• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun (2)

Roger Ramjets said:
I agree. What would be the point? Prison should be reserved for those who are a danger to society.

Very disappointing to hear that Baldwin got off though. I mean, he's an arrogant, entitled, self righteous Hollywood pig with a net worth of $70 million, and a democrat! That alone should have been enough to convict. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Putting people who are not a danger to Society in Prison, only costs the Society this was always best left to a Civil case.
 
acbytesla said:
This is one of those occasions where the guilt or innocence of the defendants is irrelevant. The pattern of process abuse is such that the system requires that governments need a reminder of what it can and cannot do. Do your job. Turn over everything to the defense. No exceptions.
Click to expand...

When the experts tell me the gun will not fire without the trigger being pulled and I had a simular gun fire from an Obstructed trigger, I knew someone had to be lying and it wasn't me.

Morrissey hid the evidence that the trigger might have been Obstructed and broke the gun, then kept hidding stuff, the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office needs to fire some people or demote them, this was the worst investigation I have ever witnessed.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
When the experts tell me the gun will not fire without the trigger being pulled and I had a simular gun fire from an Obstructed trigger, I knew someone had to be lying and it wasn't me.

Morrissey hid the evidence that the trigger might have been Obstructed and broke the gun, then kept hidding stuff, the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office needs to fire some people or demote them, this was the worst investigation I have ever witnessed.
Click to expand...

They do. But I wonder if it will happen. This is such a high profile disaster that I question the likelihood of that happening. The lawyers were brought in on contract. Morrissey is toast. I've watched attorney after attorney analyze this case and she is universality condemned.

But the two who are just as responsible, I doubt will see any ramifications. That is the crime scene tech and the lead investigator. Both which are complicit in hiding evidence.
 
smartcooky said:
Starline Brass do not manufacture live rounds.
Click to expand...

Yes. That has been well known in this thread for literally years now.

I'll bet no-one here (not even Crazy Chainsaw) and including you, knew that people in the prop movie business were reloading Starline casings as live rounds before this fact was brought up in this thread, and certainly not before the Rust shooting happened. In fact, it was not widely known at all.
Click to expand...

And you would lose that bet. CC has opined more than once that Starlines are one of the most popular reloading cases in the States, considered one of the best.

For my part, no, I didn't know, because I buy new rounds. But when the Starline issue came up years ago, I Googled them and saw they were very very popular reloading cases, for both dummies and live rounds, and noted that.

So how is that a refutation of my comment that using Starline brass is an everyday occurrence?

Hindsight is always 20-20



You also have missed the point, because you also either did not read what I was replying to or didn't understand the statement. You're trying to shoot the messenger without even understanding the message.
Click to expand...

You say this alot lately. Can you really not understand that someone may read and understand fully what you are saying, yet disagree? It seems you can't.

{Eta: that's exactly the kind of inflexible thinking I'm talking about: you think your words are unassailable truth, and anyone who disagrees either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Shades of Leumas}

The Swiss Cheese model is NOT some kind of blame game - it doesn't speak to who did what, or why, or were they negligent or incompetent, or didn't follow some procedure ... its simply speaks to what is. Its a tool used plot a path to disaster, and shows that multiple events are involved, and that if any one of which doesn't happen, the path if blocked that path.
Click to expand...

Disagreed, which was my point. In fairness, a similar issue has been a thorn in my side on my job lately, which I should have elaborated on for clarity.

Your Swiss Cheese Model represents one issue cause and effect, flow chart style. The thing is, that's the inflexible thinking of an engineer. In reality, any casual chain is more like infinite tree branches spreading out, many of which would lead to the exact same outcome. It's the oversimplification that I am bristling at; it's profoundly unrealistic.

Of course, you could say that in hindsight, that's the events that played out and removing any "Swiss Cheese slice" and replacing it with #6 would have stopped the whole sequence. But again, that's a poor modeling. The sequence wouldn't have stopped- it would have continued differently, with possibly the same or worse outcome, or a better one. But not the null.

Or you could look at it as any other causal flow chart. Say, I spilled my coffee this morning. You can assemble myriad slices of swiss cheese to model all the random events that led to that. And what is the illustrative benefit of showing these slices, if not to identify a preventable shortcoming, which you misinterpret as "blame"?

Another poster earlier pointed out that in the case of Baldwin himself, there was a live round in the chamber that he did not know about. If he didn't have the gun in his hand when the shot was fired, it could have been the next person to pick up the gun who could have killed someone, or the next, or the next, or the next.
Click to expand...

Which is why the Swiss Cheese model.is kind of useless, or at the very best, misleading. You can pull a slice and end up with effectively get the same result, or any of infinite others. But it does not, as the model illustrates, stop anything. It stops one branch from playing out to precisely that end. It does not mitigate the broader problems, which were foreseeable if you don't think in these rigid flow chart ways.

IMO (and I confess that my opinion is coloured by my experiences in the aviation industry) it is the person or persons who initially put into place the dangerous conditions, who should be ultimately responsible for what happened at the end of the chain. For example, in the crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 312, it was the inability of the pilots to regain control of the aircraft that resulted in the crashes, killing over 300 people. Even though subsequent tests showed the aircraft were recoverable if the pilots had known exactly what to do, its was ultimately Boeing who were to blame for putting in place all the dangerous conditions in the first place.
Click to expand...

OK. So who put the person/s who put the initial dangerous conditions into play? Your model seems to start very late in the game. I'd say it was whoever thought it would be a good idea to use live firearms as props on a ******* movie set. That's just ridiculous, and replacing that "slice" would have stopped all of this. Again,, that's why I see your model as not helpful.
 
Last edited:
Something just occurred to me about this Starline brass thing. Some directors insist on these old west gun scenes being so realistic that they need fake primers on the back of their dummy rounds. So they use Starline, with their insignia engraved unto the case, for a scene from the 1800s when Starline has only been around for 40 years? I mean, viewers gun-savvy enough to notice an unfired primer would be hip to a modern brand of casing, wouldn't they?
 
Thermal said:
Disagreed, which was my point. In fairness, a similar issue has been a thorn in my side on my job lately, which I should have elaborated on for clarity.

Your Swiss Cheese Model represents one issue cause and effect, flow chart style. The thing is, that's the inflexible thinking of an engineer. In reality, any casual chain is more like infinite tree branches spreading out, many of which would lead to the exact same outcome. It's the oversimplification that I am bristling at; it's profoundly unrealistic.

Of course, you could say that in hindsight, that's the events that played out and removing any "Swiss Cheese slice" and replacing it with #6 would have stopped the whole sequence. But again, that's a poor modeling. The sequence wouldn't have stopped- it would have continued differently, with possibly the same or worse outcome, or a better one. But not the null.

Or you could look at it as any other causal flow chart. Say, I spilled my coffee this morning. You can assemble myriad slices of swiss cheese to model all the random events that led to that. And what is the illustrative benefit of showing these slices, if not to identify a preventable shortcoming, which you misinterpret as "blame"?

Which is why the Swiss Cheese model.is kind of useless, or at the very best, misleading. You can pull a slice and end up with effectively get the same result, or any of infinite others. But it does not, as the model illustrates, stop anything. It stops one branch from playing out to precisely that end. It does not mitigate the broader problems, which were foreseeable if you don't think in these rigid flow chart ways.

OK. So who put the person/s who put the initial dangerous conditions into play? Your model seems to start very late in the game. I'd say it was whoever thought it would be a good idea to use live firearms as props on a ******* movie set. That's just ridiculous, and replacing that "slice" would have stopped all of this. Again,, that's why I see your model as not helpful.
Click to expand...

I guess the the question is, what is exactly helpful? The Swiss Cheese model just shows that cascading multiple errors resulted in the accident. In theory, if just one event doesn't happen the accident doesn't happen. I'm not sure if that is totally true in this situation. But I do believe it's reasonable to acknowledge when society is looking to single out a single individual to punish.
 
acbytesla said:
I guess the the question is, what is exactly helpful? The Swiss Cheese model just shows that cascading multiple errors resulted in the accident. In theory, if just one event doesn't happen the accident doesn't happen. I'm not sure if that is totally true in this situation. But I do believe it's reasonable to acknowledge when society is looking to single out a single individual to punish.
Click to expand...

I'd say to just evaluate the actions that created the unsafe scenario, without the dubious illustrative value of lunchmeat analogies.

One person had the responsibility to procure, store, and handle the ammo for this production. No matter who screwed the pooch prior to her, it was 100% on her to see that this didn't happen. That's my primary problem child.

Others had a lesser role, like Baldwin and the shooting victims observing the very basic safety procedure of not being downrange of a gun, whether it's believed to be cold or hot (this calls into question whether Baldwin believed he had a non firing replica in his hand or if he was aware that it was a firing handgun).

Then, the broader issue: are firing guns actually needed on a movie set, or is it some jerk director who wants to "make it look real", or a financial consideration? Either way, it's 2024 and this particular slice of swiss cheese is rancid enough to be done away with now, as it has claimed another life needlessly.
 
smartcooky said:
Replace any of the slices with Slice 6, and the path to the accident is stopped. The shooting doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Thermal said:
Each freaking slice is one massive gaping hole of recklessness.
Click to expand...

Crazy Chainsaw said:
Safety is always a Layered process.
Click to expand...

The cheese model works best for non-volitional models of causation—things that don't involve human decisions and behavior in the moment.

The paradox is known as social loafing, or sometimes the tug-of-war problem. You'd think that if one person can create a tractive effort of, say, 100 Newtons, then six people will produce a tractive effort of 600 N. But this never happens. The more people you add to the rope, the more each person unconsciously relies on the others. Safety in depth only works when each layer or link in the model is individually robust and doesn't depend on any of the other steps.

In quality control scenarios, one inspector is often more effective than two because the one inspector knows it's all up to her, whereas with two or more inspectors each will believe the other will catch faults she misses, so she's individually less careful.
 
Thermal said:
Something just occurred to me about this Starline brass thing. Some directors insist on these old west gun scenes being so realistic that they need fake primers on the back of their dummy rounds. So they use Starline, with their insignia engraved unto the case, for a scene from the 1800s when Starline has only been around for 40 years? I mean, viewers gun-savvy enough to notice an unfired primer would be hip to a modern brand of casing, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Ironic isn't it?

Directors are weird. They often get hung about things nobody notices, but them. On the other hand audiences are affected by visual clues without necessarily knowing they are.
 
Thermal said:
I'd say to just evaluate the actions that created the unsafe scenario, without the dubious illustrative value of lunchmeat analogies.

One person had the responsibility to procure, store, and handle the ammo for this production. No matter who screwed the pooch prior to her, it was 100% on her to see that this didn't happen. That's my primary problem child. Others had a lesser role, like Baldwin and the shooting victims observing the very basic safety procedure of not being downrange of a gun, whether it's believed to be cold or hot (this calls into question whether Baldwin believed he had a non firing replica in his hand or if he was aware that it was a firing handgun).

Then, the broader issue: are firing guns actually needed on a movie set, or is it some jerk director who wants to "make it look real", or a financial consideration? Either way, it's 2024 and this particular slice of swiss cheese is rancid enough to be done away with now, as it has claimed another life needlessly.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong.

I just don't believe we accomplish much by laying all the blame on one person. And I DEFINITELY don't believe society benefits by paying for a criminal trial, incarcerating this individual and hanging a lifetime label of felon on them. It offers little to no deterrence value. It's expensive.

It seems to me that the only value is that it is a show trial.
 
acbytesla said:
I guess the the question is, what is exactly helpful? The Swiss Cheese model just shows that cascading multiple errors resulted in the accident. In theory, if just one event doesn't happen the accident doesn't happen. I'm not sure if that is totally true in this situation. But I do believe it's reasonable to acknowledge when society is looking to single out a single individual to punish.
Click to expand...

Yup. you get it, Thermal doesn't.
 
smartcooky said:
Yup. you get it, Thermal doesn't.
Click to expand...

I think he gets it.

It's unimportant to him. Inevitably it was HGR's responsibility to ensure safety and check every gun and round. I don't disagree with Thermal on that. If she did that, Hutchins would be alive.

But if Seth Kenney provided those rounds to the set, he shares in that responsibility. I also believe even with her experience with firearms, hiring someone that young for that job is questionable.

I have a feeling HGR will not have her case dismissed. The fact that she was found guilty makes it more unlikely. Perhaps, the best thing she has in her favor is Kari Morrissey is still the prosecutor. Her failure in discovery duties was massive not only with Alec Baldwin, but with HGR.

I think the best result possible for HGR is for the judge to dismiss the charges leaving it up to New Mexico to appoint a different prosecutor and negotiating a plea deal.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before: There is no law of conservation of responsibility. Blame is not zero-sum. HGR, Kenney, and Baldwin can each be 100% responsible in their own way.

It's kind of the flip side of the swiss cheese model. If three different people are responsible for three different gaps in the safety process, and all three of those gaps aren't closed, then there's nothing stopping us from assigning 300% blame to those folks.
 
theprestige said:
I've said it before: There is no law of conservation of responsibility. Blame is not zero-sum. HGR, Kenney, and Baldwin can each be 100% responsible in their own way.

It's kind of the flip side of the swiss cheese model. If three different people are responsible for three different gaps in the safety process, and all three of those gaps aren't closed,t then there's nothing stopping us from assigning 300% blame to those folks.
Click to expand...

Of course that can be done.

But what's the point?

There is a significant cost to investigate to the point of holding a trial. Not to mention court costs, security and finally the cost of incarceration.

For what? It doesn't bring Hutchins back to life. It doesn't compensate her family. What does society get out of this?

6 people died and billions of dollars in losses occurred as a result of negligence on the Dali, and no one is talking seriously about trying the crewmen or the owners of that ship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom