Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Dis86]

I think it has everything to do with the thread, don't you? Perhaps not the content but the thread itself? Hard to argue otherwise. Sometimes - often, actually - I find the stuff around the discussion of threads to be far more interesting than the discussion itself (I'm using the word 'discussion' but in reality, in this case, I mean a few posters trying to brow beat/bore/death by thread hole others into submission). The kids probably call it the 'meta' or maybe that phrase has gone out of fashion but the point is that I'm far more interested in the people posting, their approach to discussions, the way they present themselves, their openess or otherwise to new ideas or ones that seem challenging, than the actual thread detail itself.

I have lots to contribute and the fact that I don't proviude that in a way you find sanitary or appealing is absolutely fine and probably reinforces the bit above. It'd be terriblt boring if we aere all the same, wouldn't it darling?

No. It has nothing to do with the thread, as do none of your 'contributions'. Your attempts at witticism or personal ego stroking simply seem to hide the fact that you don't have have ability to make or join a discussion.
Your posts are never on topic, you only ever attempt to take snide shots at others having a discussion.
You're that sad little kid in the playground that had no friends but would make a comment and laugh at his own joke, the type of person that sits and sniffs their own farts and gives it a rating out of 10.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

No. It has nothing to do with the thread, as do none of your 'contributions'. Your attempts at witticism or personal ego stroking simply seem to hide the fact that you don't have have ability to make or join a discussion.
Your posts are never on topic, you only ever attempt to take snide shots at others having a discussion.
You're that sad little kid in the playground that had no friends but would make a comment and laugh at his own joke, the type of person that sits and sniffs their own farts and gives it a rating out of 10.

That all seems *checks notes* accurate

 

[Dis86]

That all seems *checks notes* accurate

Well here's to wishing you many a fruity 10 with a dash of spicy 9s for a bit of balance.

 

[Pottsey]

You have made claims of many films and significant experience. Not me.

That’s a lie. I specially said the opposite that she doesn’t have significant experience that she is no veteran. Stop twisting everyone words just to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

“ You contradicted yourself and cleared nothing up. “

Try reading again I cleared up my post in saying she started training at age 16. She has expreince over a 8-year time frame. From your source you posted she spent over a 3 year period training with a professional including shadowing on set to learn the job. She also spent 3+ years working in film companies. Yes I made a mistake and can admit mistakes and correct them. Which I have done. Can you do the same? Looks like you cannot. Which says more about you then me.

“You made the claims. “

Don’t lie. I quoted you multiple times making that claim. https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35203115

Dis86 said in regards to doing her job “You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”

The link you posted says the opposite that she did know how to handle blanks. She was trained by a professional on how to handle blanks and knows how to do that part of her job. You have not posted one single valid source backing up your statement. Which means every single thing you are basing off that false statement you made is wrong.

“I provided multiple sources. You've provided nothing. You claimed there was a transcript now there isn't one.”

You provide a source that says the opposite to what you are saying. The source you provided proves me right and proves you wrong. Give me a timestamp where she says as head armourer she didn’t know how to load blanks and couldn't do her job. If you cannot do that then you are wrong and everything you are basing your statement on is wrong. The question is can you prove yourself right or admit your mistake?

“You claimed there was a transcript now there isn't one.”

Pretty sure if you take the transcript that I posted and past it into google it comes up in the top links under a CNN transcript. Just tested that’s right it comes right up. It’s not a full transcript but it has the relevant section where she is talking about being taught about blanks and how she was scared before she was professional trained. So unlike you I have provide evidence. You on the other hand have completely failed.

 

[dowie]

Anyway...
Enter the 4th person, the prop master:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...aldwin-shooting-news-rust-movie-b1947997.html

Fox News reports that Sarah Zachry, property master on the set of the movie Rust, has been interviewed by police about circumstances leading up to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

“She’s another individual who is being interviewed who had contact with the firearm, it seems like,” a spokesperson for the sheriff’s department told the network on Thursday.

According to the search warrant, guns were secured in a safe in the prop truck and Ms Zachry removed them from there – only a limited number of people knew the combination to the safe.
[...]

After lunch, Ms Zachry took the firearms from the safe and handed them to Ms Gutierrez.

[...]

Mr Halls advised police that when Ms Gutierrez handed him the gun he remembered seeing three rounds but did not check each one.

So, firearm in safe in truck at lunch, prop master (Zachry) retrieved from safe and handed them to the armourer(Gutierrez), armourer handed them to the AD (Halls) and apparently showed him the barrel was clear and that there were dummy rounds, albeit this seems to have been sloppy by both of them and he only saw three rounds, AD then took the firearm and handed to Baldwin.

After all the song and dance some people were doing earlier in the thread about how you can't do these checks etc..you clearly can and they did indeed perform such a check at least once during that process... albeit it was unfortunately done in a half baked/sloppy manner.

Clearly, if the armourer can show the AD it is clear (albeit sloppily) then they could have also done so in the presence of Baldwin when handing to him and all three could have been assured it was clear. The AD (who is not necessarily a weapons expert) was able to identify that the three rounds in the drum he was shown were dummies as they're apparently clearly marked as such, but both he and the armourer were sloppy about not taking a moment longer to spin the drum and see all of them. It seems that simply showing the whole drum would have prevented this.

 

[Brizzles]

I'm not saying the statement is incorrect I just find your conclusion there quite amusing, her lawyers don't necessarily know that everything she has told them is true or not, they weren't there!

In exactly the same way that you, or anyone else in this thread, doesn't know exactly what happened - because they weren't there and are choosing which 3rd hand reports to trust.

Your own statement can be use to invalidate sources/information you have quoted - because it is reliant on whether the source is the factual truth.

Look guys another mags crappost that doesn't actually have anything to do with a thread!

Imagine if he actually had something to contribute!

But Mags is correct though, in a few days time this thread will just be you and dowie agreeing with each other, after the rest of the people would have been bored into submission and left.

 

[dowie]

In exactly the same way that you, or anyone else in this thread, doesn't know exactly what happened - because they weren't there and are choosing which 3rd hand reports to trust.

I don't claim to though, it wasn't that hard to follow - I'm disputing the argument put forth that because some lawyers have signed something it's not false.

Your own statement can be use to invalidate sources/information you have quoted - because it is reliant on whether the source is the factual truth.

No, expressing uncertainty is not the same as showing a contradiction, you're getting very muddled here.

I've pointed out that the lawyers don't know for sure that the statement is true - that is not the same as invalidating the statement or saying it is false, it is simply a comment on the conclusion the poster drew from it.

But Mags is correct though, in a few days time this thread will just be you and dowie agreeing with each other, after the rest of the people would have been bored into submission and left.

But all you've come up with are very dodgy arguments, the above + your previous posts where you seem to consider that advocating for weapons safety is only being done with "hindsight".

 

[potatolord]

I misread the "fatally" in the thread title as "finally", which raised expectations this thread does not meet.

Disappointing.

 

[opstrat]

why is a prop master even dealing with guns?

i have always had the understanding that it is only the armourers to handle and store firearms unless they are fake in which the prop department would handle.

 

[The_One]

Alec Baldwin was being followed and hounded by press with his kids in the car so he pulled over for a quick interview

Worth a watch - Alec Baldwin calls fatal shooting on Rust film set a 'one in a trillion episode' and says cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was 'my friend' | Ents & Arts News | Sky News

 

[Fubsy]

This needs a Netlfix series tbh.

I reckon Joe Avery has done this, with assistance from Brandon Baskin.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

why is a prop master even dealing with guns?

i have always had the understanding that it is only the armourers to handle and store firearms unless they are fake in which the prop department would handle.

According to a video I watched a Prop is an item controlled by the prop master/department. It has nothing to do with being real or fake.
https://youtu.be/Txqs9WYBDTo?t=624

Alec Baldwin was being followed and hounded by press with his kids in the car so he pulled over for a quick interview

Worth a watch - Alec Baldwin calls fatal shooting on Rust film set a 'one in a trillion episode' and says cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was 'my friend' | Ents & Arts News | Sky News

He really needs to stop talking while this is under invetigation.

 

[Dis86]

lies, falsehoods and bullcrap

So what actually is your argument? I made the initial claim that she seems to have little experience and this is probably a contribution to the death and injury on set.

You've claimed she was an apprentice armorer. False.

You've claimed she studied for 8 years. False.

You then back-tracked on both of these very clear statements that you made and said I was 'playing stupid' and that you actually meant something totally different.

You've claimed she's been in an armorers role before. Somewhat correct, for about 4 months at a studio with no evidence of working on any live movies.

You've claimed she's been part of many movies. Seems to be false, we know of 3 including this one. In the first movie she worked as a costume assistant.

You've claimed you've got the transcript of her interview. False, you've got a single line quote.

I've repeated to you and others multiple times that I'm happy for you to provide sources showing her extensive experience. So far...nada.

 

[dowie]

I've repeated to you and others multiple times that I'm happy for you to provide sources showing her extensive experience. So far...nada.

He'll throw in a paragraph ignoring all of this, he just obfuscates/won't make clear arguments.

 

[Pottsey]

“So what actually is your argument? I made the initial claim that she seems to have little experience and this is probably a contribution to the death and injury on set.”

You made an initial claim based on false statements and lies. Your used a statement that seems to be 100% false and then used that false statements to justify your first claim which given she has 3+ years working and 3+ years training means your initial claim is also wrong. I am waiting for you to provided a source or admit your mistake.

“You've claimed she was an apprentice armorer. False.”

An apprentice is a person who is learning a trade from a skilled tradesman’s which she did when she shadowed and learnt directly from a skilled tradesman for at least 3 years. As per your source.

“You've claimed she studied for 8 years. False.”

I said she studied over an 8-year period starting from age 16 which is true.

“You've claimed she's been part of many movies. Seems to be false, we know of 3 including this one. In the first movie she worked as a costume assistant.”

Your lying again I didn’t say that. I made it clear she is not a veteran. She has at least 3 years working for film companies. She also has been on movies without film credit when she was training with a skilled tradesman as per your source. She clearly shadowed a skilled tradesman as per your source.

“You've claimed you've got the transcript of her interview. False, you've got a single line quote.

Yet again you lie. The CNN transcript covers the questions section of the interview not 1 single line. This is important as it proves you are lying yet again and you are wrong about your statement that she didn’t know how load blanks as part of her job.

So what have we found A) you constantly misread things, B) you lie a lot c) your cannot admit mistake’s and correct your own mistakes of which there have been many. C) you cannot provide sources to backup your false statements. Then you use the false statements to try to justify false claims.

 

[Dis86]

He'll throw in a paragraph ignoring all of this, he just obfuscates/won't make clear arguments.

Brilliant, you were absolutely spot on!

 

[Dis86]

You made an initial claim based on false statements and lies. Your used a statement that seems to be 100% false and then used that false statements to justify your first claim which given she has 3+ years working and 3+ years training means your initial claim is also wrong. I am waiting for you to provided a source or admit your mistake.




An apprentice is a person who is learning a trade from a skilled tradesman’s which she did when she shadowed and learnt directly from a skilled tradesman for at least 3 years. As per your source.




I said she studied over an 8-year period starting from age 16 which is true.



Your lying again I didn’t say that. I made it clear she is not a veteran. She has at least 3 years working for film companies. She also has been on movies without film credit when she was training with a skilled tradesman as per your source. She clearly shadowed a skilled tradesman as per your source.

Yet again you lie. The CNN transcript covers the questions section of the interview not 1 single line. This is important as it proves you are lying yet again and you are wrong about your statement that she didn’t know how load blanks as part of her job.

So what have we found A) you constantly misread things, B) you lie a lot c) your cannot admit mistake’s and correct your own mistakes of which there have been many. C) you cannot provide sources to backup your false statements. Then you use the false statements to try to justify false claims.

Seriously...get your memory checked, I've already posted this one.

Or you know being the apprentice of a legendary gunsmith and being trained by one of the best experts in the field for 8 years.

Take your meds!!!!

Provide the sources for her many movie jobs please. I've asked what...nearly 10 times now?

Point out where in my source it shows she was training with skilled tradesmen. It literally doesn't say that at all. Also the 3 years experience? My source, as I've pointed out to you multiple times shows she only started working as an armorer in March this year.

 

[hurfdurf]

Brilliant, you were absolutely spot on!

I disagree, he’s replying well and quoting your posts and his sources. What more do you want?

 

[Pottsey]

I've repeated to you and others multiple times that I'm happy for you to provide sources showing her extensive experience. So far...nada.

Why would I need to do that when I keep saying she doesnt have extensive experience as she is not a veteran. Anyway this is about your and your lies and false statements.

I quoted you multiple times making that claim. https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35203115

Dis86 said in regards to doing her job “You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”

The link you posted says the opposite that she did know how to handle blanks. She was trained by a professional on how to handle blanks and knows how to do that part of her job. You have not posted one single valid source backing up your statement. Which means every single thing you are basing off that false statement you made is wrong.

 

[Dis86]

I disagree, he’s replying well and quoting your posts and his sources. What more do you want?

Show me a quote he's made from one of my sources. Show me one of his sources. He's posted neither. Still waiting for you to reply to my last post to you btw. Come on big man, you can do it. You massive success.