Rust armorer found guilty

[L8Brakr]

Apologies for the double post......tried to delete the second one.

[berettafan]

I'm a gun guy. Craigster is right.

Not only am I a gun guy I'm also a follow the rules guy. And the rules on a set are made to keep the dingbat ditzes known as actors safe. A system is set to keep the set safe. You cannot have folks breaking from that system at will and applying their own perceptions to it. That is chaos and dangerous.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by berettafan

I'm a gun guy. Craigster is right.

You forgot "IMHO".

Originally Posted by berettafan

Not only am I a gun guy I'm also a follow the rules guy. And the rules on a set are made to keep the dingbat ditzes known as actors safe. A system is set to keep the set safe. You cannot have folks breaking from that system at will and applying their own perceptions to it. That is chaos and dangerous.

It sounds like Hollywood very much wants to "have their cake and eat it too".

If you cannot trust someone ("dingbat ditzes known as actors") with a real gun, don't hand them a real gun. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Hollywood, however, insists on playing with real guns. Insists on handing them to "dingbat ditzes known as actors". Why? There is no shortage of money in Hollywood. They have had decades in which they could have developed non-lethal facsimiles of every gun they would ever use in filming. The cost of doing so would go unnoticed in the greater Hollywood. Yet they have not. Why not?

[Steve Carlton]

Hannah partied, got drunk, was hungover, smoked marijuana, and possessed cocaine that she passed to someone else on the set once Halyna Hutchins was killed. She had an incident(s) on her only (I believe) previous armorer job on The Old Way with Nicolas Cage. I'm not buying that she was anywhere near competent.

[greglepore]

Having watched a good portion of the livestream of the trial, I don't think the verdict will get reversed. The entire atmosphere around guns on that set was awful, and its the armorer's job to enforce firearms discipline.

[Jeff Higgins]

Just to be clear, I'm not defending her. I do believe, however, that she was "over charged" (and I don't mean for a meal...). She is absolutely guilty of some level of criminal negligence. Just not manslaughter. She did not point the gun at a living human being, she did not cock the hammer, she did not pull the trigger.

Her incompetence was certainly a big component in a very tragic outcome. My point this entire time has been that if they were all following "real gun" safety protocols, that even her criminal level of incompetence would not have resulted in a death.

Again, "layered" safety when dealing with real guns. These idiots (and she wasn't the only one) didn't even recognize, nor heed, the first layer. The fact that there was no second, third, or fourth layer allowed what could have been no more than an embarrassing level of incompetence turn into a fatal level of incompetence.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Just to be clear, I'm not defending her. I do believe, however, that she was "over charged" (and I don't mean for a meal...). She is absolutely guilty of some level of criminal negligence. Just not manslaughter. She did not point the gun at a living human being, she did not cock the hammer, she did not pull the trigger.

Her incompetence was certainly a big component in a very tragic outcome. My point this entire time has been that if they were all following "real gun" safety protocols, that even her criminal level of incompetence would not have resulted in a death.

Again, "layered" safety when dealing with real guns. These idiots (and she wasn't the only one) didn't even recognize, nor heed, the first layer. The fact that there was no second, third, or fourth layer allowed what could have been no more than an embarrassing level of incompetence turn into a fatal level of incompetence.

Well, let's see what her sentence is. 18 months isn't even that long. But she has a lifetime sentence for working that job or anything near it.

[FOG]

Craigster,

I don't think it is/was a Rod and Gun Club. I think the procedures violate a basic safety principle, the last person in the chain has responsibility. I timed a few people on a SAA replica in the time to unload (that is assuming something was in the cylinder) do basic function check then reload while checking the rounds by shaking individual rounds) and came up an average of 20 seconds. This was at a leisurely pace with people who were not familiar with a SAA and less than five minutes of instruction on the pistol.

Teaching people the differences between blanks, dummies and live rounds is very simple and takes only a few minutes.

The difference is the will to do it and enforce it with consequences.

Bringing in explosives is a red herring.

MMARSH brought up a good point of two person integrity, it works from firearms to aviation.

On the point of 'only 26 years old' I and others have served and commanded many younger service members who could, and have, fulfill these safety requirements. I strongly disagree with him on accepting a firearm without personally checking it's condition, not happening.

The lack of training the 'ding bat crazies' is down to will rather that ability to train and enforce standards.

Adding extra layers to the safety chain rather than enforcing basic established procedures simplified as much as possible is a proven recipe for problems. It adds a false sense of security. The same goes for relying on someone else in the chain to address the problem, the most obvious are the Boeing issues with the 800 Max and their door issues.

S/F, FOG

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by KC911

And this is what I don't get either ... on a movie set, an actor would open the revolver and see rounds in the chamber (live, dummies, blanks) .... what does he do?

This is a fair question. Would an actor remove each round and inspect them? Would they have the training to look for the hole in the case that vents propellant gas?
How would they know if the rounds are safe?

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

This is a fair question. Would an actor remove each round and inspect them? Would they have the training to look for the hole in the case that vents propellant gas?
How would they know if the rounds are safe?

Gangster movie .... half-dozen Thompsons with 100 round drums .... or belt fed Ma Deuces in a WWII movie .... or just a .45 ACP magazine, AK-47, etc.

Should an actor be checking all those rounds too?

Hugh and Craigster "get this"...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

This is a fair question. Would an actor remove each round and inspect them? Would they have the training to look for the hole in the case that vents propellant gas?
How would they know if the rounds are safe?

We have kids as young as 12 years old in my club's Hunter Education classes. We have dummy rounds on hand to help teach them the nuances of gun safety while loading and unloading their firearms. It takes all of about three seconds to demonstrate to even the least interested 12 year old what the differences are between a "live" round and a "dummy" round. It really is that simple. I know some would love to portray this as some expert level only kind of a thing, but it really isn't.

Originally Posted by KC911

Gangster movie .... half-dozen Thompsons with 100 round drums .... or belt fed Ma Deuces in a WWII movie .... or just a .45 ACP magazine, AK-47, etc.

Should an actor be checking all those rounds too?

Hugh and Craigster "get this"...

Do the scenes being filmed with those weapons require that they be pointed directly at the camera? If so, we have already been told that camera will be remotely operated. Are they used in scenes wherein the shooter must point them directly at another actor? If so, we have already been told that there are camera angles and tricks that make it look like they are when they actually are not. I would hazard a guess that, additionally, most scenes involving our hero going "full auto" or something isolate upon that hero, and there is nothing down range that should not be fired upon.

And, well, at the end of the day "one size" does not "fit all". In this specific case, we are looking at a revolver that holds five rounds. A revolver that can be checked in seconds. No excuse not to do so.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We have kids as young as 12 years old in my club's Hunter Education classes. We have dummy rounds on hand to help teach them the nuances of gun safety while loading and unloading their firearms. It takes all of about three seconds to demonstrate to even the least interested 12 year old what the differences are between a "live" round and a "dummy" round. It really is that simple. I know some would love to portray this as some expert level only kind of a thing, but it really isn't.



Do the scenes being filmed with those weapons require that they be pointed directly at the camera? If so, we have already been told that camera will be remotely operated. Are they used in scenes wherein the shooter must point them directly at another actor? If so, we have already been told that there are camera angles and tricks that make it look like they are when they actually are not. I would hazard a guess that, additionally, most scenes involving our hero going "full auto" or something isolate upon that hero, and there is nothing down range that should not be fired upon.

And, well, at the end of the day "one size" does not "fit all". In this specific case, we are looking at a revolver that holds five rounds. A revolver that can be checked in seconds. No excuse not to do so.

I get that and have the same experience at my club but the question remains...do the actors get that instruction? Or, do they trust the armorer to do it for them?

I see this question as the central issue. I agree with the position that when I accept control of a weapon I accept the responsibility that goes with it. However, that does not appear to be a universal attitude.

So, again I say that the Director has overall responsibility to ensure that training is effective, control measures are impeccable, and all others involved in handling the weapon are up to the task as measured against the strictest standards.

For example, in my former industry there exists a standard known as the Park Doctrine which basically states:
The Government can try to obtain conviction of a company official for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) even if the corporate official was unaware of the violation– if the official was in a position of authority to
prevent or correct the violation and did not do so

As a laboratory director I was responsible for EVERYTHING going on in my lab. Sure I could fire those people who screwed up but I'd be out the door in handcuffs right behind them as they go scot free.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We have kids as young as 12 years old in my club's Hunter Education classes. We have dummy rounds on hand to help teach them the nuances of gun safety while loading and unloading their firearms. It takes all of about three seconds to demonstrate to even the least interested 12 year old what the differences are between a "live" round and a "dummy" round. It really is that simple. I know some would love to portray this as some expert level only kind of a thing, but it really isn't.



Do the scenes being filmed with those weapons require that they be pointed directly at the camera? If so, we have already been told that camera will be remotely operated. Are they used in scenes wherein the shooter must point them directly at another actor? If so, we have already been told that there are camera angles and tricks that make it look like they are when they actually are not. I would hazard a guess that, additionally, most scenes involving our hero going "full auto" or something isolate upon that hero, and there is nothing down range that should not be fired upon.

And, well, at the end of the day "one size" does not "fit all". In this specific case, we are looking at a revolver that holds five rounds. A revolver that can be checked in seconds. No excuse not to do so.

No disagreement from me but the point about opening the cylinder, removing, checking, and reloading the rounds is not something I could do well given 30 seconds.

That's 30 seconds of time that should be taken, of course. But no matter what you think of Baldwin, he was likely focusing on being in character which would be in opposition of a careful logical person.

Simply put, this whole thing is a CF of errors and I'm a little surprised that the dude that passed the gun to AB hasn't been found to be culpable. Or is he the one that took a plea? If so, I think that plea should have been better thought out. If he got a plea, so does Baldwin, if he chooses.

And anyone that handled .45 Colt ammo in any fashion WRT to that movie should be sanctioned. Make that any caliber of ammo. Narrowing this down to Gutierrez-Reed is a little myopic.

If there was ever a goat rope, this is it. The only good that could ever come of this is to emphasize all that is wrong. No wonder they have guys like Hugh R. Sounds like the industry would rum amuck w/o a safety officer.

Anyway, once sentenced, I bet we never hear of Gutierrez-Reed again. She's going to be changing sheets at Motel 6 for a long time before anyone would hire her for anything that requires responsibility. I wouldn't even read a book she wrote should she do so.

[KFC911]

Soooo .... it depends upon the gun and the script then ... do I have it right?

How about western with a Winchester ... should the actor check .... and what would "The Rifleman" do?

Do they remove the rounds in a Winchester or Colt SAA and check them .... 'cause they are all "loaded" ... with something.

Poke, poke, poke ----> bear

All in fun because it won't stop raining

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We have kids as young as 12 years old in my club's Hunter Education classes. We have dummy rounds on hand to help teach them the nuances of gun safety while loading and unloading their firearms. It takes all of about three seconds to demonstrate to even the least interested 12 year old what the differences are between a "live" round and a "dummy" round. It really is that simple. I know some would love to portray this as some expert level only kind of a thing, but it really isn't.



Do the scenes being filmed with those weapons require that they be pointed directly at the camera? If so, we have already been told that camera will be remotely operated. Are they used in scenes wherein the shooter must point them directly at another actor? If so, we have already been told that there are camera angles and tricks that make it look like they are when they actually are not. I would hazard a guess that, additionally, most scenes involving our hero going "full auto" or something isolate upon that hero, and there is nothing down range that should not be fired upon.

And, well, at the end of the day "one size" does not "fit all". In this specific case, we are looking at a revolver that holds five rounds. A revolver that can be checked in seconds. No excuse not to do so.

Craigster has explained it. It is supposed to get checked. The Armorer is to load the weapons in front of the actors. Policy says they show each round to the actor and then place the round in the weapon. They then give the weapon to the actor. After the scene the weapon is taken from the actor and safely stored away. There is no need for the actor to make an additional check.

[KFC911]

^^^ I have not read all of these threads or posts .... I did not know that... thanks!

But if someone hands me a gun, I check, even if I saw them check it in front of me.... I just do. In the "real world" I live in.... it's binary ... empty or loaded. Any no fast draws, cross draws, twirling a lever to load and rolling over on the ground to shoot faster either .

[Zeke]

Well, Jeff Higgins does not agree with the actor not checking it. I can't say he's wrong. But passing the bun along from person to person is clearly wrong. In this case that needs to be addressed.

IOW, Gutierrez-Reed is guilty but she's not alone.

[KFC911]

What about a Hawkens .... is it loaded or not?

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by craigster59

The bottom line is that there is not supposed to be any live ammo on set, at a studio or on a prop truck.

NEVER. EVER.

Even the prosecutor said that when Gutierrez-Reed arrived on set, the camera department had walked off the job leaving over 3 hours of "down time". More than enough time to check the dummy rounds, secure them until needed. She failed to do that.

We have also gone over the protocol. She was supposed to take each round from a box labeled "dummy rounds" (not loose rounds from a fanny pack) and shake them in front of cast and crew, listening for the BB, and then loading them into the gun one by one. She failed to do that.

If AB had opened the action of the gun after she handed it to him, that would have interrupted the "chain of custody" and he could (and maybe still will) be responsible for Hutchins' death.

Here

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Well, Jeff Higgins does not agree with the actor not checking it. I can't say he's wrong. But passing the bun along from person to person is clearly wrong. In this case that needs to be addressed.

IOW, Gutierrez-Reed is guilty but she's not alone.

I say Jeff is wrong and she was VERY wrong (and guilty), and mebbe whoever hired her (AB) .... that's getting grey....

To go "off topic", but hopefully not to PARF, I think the 15 (edited ... not 25) year old school shooter's mom was guilty and his dad too .... but definately a grey area.

Accidents happen .... that wasn't an accident .... pure negligence.

Whew .... the rain is ending .... I think I'm done here !