First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
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
New member
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?
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."
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
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).stagpanther said:
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/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf
stagpanther
New member
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.
Last edited:
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"
"specific minimum qualifications, testing and licensing for all of the instances of anyone and everyone having anything to do with a firearm"
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-b...-shooting-sag-aftra-defends-actor-1235228068/
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-b...-shooting-sag-aftra-defends-actor-1235228068/
Aguila Blanca
Staff
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.stagpanther said:
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
New member
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.
Why pussyfoot around? let's just skip all the fuss and nuke Mars, now!
Here's some question for those of you who like researching such things,
How long have the current film industry "guideline" covering firearms been in place?
How many movies using firearms under those guidelines have been made??
(how many westerns??)
How many firearm accidents, how many people have been shot, how many killed on movie sets where those guidelines were adhered to??
It is true no chain is stronger than its weakest link, but when management chooses to not bother with that heavy, expensive chain and uses string instead, good results are not likely.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, I would say that's entirely correct.stagpanther said:
The SAG firearms safety protocols, had even most of them been followed on the set of Rust, would have prevented Hutchins' death and Souza's injury. The problem wasn't the rules, the problem was the blatant disregard for those rules. The fact that most of the crew walked off the set because of safety issues should have been a wake-up call but, instead, Baldwin and company hired non-union replacements and doubled down on ignoring the safety protocols.
What I want to know ...
How many people were shot on the set of the TV show ... "Gunsmoke"
Seems like it ran for 20 years and Matt shot some fellow every episode !
There must be a high body count on this one !
I think Baldwin erred twice ... he didn't check his weapon to see if it was loaded and he pointed it at something he didn't intend to shoot ...
Just common gun safety you practice when hunting ... my daddy taught me that and he had no formal gun training . Just a dad teaching his son about hunting .
Gary
How many people were shot on the set of the TV show ... "Gunsmoke"
Seems like it ran for 20 years and Matt shot some fellow every episode !
There must be a high body count on this one !
I think Baldwin erred twice ... he didn't check his weapon to see if it was loaded and he pointed it at something he didn't intend to shoot ...
Just common gun safety you practice when hunting ... my daddy taught me that and he had no formal gun training . Just a dad teaching his son about hunting .
Gary
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
He also had his finger on the trigger (and the trigger retracted) when he didn't intend to fire the gun.gwpercle said:
OR ...
It's also possible that he DID intend to drop the hammer, and proceeded to do exactly that -- not realizing that he would be dropping the hammer on a live round.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Interesting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5zKuFqaIXk
This is the testimony of Bryan Carpenter, an experienced Hollywood armorer who was NOT associated with the Rust production. Listening to the prosecutor's line of questioning, it almost seems like she's more interested in setting up a case against Baldwin than she is in eliciting testimony aimed at convicting Gutierrez.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5zKuFqaIXk
This is the testimony of Bryan Carpenter, an experienced Hollywood armorer who was NOT associated with the Rust production. Listening to the prosecutor's line of questioning, it almost seems like she's more interested in setting up a case against Baldwin than she is in eliciting testimony aimed at convicting Gutierrez.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I believe they were formalized in the aftermath of Brandon Lee's death on the set of The Crow. That was (checking) ... 1993, so about 30 years.44 AMP said:
OK, lets go all inclusive and ask the questions again...
Considering all the movie rules, regulations, procedures, best practices and everything else you can think of, how long has the most current system been in use, how many films (and I guess tv shows?) made following those rules, and how many firearms accidents, injuries and fatal shootings, have occurred ??
I do believe that would be the intent, if it were my call, I would certainly put that at the top of my prosecutor's list. Build a solid case against Baldwin, and if Reed is found guilty of something along the way, so much the better.
Baldwin is the big fish here, and he's on the hook two different ways. First, he is the person who fired the fatal shot, and second, as head of the production company, he was the "captain of the ship" and therefore responsible for everything that happened.
All of the mistakes, errors and bad decisions that played some part contributing to the fatal shooting were done can and should be laid at his feet, and he should be held accountable for what he did and failed to do.
Not saying he's the ONLY person who should be held accountable for what happened, only that he's the one with the greatest share of responsibility, by far.