First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .

[Metal god]

Day 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnC4OoxxN5E

I'd also like to retract my statement saying I have a hard time believing the armorer screwed up all that ammo on set . After watching here interview with the police and Hanna pulling dummy rounds out of her pockets at the interview as if that's a normal place to carry them WTH man . Then there's the idea nobody searched her at the set or before the interview or asked if she had anything in her pockets or on her person relevant to the case or incident

[44 AMP]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but are the questions being asked right now the really important ones??

I don't think we're there, just yet...

[5whiskey]

Some interesting comments on an interesting case. I haven't followed it closely, because ultimately I believe Guitierrez will be acquitted. Pinning criminal negligence in an accidental shooting on someone who wasn't even present when the shooting occurred is an extremely tall order. Defense will go on and on about how anyone could have handled that firearm and placed a live round inside after Guitierrez last inspected it, and how directors and actors chose to handle firearms without the Armorer present. Short of numerous witnesses saying she loaded the gun, placed it on the prop table, walked away, and they all watched the gun intently and testify it was not tampered with until handed directly to Baldwin.... well I would have reasonable doubt.

What I find most shocking is that a 24 year old was hired on as the lead Armorer for a multimillion dollar movie. I get who her dad is, sure. We trust 24 year Olds to lead platoons in war in foreign lands, and to police our streets. But there is a level of close senior supervision in those fields that widely differs from someone being declared the ultimate subject matter expert for lethal weapons in a multi-million dollar endeavor at just 24 years old. I essentially grew up with a gun in my hand, and was quite competent at 24. Still, me today would not hire 24 year old me for what Guitierrez was tasked with. I would be on the fence with trusting 30 year old me. All of her disorganization is good show for the prosecution, but disorganization =/= criminal conduct. Especially as she wasn't present when the shooting happened. That's going to lead to reasonable doubt.

[44 AMP]

What I find most shocking is that a 24 year old was hired on as the lead Armorer for a multimillion dollar movie.

Actually, I find it rather easy to believe with THIS movie production company. I think it entirely plausible that they hired her because other, older, more experienced people simply refused the job. The production company probably considered her a win/win, being the daughter of Thell Reed (and therefore presumed technically competent) but still young and not experienced enough to be able to stand her ground when management decided not to bother with those pesky, time consuming and expensive industry safety rules.

Additionally. by putting her in that position it made her a near perfect "fall guy" if something did go wrong.

because there was such poor chain of custody control at the movie location, I agree its not likely they will convict her, of the manslaughter charge, I think.

Guilty of violating nearly all the industry safety protocols, is another matter, and she has a degree of defense even there, simply because, despite the authority the armorer's position is supposed to have, it seems she didn't have that on the Rust set.

I believe this was because of the management. And that same "management" was the star of the production, and, ironically, the guy holding the "smoking gun".

[Metal god]

I'd have to hear the exact jury instructions to even think of conviction at this point . I can't get there either but I also believe she did play some part is all this and not a good part .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Actually, I find it rather easy to believe with THIS movie production company. I think it entirely plausible that they hired her because other, older, more experienced people simply refused the job.

IIRC, reports at the time of the incident cited at least one experienced and respected film armorer who said he told them that, due to the number of firearms involved, they needed TWO full-time armorers. Needless to say, he didn't get the job. Instead, they settled for a part-time kid.

I don't think we will ever learn who put the live rounds into the gun, or how they got onto the set.

[Ricklin]

That 44 amp guy is a smart feller. Seems I agree with him most always.
2 years since Halyna was shot by Baldwin. Am certain I read several sources early on that stated the crew enjoyed "plinking" during downtime on the remote set.
Most all of us love plinking, plinking with blank ammunition? I think not. Sure explains how live ammo got on the set. It would also explain loose rounds in an individuals pocket and car.

[stagpanther]

Am certain I read several sources early on that stated the crew enjoyed "plinking" during downtime on the remote set.

I remember reading the same thing. Don't remember reading that they had conclusive proof--but that was always what I thought was the most likely the cause of live ammo entering the movie zone.

[Tom Servo]

And that same "management" was the star of the production, and, ironically, the guy holding the "smoking gun".

Agreed, and this will be the thing in the inevitable civil suits, when the phrase "knew or should have known" comes up.

Gutierrez-Reed had recently been reprimanded by Nicolas Cage on another set for discharging a gun while talking to him. There were known issues. Numerous union employees walked off the job on Rust because of safety issues, and Baldwin replaced them with non-union employees.

There was a whole chain of failures leading up to the incident, and they stem from two things: Baldwin cheaping out on the hiring process and Baldwin ignoring industry safety protocols.

If this were an accident on a poorly-run construction site, he'd be on the hook for negligence.

[44 AMP]

I don't think we will ever learn who put the live rounds into the gun, or how they got onto the set.

As I see it, there are only two possibilities. First, the introduction of live rounds onto the set (and into Baldwin's gun) was deliberate and intentional. If that is the case, then unless someone confesses they did it, we'll probably never know.

Second, and far more likely, it was a mistake, a loss of inventory control, and likely no one knows who did it, only that the responsibility under standard industry rules belonged to the armorer. Maybe it was her mistake, personally, or maybe it was someone else, and she didn't catch it.

Perhaps she was prevented from catching the matter because of the other things management required her to do. In that kind of situation, even a hyper competent armorer might have been overwhelmed and so far, we have no indication that she was that competent. She might have been competent enough to manage things safely on a set where everything was run according to industry standards, but we don't have proof of that, and there are some things indicating she might not have been good enough on a properly run set, let alone the kind of production RUST was.

The thought occurs to me that this trial may not be about her guilt or innocence as much as it is about establishing legal evidence of the actual conditions that existed on the set as a (hopefully) concrete "floor" that Baldwin't defense team can't poke holes in, when it is his turn to go to trial.

It may be small and petty of me, and it is certainly only my personal opinion, but I just can't get past the fact that the first thing Baldwin is reported to have said after the gun fired wasn't "what the ..... happened?" it wasn't "is she ok?" it wasn't "get a doctor", it was "I didn't pull the trigger!"

Draw your own conclusions.

[stagpanther]

It may be small and petty of me, and it is certainly only my personal opinion, but I just can't get past the fact that the first thing Baldwin is reported to have said after the gun fired wasn't "what the ..... happened?" it wasn't "is she ok?" it wasn't "get a doctor", it was "I didn't pull the trigger!"

I don't know about that; humans do and say crazy things when in shock and people can babble incoherently. I'm not defending Baldwin, just sayin. No human-made system is 100% reliable nor tested for every possible contingency. I think what can be said conclusively is that if the gun had never been pointed at anyone--nobody would have been shot. I think that element is what will be on trial. Think about it, if you shoot enough at public ranges you're going to eventually, maybe frequently, see people who shoot regularly do knuckle-headed things that could possibly lead to disaster with just one little mistake. Baldwin I think likely--though I base this just purely on opinion--saw guns as cool toys of the romantic image of the "Ole West" and probably had a total disregard and/or ignorance that any operational gun can kill. I've had a "one in a million" failure due to negligence while committing aviation so I'm not going to pontificate on how stupid the person is. I've also blown up one rifle when using the wrong powder and had an AD on another after I adjusted the trigger.

Complacency.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Hutchins had recently been reprimanded by Nicolas Cage on another set for discharging a gun while talking to him.

Hutchins was the victim. Gutierrez-Reed was the armorer chick.

[44 AMP]

You're free to have any opinion you wish, all I'm saying is that when the first bit of "incoherent babble" is CYA, I think that says something about a person's priorities, conscious and subconscious.

I think what can be said conclusively is that if the gun had never been pointed at anyone--nobody would have been shot.

Indisputable logic. One of the most tragic parts of the situation was that pointing the gun at a person was entirely Baldwin's choice.
And did he choose an actor on the set? One where the script might have called for a gun being pointed at??

He did not.

He AIMED at a woman standing next to the camera, who would have been "offscreen" had they been filming. And that's another point to consider, they were NOT filming, they were "rehearsing" to check lighting and camera angles. There was no reason to have the guns on the set at all.

Except, I believe, because Baldwin wanted them there, so he could "play".

From the information currently available, film industry rules were violated so that could happen. I wonder if/when this trial will cover that.... or if we'll have to wait until Baldwin himself is on trial to find out??

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm watching the testimony of Sarah Zachary, the prop master.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSWJNUXowe0

Curiously, Hannah Gutierrez was assistant prop master under Ms. Zachary, but Ms. Zachary was assistant armorer to Ms. Gutierrrez. And Ms. Zachary testified that she knows nothing about firearms, and that she had to be shown how to load a single action revolver by Ms. Gutierrez. (And in one of the early reports I recall reading that Ms. Gutierrez had to ask her father how to load dummies -- or maybe it was blanks -- into a single action revolver.)

Ms. Zachary also testified that after "the incident" she took back revolvers from two other actors who were part of the scene ... and threw away whatever ammunition they had been loaded with!

The incident clearly had an impact on this woman. She testified that she stopped working in film-making as a result, and there are times during her testimony when its obvious she's having difficulty holding herself together.

[stagpanther]

I'm watching the testimony of Sarah Zachary, the prop master.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSWJNUXowe0

Curiously, Hannah Gutierrez was assistant prop master under Ms. Zachary, but Ms. Zachary was assistant armorer to Ms. Gutierrrez. And Ms. Zachary testified that she knows nothing about firearms, and that she had to be shown how to load a single action revolver by Ms. Gutierrez. (And in one of the early reports I recall reading that Ms. Gutierrez had to ask her father how to load dummies -- or maybe it was blanks -- into a single action revolver.)

Ms. Zachary also testified that after "the incident" she took back revolvers from two other actors who were part of the scene ... and threw away whatever ammunition they had been loaded with!

The incident clearly had an impact on this woman. She testified that she stopped working in film-making as a result, and there are times during her testimony when its obvious she's having difficulty holding herself together.

Just started watching--first shocking revelation--the revolver had already had AD's prior to the shooting according to Ms Zachary. I hadn't heard that before.

[Tom Servo]

Hutchins was the victim. Gutierrez-Reed was the armorer chick.

My mistake.

[44 AMP]

Just started watching--first shocking revelation--the revolver had already had AD's prior to the shooting according to Ms Zachary. I hadn't heard that before.

I had heard there had been an AD on the set before the fatal shooting, her testimony is the first time I heard actual detailed information about what happened.

I would point out that, based on what she said, the revolver didn't have an AD, SHE DID.

And, given her admitted level of experience and training, I'm not surprised.

I see putting her in the position of loading and unloading the guns was a management decision, which I see as trying to compensate for their failure to budget the time (and the money) required to have trained, competent people available to do the work.

The Colt SAA system has been in use since 1873. The "manual of arms" for loading, shooting and unloading the gun is not complex, but its not "idiot proof" and never has been. And while training on how to use it the safest way possible isn't complicated, some minor details are easy to overlook, particularly when the people doing the training are barely familiar with the mechanism.

There are a couple of "minor details" that can be critically important to prevent and AD when loading and using the gun. Like when lowering the hammer, only pulling the trigger enough to release the hammer (while you hold it) and then releasing the trigger, BEFORE lowering the hammer.

If you don't release the trigger, if you continue to hold it back, neither the half cock nor the safety notch will catch the hammer if it slips from your grasp as you lower it. OR taking the additional precaution of putting your thumb, finger or hand over the frame so that if the hammer slips it won't hit the firing pin. Painful if the hammer does slip, but hitting your hand is better than having the gun fire.

I'd bet Zachary didn't know about that, and likely wasn't taught about it.

The growing list of people on the RUST set doing things they weren't properly trained to do is getting painful to see....

[stagpanther]

I'd bet Zachary didn't know about that, and likely wasn't taught about it.

The growing list of people on the RUST set doing things they weren't properly trained to do is getting painful to see....

Of course it's obvious that the people handling the weapons didn't have a clue. I think this is going to be a witch hunt to assign responsibility--and I'm willing to bet it's going to end up being a recognition the present system has a multitude of potential failure points, resulting in a possible "indictment" of the SGA procedures which in many instances are in opposition of standard safety procedures in every other community that handles firearms other than in films. Suppose total blame is laid on Baldwin--what's to prevent the same thing from happening again?

I would point out that, based on what she said, the revolver didn't have an AD, SHE DID.

Most likely--yes. But it wasn't 100% obvious. The biggest glaring omission in almost all these trials--especially this one, from what I've seen so far--is that EVERYONE has extremely rudimentary knowledge of firearms and their functionality.Ms Zachary responses were mostly "Duh, I think so, maybe, yes." If it were purely her predetermined--than it would have been ND.

Ms Guiterrez didn't win herself any points--the camera kept panning over to her where she always seemed to have a smug, irritated look like "what a waste of my time."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Of course it's obvious that the people handling the weapons didn't have a clue. I think this is going to be a witch hunt to assign responsibility--and I'm willing to bet it's going to end up being a recognition the present system has a multitude of potential failure points, resulting in a possible "indictment" of the SGA procedures which in many instances are in opposition of standard safety procedures in every other community that handles firearms other than in films.

How are the SAG protocols in any way in opposition to "normal" safety protocols for handling and shooting firearms? If anything, IMHO the SAG guidelines supplement and go beyond our normal four rules (or the NRA's three primary rules plus X-teen secondary rules).

The SAG protocols call for a minimum of two people to witness the loading of a firearm, and in the case of dummies they require that a minimum of two people physically verify that EACH round is a genuine dummy.

The SAG protocols clearly establish that a firearm is not to be pointed at any person. It can't be much clearer than that -- and Baldwin violated that.

The SAG protocols also call for a safety walk-through of every scene involving the handling of firearms with the weapons handler (the armorer) prior to filming. That wasn't done on this film.

Here are the guidelines. Pay attention to Safety Bulletin #1, which starts on page 13 of the PDF. This one addresses the use of blank ammunition on film sets. #2 addresses the use of live ammunition. I can't find it now, but there is a separate guideline that addresses dummy rounds. It calls for dummy rounds to either have a hole drilled in the casing or for the round to have two or three BBs in it, and for the armorer to physically shake each round -- in the presence of the First Assistant Director -- to verify the sound of the BBs before loading the rounds into a firearm.

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safet...rt_1_9_3_0.pdf

[stagpanther]

How are the SAG protocols in any way in opposition to "normal" safety protocols for handling and shooting firearms? If anything, IMHO the SAG guidelines supplement and go beyond our normal four rules (or the NRA's three primary rules plus X-teen secondary rules).

The SAG protocols call for a minimum of two people to witness the loading of a firearm, and in the case of dummies they require that a minimum of two people physically verify that EACH round is a genuine dummy.

The SAG protocols clearly establish that a firearm is not to be pointed at any person. It can't be much clearer than that -- and Baldwin violated that.

Call it trick photography that maybe I can't comprehend--but I've seen a multitude of instances in films when firearms are pointed directly at a person. Do the guidelines have specific minimum qualifications, testing and licensing for all of the instances of anyone and everyone having anything to do with a firearm and check-in, check-out controls at all times? I don't know. If not--then the system is only as good as its weakest link IMO. Looked at another way--EVEN IF all these conditions are present in SAG guidelines--that's 'GUIDELINES'--how could it be so easy to have a total clusterclown show as this was? Blaming it all on someone who don't know didley about firearms isn't going to prevent yet another dolt taking control as things are now as far as I can tell.

[MZ5]

Okay, so I know this discussion is about making movies. Nevertheless, think carefully about how this plays out into public psyche across the country:

"specific minimum qualifications, testing and licensing for all of the instances of anyone and everyone having anything to do with a firearm"

[JohnKSa]

The SAG guidelines are not binding--they certainly don't rise to the level of law--and they are not the only set of guidelines used in the film industry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488

To top it off, SAG has made a statement that Baldwin should not be held criminally responsible for the incident. It's going to be hard to ignore that if the prosecution tries to make an issue of the SAG guidelines.
https://deadline.com/2023/01/alec-ba...or-1235228068/

[Metal god]

Day 7
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOGuiUspts

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Call it trick photography that maybe I can't comprehend--but I've seen a multitude of instances in films when firearms are pointed directly at a person. Do the guidelines have specific minimum qualifications, testing and licensing for all of the instances of anyone and everyone having anything to do with a firearm and check-in, check-out controls at all times? I don't know. If not--then the system is only as good as its weakest link IMO. Looked at another way--EVEN IF all these conditions are present in SAG guidelines--that's 'GUIDELINES'--how could it be so easy to have a total clusterclown show as this was? Blaming it all on someone who don't know didley about firearms isn't going to prevent yet another dolt taking control as things are now as far as I can tell.

And how is that any different from the real world? The NRA rules for firearms safety are not law. Cooper's four rules are not law. We have all probably seen multiple instances of idiots at ranges who violate the rules -- some to the point where the experienced shooters decide to leave the range rather than risk being shot by an idiot.

Your statement was that "the SGA procedures which in many instances are in opposition of standard safety procedures in every other community that handles firearms other than in films." I disagree. I posted a link to the guidelines -- what in them runs contrary to our real-world gun safety rules (guidelines)?

[stagpanther]

"specific minimum qualifications, testing and licensing for all of the instances of anyone and everyone having anything to do with a firearm"

Little bit of cherry-picking for context going on here--I meant for the use of firearms in a film. Sky marshals--school safety officers--I can think of lots of instances where novices are required to take special training and certification. Anyway, my comment that SAG guidelines are against common practices was over the top--based mostly on this film being a classic example of "insert idiot(s)--bad things are going to happen." Gonna take a couple of giant lawsuits or a couple more shootings, I guess.