> Or one of the other six producers, or perhaps the Line Producer,
> Gabrielle Pickle.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_producer
>
>> From what I recall there was some target shooting
>> going on. Wih all he rounds fired on many of the sets it is the armor
>> job to have the guns checked instead of the actors.
>
> IMO, the guns should never have had live rounds put through them
> while the movie was in production.
>

The armorer liked showing off her gun, in a place they were not
permitted, and is being prosecuted for that in another case. Not the
kind of careful person you want in that job, I suspect.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes:
>In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
><esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>>NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
>
>I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>of being attacked by fierce salamanders.

They were target shooting between takes.

On 2024-04-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes:
>>In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
>><esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>>>NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
>>
>>I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>>of being attacked by fierce salamanders.
>
> They were target shooting between takes.

If that was happening on my shoot, I'd tear everybody a new one.

--
Cindy Hamilton

In article <661e9c4c$0$3711207$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
hamilton@invalid.com says...
> >>
> >>>I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
> >>>NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
> >>
> >>I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
> >>of being attacked by fierce salamanders.
> >
> > They were target shooting between takes.
>
> If that was happening on my shoot, I'd tear everybody a new one.
>
>
>

Does that company have any safety department ? Where I worked we had to
attend many safety meetings every year. Had to hear how to use a ladder
every year. All kinds of OSHA rules to go by. One would think there
would be some kind of ruling about how to handle or better yet not allow
any live ammo on a set that involved guns. After all the actors are
pointing and shooting (blanks or whatever) at each other all during the
movie.

I agree if anyone was shooting live ammo on my shoot I would run them
off unless they were an actor that had already had been in some seens.
Then they would really be chewed out. I would have gotten rid of the
armor for letting them use the guns.
Had Baldwin just been an actor I would let him off but as a producer I
would hold him responsiable to some extent for letting the live ammo on
the set.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:45:32 -0700, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/16/2024 2:30 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2024-04-16, Ralph Mowery <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>>> In article <uj7r1j54ep24dmvoiun41r8qjb5i0s9n7i@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07
>>> @fmguy.com says...
>>>> T
>>>>
>>>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>>>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>>>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>>>> without the phone conversations.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>>>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>>>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>>>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>>>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>>>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>>>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>>>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>>>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Baldwin was a producer or something like that. In other words part
>>> owner.
>>
>> Possibly. Producer might mean:
>> "The star wanted more money/prestige so he got credit as a producer"
>> "The guy coughed up some of the money for the production"
>> "The guy hired the writer, director, and other top jobs"
>> "The guy is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the film"
>>
>> Rust had seven producers.

His "job" as producer might or might not be that relevant, but (I see
now that) the fact that he actually pulled the trigger makes him a very
reasonable criminal defendant. (He shouldn't have pointed the gun at
anyone, especially if it was not an actual rehearsal and he was just
goofing around. I don't know which it was.) And maybe the prosecution
will never cite that he was a producer, maybe it's just the news doing
background.

OTOH, I read that people complained to him about some sort of sloppiness
on the set. Did they complain to him because he was right there, did
they complain to every producer and everyone, or was some of this really
his responsibility?
>>> So it should have been his job to see that there were no live
>>> rounds on the set.
>>
>> Or one of the other six producers, or perhaps the Line Producer,
>> Gabrielle Pickle.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_producer
>>
>>> From what I recall there was some target shooting
>>> going on. Wih all he rounds fired on many of the sets it is the armor
>>> job to have the guns checked instead of the actors.
>>
>> IMO, the guns should never have had live rounds put through them
>> while the movie was in production.
>>
>
>The armorer liked showing off her gun, in a place they were not
>permitted, and is being prosecuted for that in another case. Not the
>kind of careful person you want in that job, I suspect.

I guess you mean that she took her gun into a bar, where guns are not
allowed (because drunks shoot people). I thought they just happened to
know about that, not that she was showing it off.

As far as her getting hired because of who she knows, which was raised
in the NYT comments, even though elsehwere I've said that many people
don't grow up until they are 30, a trained person in her 20's should be
old enough to do this, and she was trained, the news says, by her
step-father, a well-respscted Hollywood armorer, who I presume does on
other movies the same sort of thing she was supposed to do. She shares
his last name, so I wonder if he adopted her, which would probably mean
he was married to her mother since she was young, or maybe she uses it
to make the relationship more obvious.

On 4/15/2024 7:29 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 4/15/2024 5:47 PM, micky wrote:
>> OT
>>
>> Rust movie armorer sentenced to 18 months. Most interesting part in my
>> opinion is what they recorded from jail that influenced her sentence. I
>> think she deserved the 18 months, and at least 6 or 12 months even
>> without the phone conversations.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/arts/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.w0Xp.kxoaw8KSjqon&smid=url-share
>>
>> What I don't understand is how Alec Baldwin can be guilty at all. If
>> they have to shake the dummies to know if the shell is live or not, that
>> means you can't tell as I had thought, that there is no lead bullet
>> sticking out the front, just the shell, powder, and wadding. So even if
>> Baldwin looked at the gun from the front, if it's a revolver he'd see 4
>> of the 6 bullets with their lead parts. (and if it was an automatic,
>> he'd see nothing.) And if Baldwin did shake the gun and it had 5
>> blanks and 1 live round, how is he supposed to differentiate the sound
>> of 5 bullets rattling from 6?
>>
>
> IMO, she got off easy. There is no reason for live ammo to be anywhere
> around there.
>
> I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
> NO LIVE AMMO for any reason. The gun used should have been modified
> somehow to prevent live ammo too. Even a wad of bubble gum in the
> barrel may have saved her.
>

Apparently she received the maximum sentence available to the judge for
her charge, involuntary manslaughter. I'm not a lawyer but I don't know
why she wasn't tried for negligent homicide. In any case, I suspect
that after she gets out, she'll never again be hired by any movie or
theatrical production company to do anything.

On 4/15/2024 10:45 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:57:36 -0400, Ed P
> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
>>> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
>>> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
>>> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
>>> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
>>> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
>>> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
>>> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>>>
>>
>> Correct, all he had to do was aim a bit off center. Evidently, you
>
> Did he have to do anything? Was this part of a rehearsal or just
> piddling around during breaks?
>
>> cannot trust the armorer, nor should you. Roy Rogers never had these
>> problems.
>
> He had Dale to back him up.

And he ironically used to say "hi ho trigger away!" [I know, it was the
name of his horse.]

On 4/16/2024 11:42 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2024-04-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:39 -0400, Ed P
>>> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if the production company has any policy, but it should be
>>>> NO LIVE AMMO for any reason.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>>> of being attacked by fierce salamanders.
>>
>> They were target shooting between takes.
>
> If that was happening on my shoot, I'd tear everybody a new one.
>

Baldwin did do that, albeit inadvertently.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:14:05 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>
>
>I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>of being attacked by fierce salamanders.

https://nationalgeographic.com/WhenSalamandersAreDangerous.

"A guide to protecting yourself from vicious salamander while in the
desert."

Just kidding.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:36:21 -0400, Retirednoguilt
<HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>On 4/15/2024 10:45 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:57:36 -0400, Ed P
>> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
>>>> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
>>>> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
>>>> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
>>>> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
>>>> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
>>>> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
>>>> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, all he had to do was aim a bit off center. Evidently, you
>>
>> Did he have to do anything? Was this part of a rehearsal or just
>> piddling around during breaks?
>>
>>> cannot trust the armorer, nor should you. Roy Rogers never had these
>>> problems.
>>
>> He had Dale to back him up.
>
>And he ironically used to say "hi ho trigger away!" [I know, it was the
>name of his horse.]

FWIW, that was the Lone Ranger, who said "Hi, ho Silver, away." (Not
Roy Rogers.)

I'm forgetting a bunch of little stuff too. Just 3 hours ago I was
reminded that I'd met someone, and spent the whole evening with her
family, that I couldn't remember meeting.

On 4/16/2024 5:30 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:36:21 -0400, Retirednoguilt
> <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2024 10:45 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:57:36 -0400, Ed P
>>> <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I take some of this back. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
>>>>> Shouldn't have done that even if he was sure the gun had blanks. Should
>>>>> be a real lesson why they say never to point a gun at someone unless you
>>>>> intend to use it. Then he denies that he pulled the trigger, it just
>>>>> went off, but they have the gun. They can fiddle with it for hours and
>>>>> see if it ever does that. I suppose they've done that already and it
>>>>> didnt', so he made things worse by insisting he didn't pull the
>>>>> trigger, even if he didn't realize he did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct, all he had to do was aim a bit off center. Evidently, you
>>>
>>> Did he have to do anything? Was this part of a rehearsal or just
>>> piddling around during breaks?
>>>
>>>> cannot trust the armorer, nor should you. Roy Rogers never had these
>>>> problems.
>>>
>>> He had Dale to back him up.
>>
>> And he ironically used to say "hi ho trigger away!" [I know, it was the
>> name of his horse.]
>
> FWIW, that was the Lone Ranger, who said "Hi, ho Silver, away." (Not
> Roy Rogers.)
>
> I'm forgetting a bunch of little stuff too. Just 3 hours ago I was
> reminded that I'd met someone, and spent the whole evening with her
> family, that I couldn't remember meeting.

Thanks for the correction. You're absolutely correct. I watched all
the TV westerns back then and when you see people on galloping horses
out west, for me, it's easy to conflate them all. At least I got the
name of Roy Roger's horse right!

On 4/16/2024 5:27 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:14:05 -0400, micky
> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I can't imagine why it was there. maybe in the desert they were afraid
>> of being attacked by fierce salamanders.
>
> https://nationalgeographic.com/WhenSalamandersAreDangerous.
>
> "A guide to protecting yourself from vicious salamander while in the
> desert."
>
> Just kidding.

It's not just salamanders that can pose a threat. Just ask Jimmy Carter
about that attack rabbit!

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:04:40 -0400, Retirednoguilt wrote:

> Thanks for the correction. You're absolutely correct. I watched all
> the TV westerns back then and when you see people on galloping horses
> out west, for me, it's easy to conflate them all. At least I got the
> name of Roy Roger's horse right!

https://www.dailynews.com/2010/01/14/end-of-the-trail-for-roy-rogers-
museum/

I knew Trigger was in the Victorville museum but wasn't aware it had been
moved to Branson before it failed. I wonder where Trigger is these days?

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:04:40 -0400, Retirednoguilt wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the correction. You're absolutely correct. I watched all
>> the TV westerns back then and when you see people on galloping horses
>> out west, for me, it's easy to conflate them all. At least I got the
>> name of Roy Roger's horse right!
>
>https://www.dailynews.com/2010/01/14/end-of-the-trail-for-roy-rogers-
>museum/
>
>I knew Trigger was in the Victorville museum but wasn't aware it had been
>moved to Branson before it failed. I wonder where Trigger is these days?

Paywalled.

In any case, nobody born after 1960 would even know who Roy Rogers
was, much less Trigger. I have several of my Father's Roy Rogers
and the _fillintheblank_ adventure books, but I suspect they are also
rather rare now; without them I'd not be familiar with RR at all.