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

I can think of NOTHING associated with a loaded single action that requires either a primer or a case w/o a hole in its side "...to look real."
Click to expand...

nope, not when it's IN the gun. But what about when its not??

Every director has their own ideas about what needs to be shown and what doesn't matter, but there are a couple of general constants, dramatic effect, and (to a lesser extent) the continuity of the illusion.

Then figure in costs. Its amazing how a multimillion dollar project will often cut corners on low cost items.

Replacing a primer with an inert brass plug doesn't cost much, but it does cost something and sometimes a tiny difference in the price will result in the "less safe" product being chosen, provided it get the desired job done.

Cost, availability and being period correct (preserving the illusion) are factors in having actual firearms used as props. In the early days of film, real guns were used and real ammo was fired. IF the actor wasn't competent, or didn't care to be, off camera shooters fired shots where bullets were shown hitting objects. Because real guns with real bullets were in use, great care was taken, and if there is any record of any actor or crewmember being injured or killed from gunfire back in those days, it has remained hidden.

There are lots of records of people being hurt and even killed on movie sets from that period. Falls, stunts gone bad, horses and cattle, wagons and trains, cars and other things, but not from accidental gunfire.

Today, it seems that since "everyone knows" its not real there is a different attitude. And because there have been fatal accidents, the movie industry has come up with a pretty fool proof system to prevent them. But it has to be FOLLOWED to the letter and on the RUST set, they did not do that.

Dummy rounds are for function testing. They are made to be clearly identifiable as dummy rounds. The military and gunsmiths want them to be instantly, visibly identifiable as dummys and not live ammo. Holes in the case or flutes in the case body work well for that.

The movie industry doesn't want that, it spoils the illusion. Their current practice of a case with only a BB inside allows the round to be "rattle checked" proving its not a live round while looking like one.
 
"The movie industry doesn't want that (holes/flutes), it spoils the illusion"
Click to expand...

And yet.... (ignoring the stupidly of the reporter)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to court documents, investigators found four dummy casings in the revolver,
with holes in the side, and recovered another that may have ejected a bullet.

"David Halls picked up the firearm from a pew inside the church and took it to the armorer,"
a search warrant reads. "Hannah was then told to ‘open up’ the gun so he could see what
was inside. David advised he could only remember seeing at least four ‘dummy’ casings
with the hole in the side, and one without the hole. He advised this round did not have
the ‘cap’ on it and was just the casing."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rust-shooting-dummy-rounds-alec-baldwin-45-long-colt
 
And yet....
Click to expand...

I have a limited amount of faith in "court documents" and what is written in or on search warrants, having seen numerous instances of facts being left out, or things that didn't happen being written in.

In the RUST shooting the gun was a copy of a Colt SAA. The only way to inspect the rounds in the gun (and see holes in the cases) is to remove the rounds from the gun. One at a time.

Eyewitness statements are not sworn testimony until given in court, under oath. What people "remember" and what actually happened may not be the same thing. What someone says during an interview may be given in complete faith and honesty and later prove to be in error, in whole or part.
 
It appears one of defense co-council ask to be excused or leave the defense team and the judge denied the request. Wait there’s more , he is required to sit at defense council’s table and was ordered not to speak to his client ???????

Can somebody explain how that works . I get maybe not being allowed to leave the team but then ordered not to speak to the client seems very odd . If the judges orders you not to speak to your own client why the hell would she force you to not only stay on the team but be there in court as well ? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing before ?
 
Last edited:
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 :confused: . 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 :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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.
 
What I find most shocking is that a 24 year old was hired on as the lead Armorer for a multimillion dollar movie.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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 .
 
44 AMP said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
As usual

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.
 
Am certain I read several sources early on that stated the crew enjoyed "plinking" during downtime on the remote set.
Click to expand...
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.
 
And that same "management" was the star of the production, and, ironically, the guy holding the "smoking gun".
Click to expand...

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

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. :rolleyes:
 
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!"
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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??
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top