Fred Gerhart wrote:
A blank can be just as deadly as a regular round.

If a gun must be used what is wrong with modifying it by removing the firing pin? No firing pin no discharge. End of problem.

You would still need someone responsible for doing that and verifying the gun was so modified. Just like you need someone responsible for verifying a gun has no live rounds. It's always going to come down to someone doing their job.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do we know yet who it was that loaded the gun with live rounds? Because the allegation that live rounds were included in a box of dummies sounds like someone's lame excuse to me. A case perhaps of "blame the little people because they're less likely to sue you".

The armorer has admitted loading the weapon.

"Gutierrez Reed previously had acknowledged that she had loaded the gun but didn’t realize actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that morning.

She later told sheriff’s detectives that although she checked Baldwin’s gun before the unscheduled rehearsal in the wooden church, she “didn’t really check it too much after lunch” because the weapon had been locked in a safe during the crew’s lunch break."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … nslaughter

"Because the allegation that live rounds were included in a box of dummies sounds like someone's lame excuse to me."

The mind of a serial conspiracist .

"A case perhaps of "blame the little people because they're less likely to sue you"."

Ridiculous. maybe in GB, old chap, but in the litigious USA, phalanxes of lawyers are ready, willing, and able to mine a promising lucrative civil suit, regardless of race, creed, or social standing of the plaintiff.

Focuspuller wrote:
The armorer has admitted loading the weapon.

"Gutierrez Reed previously had acknowledged that she had loaded the gun but didn’t realize actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that morning.

She later told sheriff’s detectives that although she checked Baldwin’s gun before the unscheduled rehearsal in the wooden church, she “didn’t really check it too much after lunch” because the weapon had been locked in a safe during the crew’s lunch break."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … nslaughter

"Because the allegation that live rounds were included in a box of dummies sounds like someone's lame excuse to me."

The mind of a serial conspiracist .

"A case perhaps of "blame the little people because they're less likely to sue you"."

So we do know who loaded the gun with live rounds, while denying responsibility for the fatal shooting. Or do we? If Gutierrez-Reed didn't know, or couldn't tell the difference, how can she be sure that she loaded the gun with live rounds as opposed to dummy rounds? Conversely, if she did know the difference, that means that she intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds. Or is Gutierrez-Reed covering for somebody?

The idea that the ammunition supplier would have been so careless as to include live rounds in a box of dummies is just too improbable. On the other hand, live rounds could have been substituted for dummy rounds, in the box or in the gun.

It would be interesting to know if the bullets and cases of the live rounds were the same make as in the dummy rounds found at the scene.

JSouthworth wrote:
So we do know who loaded the gun with live rounds, while denying responsibility for the fatal shooting. Or do we? If Gutierrez-Reed didn't know, or couldn't tell the difference, how can she be sure that she loaded the gun with live rounds as opposed to dummy rounds? Conversely, if she did know the difference, that means that she intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds. Or is Gutierrez-Reed covering for somebody?

The idea that the ammunition supplier would have been so careless as to include live rounds in a box of dummies is just too improbable. On the other hand, live rounds could have been substituted for dummy rounds, in the box or in the gun.

It would be interesting to know if the bullets and cases of the live rounds were the same make as in the dummy rounds found at the scene.

"If Gutierrez-Reed didn't know, or couldn't tell the difference, how can she be sure that she loaded the gun with live rounds as opposed to dummy rounds?"

Where has she admitted knowingly loading the weapon with live rounds? Nowhere. All she is admitting is having loaded the weapon, leaving herself vulnerable to a charge of unprofessionalism and incompetence.

"Conversely, if she did know the difference, that means that she intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds."

No, it does not.

"Or is Gutierrez-Reed covering for somebody?" OR, did she just screw up?

"The idea that the ammunition supplier would have been so careless as to include live rounds in a box of dummies is just too improbable."

IMPROBABLE? You DARE use that word? A murder conspiracy relying on an act that no one could have predicted, without a shred of evidence, physical or circumstantial, is PROBABLE to you?

JSouthworth wrote:
Before the day of the fatal shooting, there were incidences of live rounds being fired on the set, in one instance Baldwin's stunt double was the person responsible. So we don't need the improbable story about the live rounds in the box of dummies to explain the presence of live rounds on the set, because we know that certain people on the set already had live .45 Colt rounds in their possession. One of those people loaded the gun with the live round that killed the cinematographer.

Looking closely at the armorer's story, if as she claims, she couldn't tell the difference between live rounds and dummy rounds at the time of the fatal shooting, then she doesn't know whether she loaded the gun with live rounds or not. But I don't believe that a person who genuinely didn't know the difference would be working as an armorer on a movie set. She may have intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds, or be covering for whoever did.

"Before the day of the fatal shooting, there were incidences of live rounds being fired on the set..."

FALSE. The previous misfires being BLANKS, not live rounds, your conclusion - "So we don't need the improbable story about the live rounds in the box of dummies to explain the presence of live rounds on the set, because we know that certain people on the set already had live .45 Colt rounds in their possession. One of those people loaded the gun with the live round that killed the cinematographer" - IS ALSO FALSE.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/r … n-shooting

"Looking closely at the armorer's story, if as she claims, she couldn't tell the difference between live rounds and dummy rounds at the time of the fatal shooting, then she doesn't know whether she loaded the gun with live rounds or not."

Look closer. She NEVER SAID she "couldn't tell the difference." She apparently never checked. THAT is the issue, not your ridiculous fantasy tripping.

" But I don't believe that a person who genuinely didn't know the difference would be working as an armorer on a movie set.’

So good to know.

“She may have intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds, or be covering for whoever did.”

Utter evidence-free nonsense. It was most probably human error. What you “believe” is of no interest.

JSouthworth wrote:
The story about the live rounds in the box of dummies has been made up...

In your head.  Period.

There is not a single investigator that agrees, nor a single legal statement filed by anyone that supports that, nor is there any other evidence of any kind.  But there's LOTS to the contrary.

JSouthworth, your "evidence free" fantasy world, non-stop conspiracy obsession, is one of a number of danger signs.  While no one here takes you seriously (other than concern for your health), I can assure you that there are professionals that will find it noteworthy.   For YOUR OWN SAKE, ask your family doctor to review your posts.  Complete, uncensored and in full context.

You, and any family you may have, have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

JSouthworth wrote:
The story about the live rounds in the box of dummies has been made up in order to provide a convenient excuse for a fatal shooting.
The question of who loaded the live round is still the one we need an answer to. Once we know who it was, we can consider the question of why they did it.
Quite early on, the lawyer for Gutierrez-Reed was saying that she knew the identity of the loader, while denying that it was her client.

"The story about the live rounds in the box of dummies has been made up in order to provide a convenient excuse for a fatal shooting."

Worthless.

Starting with your conclusion of a murder conspiracy, you work backwards to retrofit the known evidence, and create evidence out of whole cloth when there is none, heaping conjecture upon falsehoods, you evince a complete ignorance of any semblance of responsible argument. Any grade-school debate team would demolish you.

The most probable scenario is that live rounds were inadvertently included in dummy round boxes and the armorer did not vet every single round either upon receipt from the vendor, and/or before loading into a weapon. The armorer was also apparently lax in not maintaining custody of the weapon once loaded, but the opportunity for someone to replace dummy rounds with live rounds in plain sight on the set is close to zero, and no possible credible motive for that happening has emerged.

What I find worthy of speculation is the motive of the NM prosecutor, who charged Baldwin with a law that was not enacted at the time of the incident - an incredible demonstration of unprofessional  incompetence at best, and who also, according to the NM  constitution, cannot be both an elected state legislator and also a state prosecutor. Furthermore, letting a key principal in the incident, the First AD who apparently improperly interfered in the chain of custody of a loaded weapon, and incorrectly, fatally, declared the weapon "cold", and who by Industry practice is the set safety officer, plead to a lesser charge in return for testifying for the prosecution, STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN. Sounds to me like some politically motivated person is looking to score points by convicting a "liberal Hollywood elitist."

LightDreams wrote:

In your head.  Period.

There is not a single investigator that agrees, nor a single legal statement filed by anyone that supports that, nor is there any other evidence of any kind.  But there's LOTS to the contrary.

Neither is there any evidence that the ammunition supplier included live rounds in the box of dummy rounds that was delivered to the set on the day of the fatal shooting

JSouthworth wrote:
Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed have been blaming each other and trying to sue each other since the shooting, there seems to be something personal between those two but it doesn't necessarily mean that Gutierrez-Reed had any physical involvement in the shooting.

If person A asks person B to load a gun so he/she can shoot person C and make it look like an accident, then A and B must have a personal relationship of some kind, because there has to be mutual trust between them.

Similarly, if person B agrees in advance to provide person A with a cover story for the murder of person C, there has to be mutual trust between A and B.

Moderators, brig me if you must, but this is the ravings of an unhinged mind.

JSouthworth wrote:
Neither is there any evidence that the ammunition supplier included live rounds in the box of dummy rounds that was delivered to the set on the day of the fatal shooting

Other than, of course, the statements from the ammunition supplier where he explained how "reloaded" rounds may have gotten mixed in, AND the statements from the Armorer's Father who had returned those particular "reloaded" rounds of the same type to that same ammunition supplier, AND the sworn statements from the investigators to that effect as part of the search warrant going through the ammunition suppliers inventory.

All of which you have already had pointed out to you.  REPEATEDLY.

I.E.  YOU JUST LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH, YET AGAIN.    JUST STOP WITH ALL THE F*K'N BULLSH*T.



The only other possible explanation, that fits the known facts, is that you are living in a complete alternate reality.  Neither possible explanation looks good for you.

LightDreams wrote:
The only other possible explanation, that fits the known facts, is that you are living in a complete alternate reality.  Neither possible explanation looks good for you.

Everything, everywhere.

JQuest wrote:
Guys, you can't fix stupid, just ignore it. Hopefully it will finally get the message and go away.

It won't I'm afraid. If its posts are ignored they'll just become more prolific and extreme and will eventually infect every single thread and the forum will become yet another worthless Southy soundbox with an audience of one. It only ends one way.

Focuspuller wrote:
D.A. AND OSHA DISAGREE ON ALEC BALDWIN’S CULPABILITY AS ‘RUST’ PRODUCER (EXCLUSIVE)

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec … 235531157/

"Investigators spent more than a year sorting out blame for the death of Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer killed on the set of “Rust.” In the end, two agencies came to two sharply different conclusions about Alec Baldwin’s level of responsibility as a producer of the film."

DA's criminal case against Baldwin appearing weaker and weaker.

Of course, Alec Baldwin was a producer on the film, thanks for reminding me of that fact. Was it his decision to employ Gutierrez-Reed as the armorer? On what basis was that decision made?

The supplier of the dummy prop rounds has vehemently denied the allegation by Gutierrez-Reed that a live one was included in the box;

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/ … t-1265131/

It was in any case the responsibility of the armorer to ensure that dummy rounds, not live rounds were loaded in the gun. So she should have shaken each round to ensure that a ball bearing was inside before inserting it in the cylinder. But I personally doubt that she loaded the fatal round. I think this controversy over the dummy rounds has probably been manufactured to take the heat off Baldwin.

P R E S T O N wrote:
It won't I'm afraid. If its posts are ignored they'll just become more prolific and extreme and will eventually infect every single thread and the forum will become yet another worthless Southy soundbox with an audience of one. It only ends one way.

I wasn't referring to any one individual, I was writing in generalities. However I would think that if what you posit is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) that the moderators would take care of that problem. It shouldn't be left to the members to have to deal with obvious trolls.

JQuest wrote:

I wasn't referring to any one individual, I was writing in generalities. However I would think that if what you posit is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) that the moderators would take care of that problem. It shouldn't be left to the members to have to deal with obvious trolls.

This thread is about the Rust shooting, so you're way off topic.

JQuest wrote:
I wasn't referring to any one individual, I was writing in generalities. However I would think that if what you posit is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) that the moderators would take care of that problem. It shouldn't be left to the members to have to deal with obvious trolls.

The moderators are aware of Southy's history on UK modelling sites, two of which have permanently banned him and a third which has permanently withdrawn his forum posting ability. I CAM'd a warning and details when Southy transferred his activities here immediately after losing the ability to spread his nonsense, prejudice and vitriol elsewhere.

Based on the response I received, and Southy's continued presence on the MM forum, I don't think the moderators are interested. I certainly wouldn't bother them with it again.

P R E S T O N wrote:

The moderators are aware of Southy's history on UK modelling sites, two of which have permanently banned him and a third which has permanently withdrawn his forum posting ability. I CAM'd a warning and details when Southy transferred his activities here immediately after losing the ability to spread his nonsense, prejudice and vitriol elsewhere.

Based on the response I received, and Southy's continued presence on the MM forum, I don't think the moderators are interested. I certainly wouldn't bother them with it again.

Also off topic.

LightDreams wrote:
Other than, of course, the statements from the ammunition supplier where he explained how "reloaded" rounds may have gotten mixed in, AND the statements from the Armorer's Father who had returned those particular "reloaded" rounds of the same type to that same ammunition supplier, AND the sworn statements from the investigators to that effect as part of the search warrant going through the ammunition suppliers inventory.

The term reloaded round denotes a round that's been assembled using a case that's already been fired at least once. It is not necessarily a live round. A round assembled with a used case, new primer, propellant and bullet would be a reloaded live round. But If reloaded using a new bullet only, it would be a reloaded inert round. Reloaded inert rounds are commonly sold in the UK, they can be distinguished visually from live rounds by the dented primer so these would not necessarily be acceptable for movie prop use.

JSouthworth wrote:
Of course, Alec Baldwin was a producer on the film, thanks for reminding me of that fact. Was it his decision to employ Gutierrez-Reed as the armorer? On what basis was that decision made?

The supplier of the dummy prop rounds has vehemently denied the allegation by Gutierrez-Reed that a live one was included in the box;

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/ … t-1265131/

It was in any case the responsibility of the armorer to ensure that dummy rounds, not live rounds were loaded in the gun. So she should have shaken each round to ensure that a ball bearing was inside before inserting it in the cylinder. But I personally doubt that she loaded the fatal round. I think this controversy over the dummy rounds has probably been manufactured to take the heat off Baldwin.

Either you did not bother to READ  https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec … 235531157/
or you have a comprehension deficiency. As the referenced article reported, contrary to the conclusion of the [publicity-seeking] prosecutor:

"... the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that Baldwin was not in charge and was not the one culpable for lax oversight."

You see, there are SIX "producers "listed for the "Rust" production...but only Baldwin was charged? FYI It is COMMON for a high profile actor to be a "producer" for the purposes of attracting funding, and input on casting, and script, especially on a low budget production. They commonly have ZERO to do with the nuts and bolts of the actual production. That job falls to the "line producer". Other "producers" might be the major funder, the head of the production company, or a relative. Baldwin most likely had nothing to do with hiring the armorer.

"The supplier of the dummy prop rounds has vehemently denied the allegation by Gutierrez-Reed that a live one was included in the box;"

No kidding. And Vladimir Putin strongly swore "it wasn't Russia". Master conspiracist, you find THIS denial believable? Because it confirms your bias?

In the Rolling Stone article you cite, an alternate scenario for the source of the live rounds was offered... BY THE RUST ARMORER'S FATHER, and you, master conspiracist, don't find that suspect AT ALL? NOOO, you would rather concoct a totally evidence-free scenario.

"It was in any case the responsibility of the armorer to ensure that dummy rounds, not live rounds were loaded in the gun."

For once, you are correct, but "I personally doubt that she loaded the fatal round. I think this controversy over the dummy rounds has probably been manufactured to take the heat off Baldwin" is pure speculation without a shred of proof. "Manufactured" by whom, and for what purpose, and how does it  "take the heat off Baldwin?" He is charged with negligent handling of a firearm, and is not responsible for production safety lapses in general that led to a live round in the prop he was handling.

You are uninformed, misinformed, illogical and ridiculous.

JSouthworth wrote:
This thread is about the Rust shooting, so you're way off topic.

Aside from your continuing intellectual dishonesty, circular reasoning, substituting opinion as fact, as well as being a master at wielding false equivalencies (just so you know that's a bad thing), and of course your favorite, completely believing that no matter how many times you try to make cause equal correlation it does not.

You have demonstrated you have no interest in honest debate, honest discussion or the truth in multiple MM forums. You are in fact a very sad individual who has no life other than attempting to antagonize others. I pity your existence, such that it is, and as long as we're at it, you have singularly derailed and taken virtually every thread you have posted in (including the ones you created) off topic. So for you to claim someone here, or anywhere has posted an off topic reply is incredibly rich and exceedingly tone deaf, but right in line with the way you have operated since you arrived..

You're no longer worth anyone here's time, if you had one ounce of honor and decency, you would simply shut up or leave.

Still waiting for you to ask for a review in the critique forum since you feel so adept at tooting your own horn so strongly whilst decrying the work of others.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19973459

JSouthworth wrote:
The term reloaded round denotes a round that's been assembled using a case that's already been fired at least once. It is not necessarily a live round. A round assembled with a used case, new primer, propellant and bullet would be a reloaded live round. But If reloaded using a new bullet only, it would be a reloaded inert round. Reloaded inert rounds are commonly sold in the UK, they can be distinguished visually from live rounds by the dented primer so these would not necessarily be acceptable for movie prop use.

OFF TOPIC, this thread is about the Rust shooting, not ammo reloading.

JSouthworth wrote:
The term reloaded round denotes a round that's been assembled using a case that's already been fired at least once. It is not necessarily a live round. A round assembled with a used case, new primer, propellant and bullet would be a reloaded live round. But If reloaded using a new bullet only, it would be a reloaded inert round. Reloaded inert rounds are commonly sold in the UK, they can be distinguished visually from live rounds by the dented primer so these would not necessarily be acceptable for movie prop use.

No kemosabe, the term reloaded does not imply the cartridge has been fired once.  Reloaded implies that it has been reloaded.  It does not imply how it has been unloaded.  There are many reasons for pulling the bullet or projectile.

People that load will often refer to the process as loading, not reloading.  There is a chance they are using virgin brass and fired brass. They keep the brass types separate because fired brass has to be resized and may have a different volume than virgin brass.  For that matter, virgin brass may be altered to more closely match fired brass, because you may not want to burn 500 rounds of material just to resize 500 cartridges to meet your desired recipe's specifications. Consequently, they develop loads to be used, essentially recipes, and the brass volume matters. 


I would also caution you against putting too much faith into the dent, aka firing pin strike marks on a primer.  It is exceedingly rare but it is possible to strike a primer and to not experience the discharge.  Therefore, it is possible that a cartridge with a set projectile with a struck primer could still be hazardous.  Are you willing to take a one in a million chance?

JSouthworth wrote:
you're way off topic.

JSouthworth wrote:
Also off topic.

JQuest wrote:
you have singularly derailed and taken virtually every thread you have posted in (including the ones you created) off topic.

So for you to claim someone here, or anywhere has posted an off topic reply is incredibly rich and exceedingly tone deaf, but right in line with the way you have operated since you arrived..

You're no longer worth anyone here's time, if you had one ounce of honor and decency, you would simply shut up or leave.

Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if all of JSouthworth's tactics were used right back at him?

JSouthworth wrote:
If person A asks person B to load a gun so he/she can shoot person C and make it look like an accident, then A and B must have a personal relationship of some kind, because there has to be mutual trust between them.

Similarly, if person B agrees in advance to provide person A with a cover story for the murder of person C, there has to be mutual trust between A and B.

After careful thought and consideration, I think this is the most appropriate way to respond / expand on JSouthworth's posts, and his constant efforts to hijack the threads, push his never-ending conspiracy theories and general work to destroy the forum:



JSouthworth, it's important that you understand (to better head off all those Groucho Marxists unions) that, yes it's all too true, but to my family's deep shame, my Grandmother has ingrown toenails.