One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.

Poppell disclosed the detail while on the stand during the second day of testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of actor Alec Baldwin, nearly three years after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the New Mexico set of the Western film.

Asked about the live rounds of ammunition that were discovered on set, Poppell said investigators found some on a prop cart, in a box of ammo and also in two prop gun holsters — the one worn by Alec Baldwin and another worn by co-star Ackles.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This case has been going on for a while. Offhand, I can think of at least three toddlers who killed themselves or someone else using a gun that the owner knew was loaded.

    None of those adults has been arrested. But the guy who was told his gun had blanks is responsible?

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      So it’s not exactly about the shooting itself but creating the negligent conditions that allowed it to happen. From what I understand, as a producer he had his crew cut as many safety corners as possible to reduce costs. His direction to cut corners led to oversights in safety, which led to the prop masters making safety mistakes and accidentslly loading a live round into a firearm designated as a prop, which led to a person dying because of an on set accident. If he didn’t direct his crew to cut corners, the chances of somebody dying is dramatically reduced and makes this line of work incredibly safe despite the potentially dangerous implements used.

      So the case is about “did the executive decisions Baldwin make to cut corners on safety contribute to the death of someone on set?”

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Again, I point out that parents of children who killed/died aren’t being held to the same level of responsibility.

        • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          They should be. Is that your point? That they should be, because I think any sane person would agree.

          If you’re arguing that the responsible parties in this incident shouldn’t be prosecuted because another person is getting away with manslaughter… well that’s a bit silly isn’t it?

          I can’t tell what your intentions are, because nuance is hard via text

          • modifier@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not to derail but I just want to say that this is an impeccably crafted and balanced comment.

            • Nyxon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I spotted it too, it is well reasoned with an excellent flow of thought. I appreciate that others see it too and commented on it.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            My point is that this is a selective prosecution. Either treat Baldwin like the parents, or treat the parents like Baldwin. Laws should be applied fairly.

            • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah the legal system is not a just system.

              That being said, usually the prosecutorial imbalance is against the weak and powerless. In this case, a man with more power, money, and influence than most of us will ever see in a lifetime is being held responsible for cutting corners. Can you imagine if Boeing execs were actually held accountable? Or Chase/BoA/Wells Fargo et. al.? It rarely happens.

              Is it unjust that the protection is selective? Yes. In the balance, I’d rather the scales be weighted against the powerful, rather than how it normally is.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                Comparing Baldwin to Boeing is like comparing your local deli to McDonalds.

                He’s got a net worth of $70 million. He’s been a successful actor for decades, but he’s nowhere near being a billionaire.

                • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s just taking the comparison in bad faith. It’s not about net worth, it’s about their power and responsibility. Who’s at fault for Boeing’s planes failing? The execs cutting corners to maximize profits or the minimum wage employees just doing what they’re told?

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Bald wins prosecutor is not allowed to do his job, because some other prosecutor didn’t?

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                If a cop lets everyone break the speed limit, and then targets the one driver with a ACAB bumper sticker, now the cop is doing his job?

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes they should be, now leave the non sequitur discussion derailing nonsense at the door and stay on topic. Parents being irresponsible dumbasses has nothing to do with a film exec directing his crew to cut safety corners to save a quick buck.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sounds like you agree with my point that this is a selective prosecution and that plenty of folks who did worse skated.

            • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Fuck off, stop arguing in bad faith, it’s patently clear to everyone in this thread you’re arguing in bad faith.

              Did you read anything I commented or are you going to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard arguing a nonsequitur nobody was arguing and everyone already broadly agrees with?

              Agreeing that parents should be prosecuted for improperly storing firearms around children, which sidenote a simple fucking google search shows that parents often are prosecuted for improperly storing firearms but they’re not famous actor and producer Alec Baldwin so it doesn’t make national news, is not agreeing to the idea of not prosecute Alec Baldwin for directing his crew to cut corners in safety protocols.

            • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              All prosecution is selective. Parents do get prosecuted for the death of their children. People get arrested for participating in peaceful protests while neonazis march in the streets. People speed past cops as they’re pulling someone else over. Unless you want to live in a world where a cop watches your every move and locks you away without trial, it’s impossible to prosecute every single crime that happens.

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It sounds like you are saying that unless we prosecute EVERY OTHER case on this issue, we should just forget about it?

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            It sounds like you are agreeing with me that this is a case of selective prosecution.

            We might have actually saved some kids’ lives if we’d thrown a few negligent parents in jail.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Many other people seem to find it relevant.

            Please explain why the selective nature of the prosecution isn’t relevant.

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          If a worker dies in a factory line while following instructions, we would all agree that owners of the factory should be held responsible. I don’t see why that concept is so difficult to grasp here and so many people are trying to defend Alec Balwdin. The filming set is a workplace and someone died through no fault of their own, but rather by the conditions set by the owners of this production. There were complaints on set about the safety conditions before this incident happened and it seems that nothing was done to mitigate it. Everyone is trying to throw the armorer under the bus, but she was hired and vetted by management, and even after complaints nothing was changed.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            First, that’s not the situation. The boss isn’t responsible if a second worker creates a dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

            Be that as it may, I’m not defending Baldwin; I’m pointing out that a lot of people with much more personal responsibility don’t get in trouble when toddlers kill.

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s bc he is also a producer. The case hinges on him being responsible for safety of the crew and being repeatedly negligent.

      • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This one is his negligence trial, in the trial about him as a producer it came out that he was also messing around with the gun on set and had fired blanks at the crew between takes among other unsafe behaviors.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        One of ten producers. And the one who was mostly in charge fundraising.

        The people who were actually in charge of safety and the guns told Baldwin it was safe.

        • SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is omitting the detail that members of the crew had brought up safety concerns about the firearms handlers and production went on.

          They had an inexperienced armorer on set raising all sorts of red flags, production was made aware, show went on.

          Baldwin is on set when many producers probably weren’t. He’s got his fair shame of blame in this, and the armorer as well.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago
    1. What is live ammo doing on the set period
    2. What is the prop master doing? (Was there even one?)
    • yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The arms master has already been charged. No one really knows why live ammo was on set besides it was mixed into the blanks they bought and the arms master didn’t check properly.

    • And009@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes never show guns, the century old weapons of destruction. Not mentioning violence will make the next generation peaceful and prosperous

  • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why can’t they use specially made guns for Hollywood. Like, you won’t be able to fit real ammo in these weapons to begin with. Let me guess, money. They don’t want to spend the money.

    • ChickenBoo@lemmy.jnks.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I just saw where Guy Ritchie exclusively used air soft guns on The Covenant because it was right after this.

      • Hobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That would’ve changed Bullet Tooth Tony’s speech a bit I guess. “And the fact that you’ve got Replica written down the side of your guns… Oh and mine does too because this is a movie and we all need to be safe.”

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Well while that’s a pretty great video, it’s definitely not “indistinguishable”.

          I mean, you are correct that it can be made indistinguishable, but this youtube skit ain’t that, although it’s pretty fucking hilarious.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re very likely correct. I’m fron the 80’s and while that might have been clear to you, it wasn’t to me.

              I apologise.

              It’s just very high quality compared to the jokey videos we were making at that age with camcorders and no pc’s.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Sure, but having something actually happen when the actor pulls the trigger gives them something to react to. These aren’t impossible hurdles but shooting blanks is way easier.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                There’s also safe ways to do everything, like don’t point it at someone, point slightly upstage so it appears you’re pointing at them from the camera angle, for instance. Or not having live rounds on set.

                Or, y’know, requiring the actors to become familiar with their real gun and double check safety before they use their real guns (a 15min lesson) because redundancy saves lives (the problem with that is actors pretend they’re too stupid to learn 15min of safety procedures before doing dangerous things and they would prefer to do dangerous things without fully understanding them. I think that’s a bad idea, personally. If I’m using a real chainsaw in a movie I’m gonna learn how to not chop off my own fucking leg as a part of learning my lines, because I like my legs. Same for if you pass me a blank firing gun, a real bullet in the mag turns that into a grenade in my hand, best fucking believe I’m checking, I like my hands!)

  • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This whole thing is so bizzare. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a hit. It just seems so unlikely given how many movies have guns and zero deaths.