Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Rroff]

Trial of the armourer:

Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired

But Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's lawyers instead seek to lay the blame for the fatality on Alec Baldwin.

www.bbc.co.uk

The 2 longer videos with footage from the set immediately after showed pretty plainly how sloppy a job she was doing.

 

[ianh]

I'm not sure her defence of "I was supplied real bullets instead of fake ones and didn't know the difference" shows her in a positive light for her technical abilities to be blunt. Of the three folks directly involved, I think she's the only one that stands some actual risk of jail time, so I'd hope her defence case is better than what is effectively a plea of "I don't know what I'm doing so its not my fault, its someone else's for supplying me real bullets in the first place".

For clarity - "dummy" bullets used in filming by most US studios, which are meant to look identical to real bullets, will have all the gunpowder/propellant removed and the primer (which contains a little charge to ignite the gunpowder) is also replaced with an empty version for safety, whilst real bullets still contain those two parts. This makes real Long Colt .45 bullets weigh about about 2.5g to 4g more (easy 3 second check with some scales), they usually (but not always) sound different when shaken (gunpowder is loose in some bullets and sounds like sand in a tin) & they're usually marked in some "not obvious to the audience" way by the professional company which sells them.

All these things generally make it easy for a professional armourer to tell the difference between a dummy and a real bullet and therefore prevent lethal errors from happening.

 

[OspreyO]

You're not meant to fire dummies directly at people either as they are not "harmless"

 

[Mr Badger]

I'm not sure her defence of "I was supplied real bullets instead of fake ones and didn't know the difference" shows her in a positive light for her technical abilities to be blunt. Of the three folks directly involved, I think she's the only one that stands some actual risk of jail time, so I'd hope her defence case is better than what is effectively a plea of "I don't know what I'm doing so its not my fault, its someone else's for supplying me real bullets in the first place".

For clarity - "dummy" bullets used in filming by most US studios, which are meant to look identical to real bullets, will have all the gunpowder/propellant removed and the primer (which contains a little charge to ignite the gunpowder) is also replaced with an empty version for safety, whilst real bullets still contain those two parts. This makes real Long Colt .45 bullets weigh about about 2.5g to 4g more (easy 3 second check with some scales), they usually (but not always) sound different when shaken (gunpowder is loose in some bullets and sounds like sand in a tin) & they're usually marked in some "not obvious to the audience" way by the professional company which sells them.

All these things generally make it easy for a professional armourer to tell the difference between a dummy and a real bullet and therefore prevent lethal errors from happening.

If dummies were ordered and real ammo was supplied by mistake, then someone may well be culpable for that. But you would think that the whole point of having a designated armourer in the crew is to ensure safety on set and manually check all the weapons and "ammunition" before each use.

 

[BUDFORCE]

I'm not sure her defence of "I was supplied real bullets instead of fake ones and didn't know the difference" shows her in a positive light for her technical abilities to be blunt. Of the three folks directly involved, I think she's the only one that stands some actual risk of jail time, so I'd hope her defence case is better than what is effectively a plea of "I don't know what I'm doing so its not my fault, its someone else's for supplying me real bullets in the first place".

For clarity - "dummy" bullets used in filming by most US studios, which are meant to look identical to real bullets, will have all the gunpowder/propellant removed and the primer (which contains a little charge to ignite the gunpowder) is also replaced with an empty version for safety, whilst real bullets still contain those two parts. This makes real Long Colt .45 bullets weigh about about 2.5g to 4g more (easy 3 second check with some scales), they usually (but not always) sound different when shaken (gunpowder is loose in some bullets and sounds like sand in a tin) & they're usually marked in some "not obvious to the audience" way by the professional company which sells them.

All these things generally make it easy for a professional armourer to tell the difference between a dummy and a real bullet and therefore prevent lethal errors from happening.

You can pretty easily tell live ammunition or potentially live ammunition from that that isn't even with basic experience.

If the so called armourer couldn't then they shouldn't be doing that job.

 

[Angilion]

You're not meant to fire dummies directly at people either as they are not "harmless"

Dummies are inert and can't be fired. They're harmless. Well, as harmless as any hard physical object of that sort of size and mass. Probably less harmful than a pencil because a pencil would have a sharper point. It's blanks that can be fired and which aren't harmless.

A blank would probably have been safe in this context. A blank for a handgun would probably be safe at that distance. They're dangerous at close range (<~2m) or if there's something lodged in the barrel (which is how Brandon Lee was killed). Or maybe if the shock triggers a heart attack or something. Blanks sound like real rounds, which is the point of them.

 

[Angilion]

You can pretty easily tell live ammunition or potentially live ammunition from that that isn't even with basic experience.

If the so called armourer couldn't then they shouldn't be doing that job.

My guess is that they could have done...if they'd checked the ammunition. The impression I get from the publicly available evidence is that pretty much everything was done wrong regarding gun safety on that set and nobody had any meaningful control over the situation. Guns left lying around, ammunition not accounted for, checking so slapdash nobody even knew how many rounds were loaded into the gun let alone anything about the rounds, who knows how many people handling the loaded guns, etc. Probably more care was taken with cans of pop on set.

 

[OspreyO]

Dummies are inert and can't be fired. They're harmless. Well, as harmless as any hard physical object of that sort of size and mass. Probably less harmful than a pencil because a pencil would have a sharper point. It's blanks that can be fired and which aren't harmless.

A blank would probably have been safe in this context. A blank for a handgun would probably be safe at that distance. They're dangerous at close range (<~2m) or if there's something lodged in the barrel (which is how Brandon Lee was killed). Or maybe if the shock triggers a heart attack or something. Blanks sound like real rounds, which is the point of them.

I meant blanks not dummies.

 

[Angilion]

Trial of the armourer:

Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired

But Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's lawyers instead seek to lay the blame for the fatality on Alec Baldwin.

www.bbc.co.uk

The 2 longer videos with footage from the set immediately after showed pretty plainly how sloppy a job she was doing.

From that article:

"The first event that had to happen is the actor Alec Baldwin pointed a gun on that set and he either had his finger on the trigger and the hammer cocked or he pulled the trigger," attorney Jason Bowles said.

That's obviously untrue. That was the last event that had to happen (and assumes that the gun was working properly). The last of a chain of events. First there had to be real rounds on set. Then those real rounds had to be loaded into the gun. Then the gun loaded with real rounds had to be given to Alec Baldwin. What should have been routine checks should have been done and should have stopped the chain of events before the last event in the chain. The lawyer is blatantly misrepresenting what happened. Which is their job, of course. But it's not the truth.

 

[OspreyO]

...also to have people in front of it...

 

[hurfdurf]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1764082071025401940

lol

Edit: Turns out she never claimed to be a firearms instructor, but the lead armorer had her loading and unloading guns, despite never having fired one ever.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Edit: Turns out she never claimed to be a firearms instructor, but the lead armorer had her loading and unloading guns, despite never having fired one ever.

I can understand how that happened. Her job was handling props. On set, guns and ammunition are props. So it's part of her job...if no thought or reasonable oversight is applied. Which seems to have been the normal procedure on that set.

 

[SpellowHouse]

Just as an interesting aside, who is responsible is someone inappropriately qualified is in charge of guns on a set? The company for hiring the person or the person for accepting the job?

 

[mattyfez]

Just as an interesting aside, who is responsible is someone inappropriately qualified is in charge of guns on a set? The company for hiring the person or the person for accepting the job?

I guess you have to look at it methodically.

The girl who loaded the gun was unqualified so her boss would be liable as she shouldn't have been given that job in the first place.

Where the buck stops, so to speak is more complex, especially if the fire arms people were contracted rather than employed directly by the production company.

There surely has to be at least a manslaughter charge somewhere, but this be America, you feel?

 

[Rroff]

I'm not sure on the legal side of it in that region as in certification required, etc., but a lot will depend on whether things like risk assessments were carried out (and properly), etc. and/or the level of supervision or training given as appropriate.

 

[mattyfez]

I'm not sure on the legal side of it in that region as in certification required, etc., but a lot will depend on whether things like risk assessments were carried out (and properly), etc. and/or the level of supervision or training given as appropriate.

I think it's safe to say by any legal definition, that if the person in charge of loading the gun had never fired a gun or owned a gun licence, they should never have been allowed to be put in that position.

Therfore the blame has to lay further up the chain.

And it's not just blame.. It's criminal negligence /manslaughter.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I think it's safe to say by any legal definition, that if the person in charge of loading the gun had never fired a gun or owned a gun licence, they should never have been allowed to be put in that position.

Therfore the blame has to lay further up the chain.

And it's not just blame.. It's criminal negligence /manslaughter.

I would have thought so, yes. But then this is the American courts.

 

[BananaDunka]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1b7tbir/expert_witness_in_rust_shooting_trial_points/

This was.... Something.

 

[something daft already!!]

When I fired blanks from a GPMG, it was a bit like that scene in predator where Blain fires his minigun into the vegetation. Everything within a few meters was pretty much destroyed. Blanks in these types of weapons have a cardboard slug which is shredded by an attachment to the barrel. This can cause damage to objects nearby. Not that this is relevant in any way.

 

[BananaDunka]

When I fired blanks

Hehehehehe.



I fired a GPMG at the MoD Defence Munitions for work experience back in the 2000s. That was a mega experience, also got to hold the Walter PPK used in the Bond movies. Won't be able to do either of these things again due to political bureaucracy no doubt.