Talk:Rust shooting incident

Armorer during the incident

The article says that Hannah was the armorer until a couple days before the shooting, but doesn't seem to answer the question of who the armorer was during the shooting. Anyone know? Should we add that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The text in question was removed in this diff, so I suppose this is resolved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Evidence about live ammunition

I saw this tonight. https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-statement-trial-dismissed-2d3d036c8f998acb403fa2d4804d527f. I did a search of our article for "photo" and didn't find anything. Is this included in the article yet? Should we work it in somewhere?

The other special prosecutor, Kari Morrissey, and other authorities said they are nearly certain of the answer to at least who brought the live rounds on to the set, if not how they got into Baldwin’s revolver: Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film’s armorer, who was convicted in March of involuntary manslaughter and got the 18 months in prison Baldwin might have gotten if he had been convicted.

Photos found on Gutierrez-Reed’s cellphone showed her with the box where the bullets came from, according to testimony this week from a crime scene technician.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Be fair, use neutral language, be an ENCYCLOPEDIA!

So, Wik, you finally found a way to make me angry BEFORE the first sentence ends. Just before I typed this talk-page post I found this: " ...when actor Alec Baldwin discharged a live round from a revolver he was using as a prop". There's no definition of "true" in the world that makes that sentence true. At best, it's conjecture. What we know is that a bullet was fired out of the barrel of a gun that, at that time, nobody was touching but Alec Baldwin. It's beyond anything I can ever forgive to twist that fact into "Alec Baldwin discharged that bullet". There is NO WAY anyone can know if Alec Baldwin "discharged" that bullet, and the odds are overwhelming that he did NOT. It is possible that his thumb slipped off the hammer and the hammer fell forward and the impact on the rear end of the cartridge detonated the explosive charge therein and propelled a slug out of the far end of the barrel and into the cinematographer's body. If that's the same as "Alec Baldwin discharged ...", then you can say that Gavrilo Princip engineered the U.S.A.'s prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. I mean, Princip killing Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 caused World War One, and World War One caused World War Two, and World War Two caused the U.S.A.'s prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s. Consequences and intent are not of INFINITE elasticity. But your readers will infer, if you write ALL of your sentences as badly as THAT one, that Princip was in favor of (or at least was unwilling to modify his behavior to avoid) the U.S.A. having at least two decades of prosperity.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

You fixed it. Seems like we're all set. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Unclear

The sentence below isn't relevant to these facts, but it's not clear whether the FBI is asserting its relevance or if it's Wikipedia asserting its relevance.

QUOTE

In August 2022, FBI forensic testing and investigation of the firearm determined the Pietta .45 Long Colt Single Action Army revolver could not have been fired without a trigger pull from a quarter cocked, half-cocked, or fully cocked hammer position.

UNQUOTE

The reason it's not relevant is that it doesn't deny the highly plausible explanation that (a) the hammer was never pulled back to quarter-cock, half-cock, or full-cock while the trigger was untouched, then (b) Baldwin grabbed the FULLY UNCOCKED GUN with his hand, depressing the trigger just slightly but unconsciously, unaware that he was doing anything more than touching it lightly, and then (c) Baldwin pulled back the hammer WITH THE TRIGGER SLIGHTLY DEPRESSED. What the FBI NEEDED to tell us is whether the hammer would cock to ANY position if the trigger were depressed to any extent at all. If depressing the trigger even by a slight amount caused the hammer to go into the mode of "fanning the hammer" for firing faster than can be fired by the trigger, and if the hammer would not lock back into ANY cocked position but would always fall all the way forward to hit the cartridge, then the FBI's assertion about what happens when the gun is cocked has no applicability to what happens when the gun WON'T cock. If the hammer would NOT cock with the trigger lightly touched, then if Baldwin's thumb slipped off the hammer when it was a sufficient distance back, the hammer would fall forward and fire the cartridge. So is it a sentence included in the FBI's report that the FBI itself acknowledges to be irrelevant? IF so, is there a reason to included it here in Wikipedia if the FBI itself acknowledges that descriptions of what happens at cock, half-cock, and quarter-cock aren't relevant to what happens at uncocked? If the FBI insists that it IS relevant, perhaps add a note making it clear that you're including this to document that the FBI said something non-smart, making it clear that you aren't considering the FBI a reliable source but just saying that they SAID something.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

It seems like a reasonable thing to include to me. It informs the reader of some possibly relevant third party findings about the incident. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Missing

It's never been clear to me whether or not Baldwin was or was not charged for his handling of the gun. Since the gun might well be of a design that he couldn't well have prevented from firing, I had always assumed that he was being charged for running a sloppy operation in which live ammunition came to the set and he didn't do what he should have done to reign things in; and that furthermore he was prosecuted for hiring sloppy people that he should have known better than to hire, and therefore is guilty of homicide by reckless or depraved indifference to save costs. If he was in charge of the set, I would have fully supported a guilty verdict (of that crime--not of anything having to do with events following the gun being in his hand). Someone has written that Baldwin should not even be held guilty of that, since the widely-reported fact that he has a "Producer" credit on the film is just an empty perk that an actor can negotiate for if his attachment to a film, alone, is sufficient to get the financing to make that film. So the extent to which he was MANAGING this set is relevant to this article, because if he was just a hired actor who could get CREDITED as "Producer" then his guilt is as minimal as possible (but not nonexistent--he should have examined the gun when it was handed to him) and probably not enough for a criminal conviction. That being the information I came to this article to get, I'm disappointed to not find it here. Maybe you could also go over the fact-pattern alleged by the Prosecution, which might make it clear whether they charged him for what he did with a gun or whether they charged him for creating an environment in which SOMEONE was gonna get hurt.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson