Hmmm, according to the FBI the gun could not have been fired unless the trigger was pulled while cocked.
Quote:
The report found that the gun, a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver, “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger” with the hammer cocked at the ¼ and ½ positions. It also found that when the weapon was fully cocked it “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional.”
FBI examiners observed an internal malfunction of the gun during testing at the fully cocked position, with the report noting “portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck.”
I haven't been following this story at all but if the sear—the (internal) end of the hammer that stops the gun from firing unless the trigger is pulled—was fractured, I don't see how it wasn't at great risk of inadvertently dropping the hammer when fully cocked.
The gun used in the fatal Rust shooting was so defective it could have fired without any pressure on the trigger, a source told ABC News Friday, which is why prosecutors dropped the charges against actor Alec Baldwin for his role in the 2021 shooting that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Trial is going on for this, can find the testimonies on Youtube. Pretty crazy stuff. I work in film so I'm interested in the process that happened before.
From what I've seen, it seems like the Armourer is likely guilty. And IMO, that also makes Baldwin and other producers liable as the employer who didn't pony up for a proper Armourer and the support they required to do their job safely. But yeah, lots of video and testimony of the Armourer just straight up being bad at their job.
Trial is going on for this, can find the testimonies on Youtube. Pretty crazy stuff. I work in film so I'm interested in the process that happened before.
From what I've seen, it seems like the Armourer is likely guilty. And IMO, that also makes Baldwin and other producers liable as the employer who didn't pony up for a proper Armourer and the support they required to do their job safely. But yeah, lots of video and testimony of the Armourer just straight up being bad at their job.
I think its going to be interesting in terms of safety on film sets moving forward.
That being said, I hear they're thinking of approaching Baldwin to direct the remake of 'The Crow?'
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
I think its going to be interesting in terms of safety on film sets moving forward.
That being said, I hear they're thinking of approaching Baldwin to direct the remake of 'The Crow?'
Dark laugh.
Yeah, honestly as someone who has worked on multiple movies that are in the same budget range and the vibe is very similar to what is described on Rust. Every department overstressed and under staffed (usually with inexperienced people for the sake of lowballing them) and safety standards routinely side-stepped for the sake of saving money on time or personel or equipment. I myself routinely end up on high ladders in precarious places that should require things like a lift and safety harnesses etc... but no way the production will provide for it. Big films with big directors and names etc... they have the funding (and interest) to keep things proper according to union protocol etc. so they are generally safe and when accidents do happen (like on Deadpool 2), then they generally are exactly that, accidents, not negligence.
The lesson is probably in, if you can't provide for proper safety/personel, you shouldn't be filming something dangerous, and that's on the producers. Especially as someone in the cast as well, you'd think Baldwin would be very concerned about the experience of the armourer and the safety of the weapons. In the videos there's quite a bit of evidence of him being pretty idiotic about the use of the guns and, as a seasoned Hollywood professional, should be well aware and interested in adhering to the protocol. I sort of feel bad for the armourer, I know her position and you have to be able to stand up to people and just say no or walk away because of exactly this. You don't want to be responsible for someone else's safety if the environment isn't going provide that. From the amount of gunplay being filmed she should have had multiple assistants helping her. They are nailing her lack of professionalism and organization, which is totally fair, but I also know that it's very difficult to professional and organized when you literally don't have enough people to do your job in the proper manner, and the guy that's paying you is yelling at you to go faster. It's BS. But she is still responsible. She could walk away any time. It's tough when its your income at stake though and you don't have the union backing. Baldwin is present for a lot of the mishandling of weapons, including being guilty of it himself. If there's a problem with the armourer, ultimately it's his (and other producers') responsibility to remove/replace her. For the difference to get a real armourer on this set, you're probably talking an extra $300-$400/day just on them. Then she should probably have an assistant for at least the days when multiple people are handling weapons at once, which probably doubles that. So for less than $1000/day for a handful of days, the producers could have made the decision to make this set safe. If it wasn't in the budget, it could (should) have came out of someone's pocket at the top.
I would say this testimony from a LEGIT armourer and firearms expert is the most damning and most informative. Basically walks through exactly how he would do things during video and the contrast between him and the armourer is stark. But when he describes the type of team he would have on a larger movie, that's kinda the point too.
__________________
Last edited by Coach; 03-02-2024 at 12:56 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse with the handling of the firearms you see the armorer herself holding the long gun by the barrel pointed up towards her face. Unreal.
How does a person so incredibly inexperienced get hired? On top of being inexperienced, she shows zero common sense when it comes to guns.
The Following User Says Thank You to Engine09 For This Useful Post:
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse with the handling of the firearms you see the armorer herself holding the long gun by the barrel pointed up towards her face. Unreal.
How does a person so incredibly inexperienced get hired? On top of being inexperienced, she shows zero common sense when it comes to guns.
It's true. It is pretty unbelievable. I'm not an armourer, far from it. I've hunted so I've shot guns. I 100% believe I would have been a better armourer than this person despite absolutely zero experience. Their propsmaster also had zero experience handling guns (thats why you hire an armourer), but was loading weapons. If I was on this set in ANY position and knew that to be the case I would be raising serious concerns with production, and if nothing was done I would be OUT OF THERE. It's her responsibility to say no to the opportunity of working on this movie.
It's still the producer's responsibility to hire competent people, and if they prove to be incompetent, to replace them. That goes for any position. For someone in charge of weapons firing projectiles? Christ. I would be afraid to be just on the set in general.
I think both Gutierrez and Baldwin (along with any other decision-making producers) should go to jail. Thats the only way producers will stop doing these things.
__________________
Last edited by Coach; 03-02-2024 at 01:21 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
I think if you pulled a random person off the street and gave them a 2 min summary of an armorer's responsibilities and gun safety they would have done a better job. Now you having me going down a rabbit home with these clips, the armorer called the propmaster a c**t before the incident, while they were waiting for the medic helicopter the armorer commented this would ruin her career. Incredible.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse with the handling of the firearms you see the armorer herself holding the long gun by the barrel pointed up towards her face. Unreal.
How does a person so incredibly inexperienced get hired? On top of being inexperienced, she shows zero common sense when it comes to guns.
I've taken airsoft guns away from larpers for less than what goes on in that video. Easy to see why people had already quit that production.
Very easy to tell that there's no culture of safety on that set.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
She deserves it, but I hope it doesn't allow others to escape responsibility. She's not the only one at fault. I thought her lawyer did a terrible job of painting how under resourced she was while being pressured by production. In my experience, would have been easy to show that with comparables from other films. Maybe that's inadmissible stuff, I don't know. Seems relevant though.
She deserves it, but I hope it doesn't allow others to escape responsibility. She's not the only one at fault. I thought her lawyer did a terrible job of painting how under resourced she was while being pressured by production. In my experience, would have been easy to show that with comparables from other films. Maybe that's inadmissible stuff, I don't know. Seems relevant though.
Maybe she wasn't that under resourced, relatively speaking? And if she was, why? Did she ever ask for the necessary resources? That would be part of her job, I assume.
As the armorer explains in that video above, it's also a pretty routine part of that job to stand up to people above you when it comes to gun safety, and if you're not doing that, then you're not doing your job.
Baldwins trial is currently scheduled for July, and looking at some of these videos, it seems like the Gutierrez trial was in part preparation for that one.
There's for example this
,
where at least according to this crew member, Baldwin wasn't even supposed to point the gun at the camera. You can also clearly see him having his finger on the trigger, even in a situation when they're still just setting up the final shot (contrary to what Baldwin has said). That whole testimony feels like it's as much about Baldwin as it was about Gutierrez.
Baldwin will obviously have better lawyers than Gutierrez, so who knows how that's gonna go. But morally, clearly he's also responsible.
Yeah I agree it's her responsibility to say no etc...and that she should be guilty.
When they talked about armourer days vs props days and that she was actually working both the whole time etc... I know EXACTLY what that is. Happens all the time on these types of sets that people are doing two jobs like that. Sounds like she pushed back on having more days and the UPM mentioned "they could add more days as they go", thats some BS. It shows they didn't have enough days off the start and expected Gutierrez to just make due despite likely only being paid to be props when she was actually doing armourer work etc...
The pro armourer too mentioned the type of team he would be using. Well you need someone at the cart, these guns need to be handled this way, locked up, these people shouldn't be left holding them between shots, these ones need to be reloaded between takes, etc.... His whole process would require an extra person if dealing with more than one gun unless she worked incredibly slowly, which I KNOW is not acceptable. And you can see the footage of Baldwin, star and producer, her boss and Hollywood legend shouting at her to be faster. That things should be prepped. When? By who? Your armourer is right in front of you loading everyones weapons. So you've either understaffed her, or you need to offing wait. If she requested this off the bat and was denied and took the job anyways, yeah it's on her, and so is not standing up for safety in those times. But the production IMO is at fault for not properly resourcing that very important safety position.
I've been put in similar positions when dealing with things like fire or stunt glass etc... No body gives a f*** about safety until something bad happens and it can be very difficult to continually be the bad guy telling people to shut things down or move slower. As a man with a relatively commanding presence, I can usually do that, but I know some of my colleagues who are women struggle with getting trounced over like this. And I know being "difficult" has caused me work as well when people wanted to do something they knew I would object to or require more safety for. The lesson they learn is to call someone who won't say no, not to adjust their budget accordingly.
Yeah I agree it's her responsibility to say no etc...and that she should be guilty.
When they talked about armourer days vs props days and that she was actually working both the whole time etc... I know EXACTLY what that is. Happens all the time on these types of sets that people are doing two jobs like that. Sounds like she pushed back on having more days and the UPM mentioned "they could add more days as they go", thats some BS. It shows they didn't have enough days off the start and expected Gutierrez to just make due despite likely only being paid to be props when she was actually doing armourer work etc...
The pro armourer too mentioned the type of team he would be using. Well you need someone at the cart, these guns need to be handled this way, locked up, these people shouldn't be left holding them between shots, these ones need to be reloaded between takes, etc.... His whole process would require an extra person if dealing with more than one gun unless she worked incredibly slowly, which I KNOW is not acceptable. And you can see the footage of Baldwin, star and producer, her boss and Hollywood legend shouting at her to be faster. That things should be prepped. When? By who? Your armourer is right in front of you loading everyones weapons. So you've either understaffed her, or you need to offing wait. If she requested this off the bat and was denied and took the job anyways, yeah it's on her, and so is not standing up for safety in those times. But the production IMO is at fault for not properly resourcing that very important safety position.
I've been put in similar positions when dealing with things like fire or stunt glass etc... No body gives a f*** about safety until something bad happens and it can be very difficult to continually be the bad guy telling people to shut things down or move slower. As a man with a relatively commanding presence, I can usually do that, but I know some of my colleagues who are women struggle with getting trounced over like this. And I know being "difficult" has caused me work as well when people wanted to do something they knew I would object to or require more safety for. The lesson they learn is to call someone who won't say no, not to adjust their budget accordingly.
Yeah unfortunately the Baldwin trial is only about him pulling the actual trigger. While there's plenty to suggest that Baldwin himself was a problem, that specific moment feels almost irrelevant to me, it was just the specific random stupid thing that finally killed someone, in a production which was just generally unsafe to begin with.
At least according to Wikipedia (which links to a summary of investigation that's not publicly available), Gutierrez-Reed wasn't even technically the armorer on the day of the accident, and hadn't been for several days, just a props assistant. I assume that this was more about what she got paid than what she was actually supposed to be doing, but clearly people were walking all over her in this production.
This was her second production, and there had already been complaints about her handling of guns in her first production. The movie was The Old Way, starring Nicholas Cage, who walked off the set due to Gutierrez discharging a firearm without warning.
The assistant director, Halls, who already plead guilty in the Rust case had also previously been fired from one production due to "an unexpected firearms discharge".
While Gutierrez-Reed is clearly unqualified to even hold a gun properly, let alone be an armorer, and shouldn't even have presented herself as qualified to do the job, it's probably not just a random thing that she and Halls got hired on this production.
I'm sure they were cheap, and possibly both were looking at their last chances to work in the industry.
Yeah. Another thread that seemed to die was how exactly did live ammunition show up on set at all? The guy providing the ammo seemed like a bit of a knob too and they didn't search his place for months which seems strange. Arguably as dealer in specific movie arms he should have absolutely ZERO live ammunition anywhere and should be inspecting all of his own inventory. They asked him how it showed up and its just "I dunno". Okay then, moving on.
Yeah. Another thread that seemed to die was how exactly did live ammunition show up on set at all? The guy providing the ammo seemed like a bit of a knob too and they didn't search his place for months which seems strange. Arguably as dealer in specific movie arms he should have absolutely ZERO live ammunition anywhere and should be inspecting all of his own inventory. They asked him how it showed up and its just "I dunno". Okay then, moving on.
I'm no expert on movies or movie sets, but this was always my #1 question.
I mean, you're not really actually shooting anything, why is there live ammunition there at all? What for? It seems dumb to me.
But I ain't no big Hollywood Movie Producer or nuthin.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
