JSouthworth wrote:

No, you. Because you're promoting a very partisan view of a fatal shooting incident, possibly in the expectation that this will help your own career.

You say that you know some film producers, do these include any of the people in Rust Movie Productions?

The title of this thread should be changed.

I suggest "Spot the Loon."

Focuspuller wrote:

The title of this thread should be changed.

I suggest "Spot the Loon."

Would you like to tell us the names of the producers you know? How about the titles of the films you've worked on recently?

JSouthworth wrote:
Would you like to tell us the names of the producers you know? How about the titles of the films you've worked on recently?

Well, that's one vote for JSouthworth. I'll make it 2.

And I always keep my identity anonymous on internet sites to prevent personal harassment from loons. You aren't going to bait me into violating that and thanks for illuminating why.

Focuspuller wrote:

Well, that's one vote for JSouthworth. I'll make it 2.

And I always keep my identity anonymous on internet sites to prevent personal harassment from loons. You aren't going to bait me into violating that and thanks for illuminating why.

He is baiting you, or maybe trolling?  As the original poster of this topic, I did not think it would become someones playground for a conspiracy theory of a truely tragic accident. It's disgusting when I had hoped it would be a discussion regarding safety on our own sets. After all, there are some of us who on occasion use a fire arm as a prop. 

A few years ago I posted the thread about the tragedy during the filming of Midnight Rider on the railroad tracks that took place when a director violated laws to take his crew on the tracks when a train killed the camera assistant, Sarah Jones and injured others. It was cliche to do shoots with models on railroad tracks .. I did it myself, so I wanted to make others aware of the dangers.  The accidental death rate on movie sets from guns and trains is extremely low compared to other accidents.  Let's keep it that way!

Patrick Walberg wrote:
He is baiting you, or maybe trolling?  As the original poster of this topic, I did not think it would become someones playground for a conspiracy theory of a truely tragic accident. It's disgusting when I had hoped it would be a discussion regarding safety on our own sets. After all, there are some of us who on occasion use a fire arm as a prop. 

A few years ago I posted the thread about the tragedy during the filming of Midnight Rider on the railroad tracks that took place when a director violated laws to take his crew on the tracks when a train killed the camera assistant, Sarah Jones and injured others. It was cliche to do shoots with models on railroad tracks .. I did it myself, so I wanted to make others aware of the dangers.  The accidental death rate on movie sets from guns and trains is extremely low compared to other accidents.  Let's keep it that way!

He is baiting AND trolling,  insisting on his wild theories, having zero knowledge of the subject other than what he ferrets on the internet and cobbles into a fantasy reality. Sorry about your hijacked thread.

The Sarah Jones tragedy still angers me no end.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
He is baiting you, or maybe trolling?

-
I agree with Focuspuller that there is no reason to risk one's privacy to prove qualifications when the nature of the comments prove who is and who is not qualified.

Remember these?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19948719
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19949004
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19949444

Do you remember way back, when the news of the shooting was unfolding?  A new thread was started from this thread just to create a topic for one person's excursions in porn and firearms[3], among other things, so that some semblance of reason and topic control existed here.  Some other time, a thread was started with a particular person's name on it, to pull him away from something or another.  Don't those that bait or troll usually demonstrate numerous times that they will disregard all decorum and consideration of others to post whatever the hell they want- derailing threads until they are dead?  Is it similar to when a young child has a thought cross their mind and the thought does not cross their lips?  What age group is that?  "This development typically starts around ages 2 or 3 and continues on into ages 4 and 5."[1]  This is great behavior for that age group, but for adults?

I do not surrender to the premise that the behavor is certainly baiting or trolling.  Perhaps a more organic issue is at play?  Not that I wish to volunteer an excuse for his use.  Despite as frustrating and as interminable as certain behaviors are, we must remind ourselves that some patience and consideration should be expended just as if we were knowingly dealing with a person with a developmental impediment, because we don't know. [2]

[1] https://riseandshine.childrensnational. … 20and%205.
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/well … rkaholism.
[3] https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19951187 which, 3 days later, lead to: https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/981822

Focuspuller wrote:
Wrong, am I?

I have worked on 80 feature films from beginning to end, observing first hand and close-up the various versions of the term "producer". I actually became friends with a few..

Let's try again. Do you know any of the producers in Rust Movie Productions? It's a simple question, but certainly a relevant one in this context. If you have a personal interest in the case then that may influence what you're writing about it.


Incidentally, Joel Souza wrote the screenplay for Rust as well as directing and co-writing the story with Alec Baldwin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident

An article here reports Baldwin as saying that he didn't realise that he'd shot Hutchins for an hour after the fatal incident, thinking that she'd simply fainted, which beggars belief as does his claim that he didn't pull the trigger. It's incredible that anybody would be arrogant enough to think that they could get away with such lies, but clearly there are people who want to minimise the legal consequences and negative publicity arising from this incident.

https://www.looper.com/1209567/the-enti … explained/


This passage from the article contains a number of interesting points;

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the lead armorer on the "Rust" film crew, hired former US Attorney Jason Bowles to represent her regarding the accidental shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. The role of the armorer is to handle, secure and inspect all firearms and ammunition being used on a film, with multiple safety protocols in place regarding crew training and communication regarding the use of the weapons. Gutierrez-Reed insisted she never kept any live ammunition on set and has no idea how any came to be there. She also said that she checked the gun and that there were no hot rounds in it.

Investigators at the sheriff's department, however, removed over 500 rounds of ammunition from the set that it stated were comprised of a mix of blanks, dummy rounds, and suspected live ammunition. In response to this, Bowles told Today that sabotage may have been in play, clearly indicating — without mentioning any names — the crewmen who walked off set the day before, saying they were "disgruntled."

Her attorneys further said that the prop truck that housed the weapons was often unattended, allowing for anyone to be able to manipulate the items inside. This negligence would seem to implicate their client, but they said Gutierrez-Reed had more than one job on set and was therefore stretched too thin to properly attend to her armorer duties. She also reportedly was assisting the prop department as her second job.

Read More: https://www.looper.com/1209567/the-enti … explained/



If this article is correct then anyone on the set could have entered the prop truck and loaded the loaded the gun with live rounds while Gutierrez-Reed was busy elsewhere.

JSouthworth wrote:
Let's try again. Do you know any of the producers in Rust Movie Productions? It's a simple question, but certainly a relevant one in this context. If you have a personal interest in the case then that may influence what you're writing about it.

.

OK. You win. This one time I will allow answers about my personal identity.

The producers of Rust and I are all alumni of Skull and Bones, a collegiate secret society, and we periodically meet on the Yale campus to plot various murders and other secret machinations. A wink, a nod, and a secret handshake identify Bonesmen to each other in the civilian world. Further,  Bonesmen must immediately leave the room if Skull and Bones is mentioned. My specific assignment in the Rust caper is to infiltrate this forum and muddy the waters, ridiculing anyone who may be close to uncovering the facts of our plot.

This post will self-destruct in 24 hours, from NOW  removing all proof of this confession.

JSouthworth wrote:
Read More: https://www.looper.com/1209567/the-enti … explained/

If this article is correct then anyone on the set could have entered the prop truck and loaded the loaded the gun with live rounds while Gutierrez-Reed was busy elsewhere.

And if the article is NOT correct, you are an *****. Guess what?

"Her (the armorer's) attorneys further said that the prop truck that housed the weapons was often unattended, allowing for anyone to be able to manipulate the items inside."

Anyone? A non prop person surreptitiously entering the prop truck, locating the safe, OPENING the safe, loading THE gun to be used that day with a live round, ALL WITHOUT BEING OBSERVED BY ANYONE  STEPPING ONTO THE PROP TRUCK OR SEEN ENTERING OR LEAVING and assuming the weapon would not be checked between the time it was loaded by the armorer and handed to the actor. Who would take that chance and for what possible unpredictable end?

Improbable, unlikely, and farfetched, IOW, a typical JSouthworth post.

Focuspuller wrote:
The producers of Rust and I are all alumni of Skull and Bones, a collegiate secret society, and we periodically meet on the Yale campus to plot various murders and other secret machinations. A wink, a nod, and a secret handshake identify Bonesmen to each other in the civilian world. Further,  Bonesmen must immediately leave the room if Skull and Bones is mentioned. My specific assignment in the Rust caper is to infiltrate this forum and muddy the waters, ridiculing anyone who may be close to uncovering the facts of our plot.

As the Hereditary Grand P.Bah of the Loyal Order of W.B. (B.Rock division), I'd like to say how much we deeply resent all of these "pretenders" that claim to be secretly running the world.  Let the record show that we are the VERY FIRST, the ORIGINAL secret society. 

Dating all the way back to the days of the dinosaurs, in fact.

With a slightly different mission, regarding JSouthworth, but I really can't say more.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

-
I am sure that it was a wonderful feeling for Mr. Pelosi when police took the hammer from the madman that was assaulting him.  Would it have not been a greater wonder for Mr. Pelosi to have never endured the attack because other people intervened and the nut case was not triggered to the point of action?  The entire country is having its foundations weakened with the attacks on people because of race, ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation.  Good is evil and evil is good.   Honest is crooked and crooked is honest.  Mostly because good people are being silenced by fear of the evil flames being fanned by one man, and now, a strong base of his supporters that want unequal to be equal and oppression to be freedom.

In this case you are asking many people to silence themselves when the mods could easily silence just one.  But, once that one has spoken, the misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric is out there for many more to see.  Retorts are demanded by good conscience.

Apparently we disagree on what is dumb bullshit and what is dangerous bullshit, how to classify each and how to respond. If you wish to take a zero tolerance policy to all of it you can, and an argument can be made for it.  However for the dumb stuff, pointing out the obvious repeatedly and then letting it alone does not mean he wins if he gets the last word. Constantly rebutting his bullshit is giving him the forum for more bullshit. If you are going to take on a Sisyphean task, perhaps save the effort for something that actually matters.

JSouthworth wrote:
When people make statements about a fatal shooting incident which are outright lies, or demonstrably false, or they change their stories then we have to be suspicious.

You mean like David Halls did, and you continue to do?

JSouthworth wrote:
This article tells us most of what we need to know;

https://www.looper.com/1209567/the-enti … explained/

When people make statements about a fatal shooting incident which are outright lies, or demonstrably false, or they change their stories then we have to be suspicious.

Baldwin's absurd claim that he didn't realise he'd shot Hutchins is a pathetic attempt to trivialise the shooting, and Halls' denials are suspicious as well.

JSouthworth wrote:
When people make statements about a fatal shooting incident which are outright lies, or demonstrably false, or they change their stories then we have to be suspicious.

Agreed. Which is why your conspiracies, assumptions, and conclusions should be ignored.

JQuest wrote:
You mean like David Halls did, and you continue to do?

YES, and who, I might add, is apparently the ONLY person in custody of the weapon between the armorer and the actor, and who ignorantly declared the weapon "cold", and who incredibly escaped certain jail time by virtue of a plea deal by the inept prosecution looking for a signature win.

Focuspuller wrote:

YES, and who, I might add, is apparently the ONLY person in custody of the weapon between the armorer and the actor, and who ignorantly declared the weapon "cold", and who incredibly escaped certain jail time by virtue of a plea deal by the inept prosecution looking for a signature win.

Happy Valentine's Day!  Of course this is the thread that never dies .. LOL  ..

How quickly David Halls went for a plea deal tells me all I need to know about this case.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Happy Valentine's Day!  Of course this is the thread that never dies .. LOL  ..

How quickly David Halls went for a plea deal tells me all I need to know about this case.

It is a shame a serious subject gets bogged down with one poster insisting on pressing wild infeasible theories.

This article in Hollywood Reporter makes some very interesting points...and adds to the complexity of this sad case.

IS THE EMBATTLED YOUNG ‘RUST’ ARMORER GETTING A FAIR SHOT?

"As the first criminal trial over the film’s tragic shooting gets underway, prosecutors look to paint Hannah Gutierrez-Reed as a druggie whose mistakes led to calamity. Defenders say she’s a scapegoat for penny-pinching producers and a blundering investigation. New details reveal both may be true."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie … 235823841/

The behavior of the prosecution is particularly questionable.

Studio NSFW wrote:
“What’s 14” long and hangs from an @$$hole?”

The D.A.s tie…

The prosecution was a dumpster fire right out of the blocks:

PROSECUTORS IN ALEC BALDWIN ‘RUST’ SHOOTING CASE ARE GETTING HEAT OVER APPARENT MISSTEPS

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/06/alec-ba … icism.html

JSouthworth wrote:
Baldwin's absurd claim that he didn't realise he'd shot Hutchins is a pathetic attempt to trivialise the shooting, and Halls' denials are suspicious as well.

This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms. The next morning, some of the crew take time off to do some live shooting off the set. And then later the same day, Baldwin shoots the director and cinematographer during a rehearsal, using the same gun. One thing after another; did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?

JSouthworth wrote:
This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

No it doesn't and it never did, and now it actually can't be (a scam), because they completed the movie 8 months ago. Never let the facts get in front of one of your 1/2 baked inane conspiracy theories though. Not to mention that prosecutors (or anyone else) have never mentioned insurance fraud as a possibility. Unless of course you're saying Baldwin is the beneficiary on an insurance policy taken out on Halyna Hutchins. Understanding your forum posting tendencies toward prevarication and making up your own facts though I suppose insurance fraud would be a possibility in your world.
Rust Movie Completed

JSouthworth wrote:
The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms.

You just made that up. They walked off over travel times and hotel room accommodations.
Fox News, Why Did The Rust Workers Walk Off

Occam's Razor look it up

JSouthworth wrote:
This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms. The next morning, some of the crew take time off to do some live shooting off the set. And then later the same day, Baldwin shoots the director and cinematographer during a rehearsal, using the same gun. One thing after another; did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?

If someone, or a group of people wanted to stage a fatal accident, how would they go about doing that? Would they try to make it look the result of a single error, or the culmination of multiple errors?

We do have the claim by the armorer, which is not supported by any convincing evidence, that live rounds were included in a box of dummies. That's just too obvious, too convenient. Gutierrez-Reed says that she checked the gun and locked it up after it was used for target practice, which would eliminate the possibility that a live round was left in the gun at the end of the target practice.

JSouthworth wrote:

This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms. The next morning, some of the crew take time off to do some live shooting off the set. And then later the same day, Baldwin shoots the director and cinematographer during a rehearsal, using the same gun. One thing after another; did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?

You what happens when you throw random shit against the wall? You end up with a shit-stained wall, aka YOUR ARGUMENT.

JSouthworth wrote:
If someone, or a group of people wanted to stage a fatal accident, how would they go about doing that? Would they try to make it look the result of a single error, or the culmination of multiple errors?

We do have the claim by the armorer, which is not supported by any convincing evidence, that live rounds were included in a box of dummies. That's just too obvious, too convenient. Gutierrez-Reed says that she checked the gun and locked it up after it was used for target practice, which would eliminate the possibility that a live round was left in the gun at the end of the target practice.

If the shooting was a staged accident, I don't think it was very well thought out. The people involved may have assumed that nobody would believe Gutierrez-Reed, after all she was "just" the armorer. But if she didn't load the gun with live rounds, someone else did, after she handled it.

The idea of live rounds in a box of dummies is improbable and there is no apparent reason why Gutierrez-Reed would have stood to gain anything by intentionally loading the gun with live rounds.

JSouthworth wrote:

JSouthworth wrote:
This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

This random, baseless argument looks like the product of a mind detached from reality, so that is a possibility.

"The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms. The next morning, some of the crew take time off to do some live shooting off the set. And then later the same day, Baldwin shoots the director and cinematographer during a rehearsal, using the same gun. One thing after another; did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?"

None of which proves or even suggests AN INSURANCE SCAM. EXPLAIN how it does. Provide a CREDIBLE theory. BELIEVABLE motivations. ACTUAL opportunity. A RATIONAL plan. Go ahead. 😂😂😂

All you are doing is proving again and again why NOTHiNG you say about ANYTHING ANYWHERE is believable or likely.

JSouthworth wrote:
If someone, or a group of people wanted to stage a fatal accident, how would they go about doing that? Would they try to make it look the result of a single error, or the culmination of multiple errors?

We do have the claim by the armorer, which is not supported by any convincing evidence, that live rounds were included in a box of dummies. That's just too obvious, too convenient. Gutierrez-Reed says that she checked the gun and locked it up after it was used for target practice, which would eliminate the possibility that a live round was left in the gun at the end of the target practice.

"If someone, or a group of people wanted to stage a fatal accident, how would they go about doing that? Would they try to make it look the result of a single error, or the culmination of multiple errors?"

TELL US. How would they go about it? Step by credible step. Motivation by believable motivation. How many people would have to be involved? One? Two? Five? And you have ruled out the armorer as a co-consprator:

"there is no apparent reason why Gutierrez-Reed would have stood to gain anything by intentionally loading the gun with live rounds." Inexplicably, you ignore the possibility of HUMAN ERROR.

So without the involvement of the armorer, you postulate a conspiracy to somehow circumvent  her custody of firearms, unbeknownst to her, by any number of participants in a yet to be explained INSURANCE SCAM, which, it has been noted, would have been frustrated by the COMPLETION OF THE FILM". Oh, and BTW, the production HAD NO COMPLETION BOND which means the producers would have been personally liable should the film fail to be delivered and loans paid back.

NOTHING about your posts make any sense whatsoever.

JSouthworth wrote:

If the shooting was a staged accident, I don't think it was very well thought out. The people involved may have assumed that nobody would believe Gutierrez-Reed, after all she was "just" the armorer. But if she didn't load the gun with live rounds, someone else did, after she handled it.

The idea of live rounds in a box of dummies is improbable and there is no apparent reason why Gutierrez-Reed would have stood to gain anything by intentionally loading the gun with live rounds.

"The idea of live rounds in a box of dummies is improbable..."

The idea that YOU declare what is "improbable" is ludicrous.

JSouthworth wrote:
The idea of live rounds in a box of dummies is improbable and there is no apparent reason why Gutierrez-Reed would have stood to gain anything by intentionally loading the gun with live rounds.

It's no more improbable, and actually far more plausible than any of your previous prevarications or fabricated facts. Why did you quote your own insurance fraud prevarication and then run off on a new tangent about the armorer? Is it because you're unable to support  your own falsehoods without having to make up more of them?

JSouthworth wrote:
We do have the claim by the armorer, which is not supported by any convincing evidence,

It's interesting that you included this little nugget since none of your claims have been supported by convincing evidence either.

JSouthworth wrote:
This looks like an insurance scam, so that is a possibility.

The sequence of events is interesting; the day before the shooting, a number of the crew walk off the set over pay and dangerous conditions related to firearms. The next morning, some of the crew take time off to do some live shooting off the set. And then later the same day, Baldwin shoots the director and cinematographer during a rehearsal, using the same gun. One thing after another; did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?

It would be interesting to know who was using the gun for target practice, whether these people were the replacements for the people who walked off the set the day before over pay and conditions.

Focuspuller wrote:
How would they go about it? Step by credible step. Motivation by believable motivation. How many people would have to be involved? One? Two? Five? And you have ruled out the armorer as a co-consprator:

There are many possible ways an accident could be staged. The obvious motivation would be financial, and since Gutierrez-Reed was only due to be paid $7000 she did not stand to gain or lose as much as Baldwin, Hall and the rest of the inner circle around Baldwin.

Remember that initially, Gutierrez-Reed categorically denied loading live rounds in the gun. Then it may have suggested to her that she would save herself a lot of trouble if she went along with the theory of live rounds in a box of dummies, the only basis for which is the fact that a new box of dummy rounds was delivered on the day of the shooting, the rest is assumption. Which brings us back to the still unanswered question of who loaded the gun with live rounds.

Filming on Rust has now been completed and the film is currently in post production.

JSouthworth wrote:
It would be interesting to know who was using the gun for target practice, whether these people were the replacements for the people who walked off the set the day before over pay and conditions.

Your cartoon version of events is hilarious.. That camera crew OBVIOUSLY hired ON THE DAY to replace departing crew members would have the slightest inclination and any opportunity whatsoever to access  and use for target practice firearms stored on the prop truck, in the first hours of their presence on a location they have never seen,  is MONUMENTALLY PREPOSTEROUS. How rare.

" ...did any of the replacement crew actually get paid, I wonder?"

OF COURSE YOU DO. 😂😂😂

And BTW, what difference does it make?

JSouthworth wrote:
There are many possible ways an accident could be staged. The obvious motivation would be financial, and since Gutierrez-Reed was only due to be paid $7000 she did not stand to gain or lose as much as Baldwin, Hall and the rest of the inner circle around Baldwin.

Remember that initially, Gutierrez-Reed categorically denied loading live rounds in the gun. Then it may have suggested to her that she would save herself a lot of trouble if she went along with the theory of live rounds in a box of dummies, the only basis for which is the fact that a new box of dummy rounds was delivered on the day of the shooting, the rest is assumption. Which brings us back to the still unanswered question of who loaded the gun with live rounds.

"There are many possible ways an accident could be staged. "

WE ARE WAITING. Name ONE.

" The obvious motivation would be financial..."

WHO GAINS BY STAGING A FATAL ACCIDENT? EXPLAIN.

"Then it may have suggested to her that she would save herself a lot of trouble if she went along with the theory of live rounds in a box of dummies"

BY ADMITTING GROSS NEGLIGENCE LEADING TO A HOMICIDE?

"..the rest is assumption."

IT IS ALL "ASSUMPTION"

"Which brings us back to the still unanswered question of who loaded the gun with live rounds."

...Upon which your fantasies rest, and for which you have provided not one provable shred of evidence that eliminates the most credible, most likely... that the armorer, either through inexperience, or stress, or unfair, unsafe conditions imposed by a cheap production, or all of the above, INADVERTENTLY allowed live rounds onto the prop truck, onto the set, and into a prop weapon. And neither you, nor a staggeringly inept prosecution, will justly prove Alec Baldwin personally liable for causing the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins, apart from the collective guilt of a production too cheap to be safe.

"Filming on Rust has now been completed and the film is currently in post production."

Thank you. You just self-destructed the "financial gain" argument, that a "staged accident" would cause  shutdown of production, somehow resulting in a financial windfall to unnamed conspirators. Well, the film was completed and your theory of the case is destroyed, along with your remaining credibility.

Focuspuller wrote:
Thank you. You just self-destructed the "financial gain" argument, that a "staged accident" would cause  shutdown of production, somehow resulting in a financial windfall to unnamed conspirators. Well, the film was completed and your theory of the case is destroyed, along with your remaining credibility.

You pointed out earlier that if the film hadn't been completed, Baldwin and the other producers would have been liable. But the film HAS been completed, or at least the filming has been completed.

I'm not an expert on insurance but obviously, if there weren't ANY possible circumstances under which a claim could be made, there wouldn't be much point in taking out a policy would there?

If the insurers consider that the shooting incident was staged, or there was gross negligence, the insurance policy may be invalidated. But people don't always think things through very carefully beforehand, or if they do, they tend to be optimistic about the outcome.

Could the makers and the financers of Rust realistically have expected to make any money from it, assuming that the filming had gone to completion without problems? I find that doubtful. Django Unchained was a success in 2012 (although I thought it was boring) but Westerns are not as popular as they were. For A Few Dollars More is a personal favorite in the genre.

JSouthworth wrote:
You pointed out earlier that if the film hadn't been completed, Baldwin and the other producers would have been liable. But the film HAS been completed, or at least the filming has been completed.

I'm not an expert on insurance but obviously, if there weren't ANY possible circumstances under which a claim could be made, there wouldn't be much point in taking out a policy would there?

If the insurers consider that the shooting incident was staged, or there was gross negligence, the insurance policy may be invalidated. But people don't always think things through very carefully beforehand, or if they do, they tend to be optimistic about the outcome.

Could the makers and the financers of Rust realistically have expected to make any money from it, assuming that the filming had gone to completion without problems? I find that doubtful. Django Unchained was a success in 2012 (although I thought it was boring) but Westerns are not as popular as they were. For A Few Dollars More is a personal favorite in the genre.

"I'm not an expert on insurance but obviously..."

Obviously. Provide the details of the policy that would have produced a PROFIT should the production be shut down and not completed.

Your reboot of "The Producers" makes the original look plausible,

"Could the makers and the financers of Rust realistically have expected to make any money from it, assuming that the filming had gone to completion without problems? I find that doubtful"

Oh, do you?

So you are actually speculating that the entire "Rust" production was a fraudulent insurance scam involving at the LEAST the six producers, plus the financial  backers, the Prop department, including the armorer, and the AD, in a conspiracy to murder the cinematographer and reap a profit from a completion bond they neglected to obtain, putting them all at financial and criminal risk? Really, Zero?

JQuest wrote:
You mean like David Halls did, and you continue to do?

Focuspuller wrote:
YES, and who, I might add, is apparently the ONLY person in custody of the weapon between the armorer and the actor, and who ignorantly declared the weapon "cold", and who incredibly escaped certain jail time by virtue of a plea deal by the inept prosecution looking for a signature win.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Happy Valentine's Day!  Of course this is the thread that never dies .. LOL  ..

How quickly David Halls went for a plea deal tells me all I need to know about this case.

Focuspuller wrote:
It is a shame a serious subject gets bogged down with one poster insisting on pressing wild infeasible theories.

This article in Hollywood Reporter makes some very interesting points...and adds to the complexity of this sad case.

IS THE EMBATTLED YOUNG ‘RUST’ ARMORER GETTING A FAIR SHOT?

"As the first criminal trial over the film’s tragic shooting gets underway, prosecutors look to paint Hannah Gutierrez-Reed as a druggie whose mistakes led to calamity. Defenders say she’s a scapegoat for penny-pinching producers and a blundering investigation. New details reveal both may be true."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie … 235823841/

The behavior of the prosecution is particularly questionable.

From the article in the Hollywoodreporter;  "When first assistant director Dave Halls called for Gutierrez-Reed on a walkie-talkie, she walked to a church set on the edge of the ranch’s mock Western town and approached Halls, seated in a pew with director of photography Halyna Hutchins and director Joel Souza, conferring about the schedule. That morning, most of the camera crew had walked off in a protest of their working conditions, and the remaining crew were scrambling. “I told him I needed a weapons check, and he said, ‘We don’t have time,’ ” Gutierrez-Reed said of Halls, according to testimony she gave to New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB) in December of 2022."

It is important to follow all protocol when it comes to safety on the set!  "No time" is no excuse!

It has taken a conspiracy theorist who just can't comprehend that tragic accidents happen to keep this thread going for 21 pages in circles with the same nonsense.  I posted this Oct 23, 21 and did not expect it to last so long.  But then I didn't expect the DA to do such a sloppy job of handling this case.  David Halls must have felt threatened or perhaps guilty enough to take that plea deal.  I believe that is where it should have ended.  I'm also considering asking the moderators to lock this thread as it continues to spin its wheels.  There is some entertainment value to the conspiracy theorist comments, but even that is getting boring.  I dunno .. 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It has taken a conspiracy theorist who just can't comprehend that tragic accidents happen to keep this thread going for 21 pages in circles with the same nonsense.  I posted this Oct 23, 21 and did not expect it to last so long.  But then I didn't expect the DA to do such a sloppy job of handling this case.  David Halls must have felt threatened or perhaps guilty enough to take that plea deal.  I believe that is where it should have ended.  I'm also considering asking the moderators to lock this thread as it continues to spin its wheels.  There is some entertainment value to the conspiracy theorist comments, but even that is getting boring.  I dunno .. 

Inasmuch as there are members here who shoot models brandishing firearms, I think it would be useful to keep the issue alive by following the Rust case to the verdicts in the trials of  Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin, and hopefully a definitive explanation of how this tragedy happened, in the hope full disclosure might help prevent a similar episode in the future.

And as to the tiresome and irresponsible conjecture, maybe the mods could have a word? A human being's tragic death should not be fodder for a self-appointed serial conspiracy-monger.

Focuspuller wrote:
So you are actually speculating that the entire "Rust" production was a fraudulent insurance scam involving at the LEAST the six producers, plus the financial  backers, the Prop department, including the armorer, and the AD, in a conspiracy to murder the cinematographer and reap a profit from a completion bond they neglected to obtain, putting them all at financial and criminal risk?

That would be one interpretation of the facts, but I tend to see Gutierrez-Reed as the fall guy in this. I don't think she had a motive.

If the shooting of Hutchins was intentional, the shooting of Souza may have been accidental; he could have been too slow getting out of the way, or Hutchins might have moved in front of him, there are possibilities.

When someone loads a .45 revolver with live rounds, it may be with the intention of shooting someone, so the question of who did that is important.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
From the article in the Hollywoodreporter;  "When first assistant director Dave Halls called for Gutierrez-Reed on a walkie-talkie, she walked to a church set on the edge of the ranch’s mock Western town and approached Halls, seated in a pew with director of photography Halyna Hutchins and director Joel Souza, conferring about the schedule. That morning, most of the camera crew had walked off in a protest of their working conditions, and the remaining crew were scrambling. “I told him I needed a weapons check, and he said, ‘We don’t have time,’ ” Gutierrez-Reed said of Halls, according to testimony she gave to New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB) in December of 2022."

There are different versions of what happened immediately before, during and after the shooting incident, this is one suspicious aspect.

This article has the crew walking off over pay and conditions on the day of the shooting rather than the day before. Which is correct? If there was a conspiracy to stage an accident it would probably take some time for the people involved to plan it.