[5whiskey]

Couple of things...

I think Branca addressed that aspect pretty well when he said something along the lines of it doesn't matter if everyone else had failed, it doesn't matter if the ammo supplier gave them thousands of rounds of live ammo, it doesn't matter who said what--if the armorer had done their job--a very simple one at that, no live round would have been fired. Everything after that is incidental to the actual cause of the killing. Was Baldwin stupid in pointing the firearm at anyone and not following SAG guidelines? Yes. But it could have happened to any idiot on the set who didn't know what was actually in the gun. All that said, where I think Baldwin IS most vulnerable for charges is, at least how it appears to me, is ignoring previous signs of trouble and hiring people who were likely not qualified (which is why I suggested there needs to be some rigorous way of determining adequate and provable experience and training that assures that anyone would know whether or not someone is qualified). He should be roasted, and so should Ms Pickle (or whatever her name was).

There is at least some truth to this. There is also a GIANT caveat...

That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?

This IS a major issue.

Doesn't matter; whoever she did hand off...

If you're trying to suggest that it doesn't matter whether she was present or not, it matters a great deal. You can be my boss, in charge of me, AND EVEN responsible for my actions to our employer. If you are gone, and I take actions in your absence that leads to a death, then how are you CRIMINALLY liable (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) for my actions? Absent direct orders from you to take the action that I took, or that you intentionally (or negligently, if the statute allows for negligence) set the stage and circumstances for my actions that deliberately guides my actions, with witnesses backing that up; you are largely off the criminal hook. Now you very well may have your pants sued off in a civil trial, and that is a very different animal. You may be fired. But sued and fired are very different than imprisoned.

I fail to see how the armorer can be convicted unless witnesses say that she definitely loaded the gun, left it on the prop table, walked away, and no one else tampered with it until Baldwin picked it up and fired it. Even then, Baldwin would and should face severe consequences for handling the firearm without the armorer present. Well, as long as it is expected that the armorer must be present during live fire scenes of the movie according to industry standards (and if they aren't required to be present during such scenes, as you say... why have an armorer anyway?).