Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Gun Safety: The Movies

Gun Safety: The Movies (Page 6)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2024, 03:04 PM
 
The prosecution had an expert read texts between Gutierrez-Reed and someone titled “Gorilla Grip P**** Pal”
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2024, 05:08 PM
 
CourtTV apparently had Gutierrez-Reed’s phone number on their stream. Woops!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2024, 05:47 PM
 
Looks like that was a big enough deal they ended early.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2024, 06:27 AM
 
Actual solution to a mystery yesterday.

It had been previously reported the FBI said it was impossible the gun went off without pulling the trigger and it went off once during testing without the trigger being pulled and the gun was destroyed.

Textbook exception which proves the rule. The only way the FBI could get it to fire without the trigger being pulled was to hit it so hard with a mallet they broke the shit.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2024, 01:11 PM
 
Apparently the dummies on set had BBs in them.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2024, 01:07 PM
 
This is it right here IMO, morally if not legally.

Mr Carpenter [an armorer] said that armourers were one of only three individuals who could completely bring a movie set to a stop. He explained that the longer a production spends shooting a film, the more money it spends, so there is incentive to rush productions.

He said the pressure to film quickly often clashes with the time needed for armourers to ensure a set is safe, but that armourers have to be firm and demand safety in order to do their jobs well.

An armorer can’t use pressure from production as an excuse because pushing back on pressure from production is quite literally the job.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2024, 06:07 PM
 
I don't recall if this was mentioned earlier, but having BBs in a dummy round makes it rattle when you shake it. Powder decidedly does NOT rattle. So even a dummy round with a fake primer, so that it looks "real" can be identified by shaking it.

If you bother to check it, anyway.

There are several other means to identify "prop" ammunition, such as having them made with custom-marked cases (the headstamp won't show up on film unless you work hard at making it show up), making them with literally fake bullets (plastic painted like lead would be pretty obvious), or using something other than BBs inside them. But all of these techniques rely on armorers who actually do the job. As this event has shown, it's gonna be much more costly to cut costs by not having an armorer ensure on-set safety.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2024, 11:43 AM
 
If there’s not context missing, my understanding is Gutierrez-Reed checked she had grabbed the right box by shaking it, but didn’t check the individual rounds inside.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2024, 03:48 PM
 
Gutierrez-Reed’s boss testified she did not like working with Gutierrez-Reed.

Among reasons cited were Gutierrez-Reed calling her a c***.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Gutierrez-Reed’s boss testified she did not like working with Gutierrez-Reed.

Among reasons cited were Gutierrez-Reed calling her a c***.
Is that pertinent to the charged crimes? Or is that mainly to make her less sympathetic as a character?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 07:52 AM
 
Both? It’s pretty unprofessional, and the prosecution is trying to show an overall level of unprofessionalism.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 01:41 PM
 
If they want to bring that up, I'd want to know more about her boss. The data is useless in a vacuum - is Gutierrez-Reed unprofessional, or did her boss earn such treatment?

All it shows is at least one of them was unprofessional. That's not enough to establish it was Gutierrez-Reed.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 03:38 PM
 
I’ve worked in several settings where we called each other names (often obscene), both military and healthcare. If calling names was a professionalism problem, it would have shown up there. It’s not the calling of names that’s the issue, it’s the context and intent.

I have never worked in any situation where coworkers - or workers and their supervisors - publicly called each other intentionally derogatory names. There’s a difference between what appears to be the case in this event and asking a coworker if your mutual supervisor is “that big an @ss”. It indicates that Gutierrez-Reed and her boss did not focus on the purpose of Gutierrez-Reed’s job.

This is indeed the way reader50 sees it. Either Gutierrez-Reed was being unprofessional toward her supervisor, or the supervisor was unprofessional enough to warrant being called that to their face. One or both were unprofessional, that’s clear.

But it is salient. It reflects that the working relationship between the two was bad, strained, and/or other things. If they’d been doing craft services that wouldn’t have been a big deal. But it sounds more like a juvenile personality clash, which takes precedence over whatever else is going on. And when individual and group safety is the reason you’re working together, a bad relationship is always a bad thing for the purpose you’re supposed to be there for. And it reflects poorly on the entire production.

With an armorer and her supervisor being unhappy to work together, it’s not a big stretch to imagine that weapon safety was not the focus of the armorer. It also doesn’t sound too out there to suggest that non-armorer people were goofing around with a firearm that would be used on set.

This poor working relationship establishes that the production was not running smoothly, and that people who were responsible for firearms on the set were not as focused on their jobs as those jobs required. Was it Gutierrez-Reed, her boss, the line producer making both of them miserable, all of the above, other? Whatever the actual situation, it detracted from a safety focus. Establishing the name calling thing establishes that there were priorities at work other than making sure nobody got hurt.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
did her boss earn such treatment?
What behavior earns getting called this?

That’s an honest question. I don’t call people names.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 10:31 PM
 
A restaurant was in the news a few months ago. Stealing tips from workers, not honoring overtime pay, etc. Where the owner hired a fake "priest" to visit the store, and ask for confessions from the employees. Like if they'd ever stolen from the owner, etc. Maybe he was looking for reasons to justify his own thefts.

It's an outlying example, but bosses who commit one of the above sins are doubtless more common. Stealing from their employee ought to work. Like under-counting overtime, for example. I'd consider that worthwhile for calling names. If you work for a thief, what's wrong with calling them a thief? If someone drives badly, is it wrong to call them "a bad driver"?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2024, 11:03 PM
 
Were the name-calling due to Gutierrez-Reed being a victim of a crime, it would have come up in her defense.

Beyond that, isn’t there a very important distinction between whether calling someone a name is “wrong” versus whether calling them a name is “professional”?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 02:04 PM
 
I am with Glenn here: context is really important and could be equivocal. As a juror this would be a red flag that the prosecution has a weak(er) case — unless, they can prove this is a pattern with her. (Of course, I should not assume my brain works like that of the average juror.) A poor working relationship could also indicate Gutierrez-Reed was not empowered to do her job.

I think the legal hurdles for a criminal conviction seem very high.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 03:00 PM
 
IMO, if she was not empowered to do her job then she was obligated to walk.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
IMO, if she was not empowered to do her job then she was obligated to walk.
Morally, we can talk about that premise. But the context is that of a criminal case, so I think the burden is much higher. I haven't had time to follow the case in detail as you do, but just from the bits you have put here, I don't see compelling evidence for a conviction (yet).

Do you know what the prosecution is aiming for? Is it gross negligence?

In civil court, I would feel differently. But I'd feel the primary entity responsible would be the company responsible for the shoot. If that company wants to sue Gutierrez-Reed, sure, but unless she is coming from money, this will be a fruitless endeavor.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 04:53 PM
 
I agree on the moral and ethical stance that if one isn’t allowed to properly do their job - especially a safety job - one would be compelled to leave. But in most cases the loss of empowerment isn’t “NO” but lots of little “nos” over time.

The moral and ethical situation isn’t often clear cut enough to walk out, and poor (and/or unethical) bosses know this, which is why they chip away at the workers’ empowerment a bit at a time, instead of making it clear the worker doesn’t have the ability to do the job.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Morally, we can talk about that premise. But the context is that of a criminal case, so I think the burden is much higher. I haven't had time to follow the case in detail as you do, but just from the bits you have put here, I don't see compelling evidence for a conviction (yet).

Do you know what the prosecution is aiming for? Is it gross negligence?

In civil court, I would feel differently. But I'd feel the primary entity responsible would be the company responsible for the shoot. If that company wants to sue Gutierrez-Reed, sure, but unless she is coming from money, this will be a fruitless endeavor.
The official charge is “involuntary manslaughter”.

As I understand it, this is defined under New Mexico law as being aware death was a possible consequence, but doing it anyway.

As I also understand it, Gutierrez-Reed claims the live ammo came mixed in with the dummies the production rented.

To deal with such an eventuality, standard protocol is to verify each individual round before it’s entered into the inventory. Had this occurred, Hutchins would still be alive.

To me, this is open and shut. Gutierrez-Reed was aware of the protocol along with the potential consequences of not following it. She chose not to follow it anyway.

I don’t envy the scenario where the choices are either potentially get someone killed or walk, but if placed in it there is only one acceptable solution. This is both morally and legally.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2024, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The moral and ethical situation isn’t often clear cut enough to walk out, and poor (and/or unethical) bosses know this, which is why they chip away at the workers’ empowerment a bit at a time, instead of making it clear the worker doesn’t have the ability to do the job.
As far as I can tell, the primary way armorers deal with this problem is by being the type of person who makes you not want to fuck with them.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 02:26 AM
 
Involuntary man slaughter sounds like the charge one might consider in a deadly car accident, right? Seems to me the bar for conviction is quite high and you need to go way beyond carelessness to convict somebody. I have heard of so many egregious cases where cyclists died and the driver got a slap on the wrist.

Not trying to argue, I just want to understand the legal hurdles. This is a very unique case, and responsibility is shared across so many shoulders.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As far as I can tell, the primary way armorers deal with this problem is by being the type of person who makes you not want to fuck with them.
For example, pushing back (including choice words) could be understood in these terms, maybe it was Gutierrez-Reed’s way to deal with the bs she encountered. Especially as a woman in what I presume is a very male profession.

Not saying I condone this kind of behavior. I had a (female) boss in Japan who was a unicorn: one of literally less than a handful and of women who was the director of a research institute, part of all sorts of executive committees, advisor to the former prime minister and now to the minister of foreign affairs. She is a phenomenal politician. But Japan is a very male-dominated society. She had a super tough exterior. She lowered her guard only a few times. But she said in no uncertain terms that she had to hypermasculine behavior to fit in and get respect.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 11:41 AM
 
I think I need to clarify I brought up the name-calling because I found it amusing, not that it’s pivotal to the determination of Gutierrez-Reed’s guilt.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Involuntary man slaughter sounds like the charge one might consider in a deadly car accident, right? Seems to me the bar for conviction is quite high and you need to go way beyond carelessness to convict somebody. I have heard of so many egregious cases where cyclists died and the driver got a slap on the wrist.
I had always gotten the impression this happens due to the limited information available to the court with most road accidents.

We have a lot of information in this case. Enough for me to adjudicate her pretty much guilty before the trial began. It was unambiguously Gutierrez-Reed’s responsibility to verify incoming ammo. She failed to do so. If this was due to the production her only option was to walk. Open and shut.



As an aside, the prosecution still might lose due to overreach. We haven’t gotten to that part yet, but the prosecution has implied Gutierrez is lying about the live ammo coming from the rental house.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I had always gotten the impression this happens due to the limited information available to the court with most road accidents.
Not necessarily.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We have a lot of information in this case. Enough for me to adjudicate her pretty much guilty before the trial began. It was unambiguously Gutierrez-Reed’s responsibility to verify incoming ammo. She failed to do so. If this was due to the production her only option was to walk. Open and shut.
In a civil court, that'd lead to a verdict against her. In a criminal case, I don't think it is “open and shut”, because it seems you need to prove criminal negligence:
A person is criminally negligent when they are unaware of an obvious risk they are creating with their actions, but a reasonable person would have been.
The page makes a connection to vehicular homicide (which apparently is a separate crime in New Mexico):
The second type of homicide by vehicle occurs when the driver recklessly operates the vehicle and causes another person’s death.
“Reckless” is a legal weasel word like “reasonable”. We could have very different opinions what reckless and reasonable means. In fact, I do believe, we are having one now

Missing a red light could cause an accident that kills someone. Was that reckless? Driving blindfolded definitely seems reckless to me. Where do you draw the line when it comes to criminal responsibility? How would a “reasonable person” judge the risks if they believed there were no live bullets on set?

If Gutierrez-Reed thought she had a clean set with no live ammo, is her complacency to check every bullet more similar to running a red light or driving blind folded? If you asked me, it is somewhere in between, but much, much closer to running a red light or not using your turn signals when you should have.

I also think that circumstances matter, and if she was pressured, “quitting” isn't necessarily an option either, at least not an easy, immediate one.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As an aside, the prosecution still might lose due to overreach. We haven’t gotten to that part yet, but the prosecution has implied Gutierrez is lying about the live ammo coming from the rental house.
It seems to me that they already have a weak case. If, hypothetically speaking, the prosecution could show that Gutierrez-Reed was the one who brought live ammo to the set, I would now lean much, much more to the “driving blindfolded” side. In that hypothetical version of events, she'd know that live ammo was on set and she needed to be more careful. Just bringing live ammo to the set was breaching all sorts of security protocols. But that would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legally, if you cannot establish that Gutierrez-Reed brought live ammo to the set or knew of live ammo on the set, don't you think the legal case is significantly weaker? Let's suppose we can establish that she didn't do it nor knew about it. Wouldn't the other person(s) bear more legal responsibility?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If Gutierrez-Reed thought she had a clean set with no live ammo, is her complacency to check every bullet more similar to running a red light or driving blind folded? If you asked me, it is somewhere in between, but much, much closer to running a red light or not using your turn signals when you should have.
This needs to be clarified.

The protocol to create a clean set is to check every round before it’s allowed on-set in the first place. Then you don’t need to check on-set because the set is clean.

This is what Gutierrez-Reed failed to do. She never made the set clean in the first place.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 4, 2024 at 05:50 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 07:19 PM
 
I’m with subego on this. The person responsible for firearms and ammunition on the set is responsible for establishing that the set is safe. This would include inspecting all firearms and all ammunition, dummy or not.

One thing to ponder here is how the rental house provided the ammunition; was it in sealed containers, in a standard gun store-purchased box (styrofoam tray in a cardboard box), or just loose? A sealed container would put the responsibility for the ammunition on the rental house.

However there’s another issue. A set armorer should be anal enough that they’d check what was in the sealed container anyway. Sure, the label says “.45 Colt Dummy Rounds”, but are they really? The .45 Colt round is dimensionally awfully close to a .44 Magnum, so verifying what’s in the box would be important to make sure there aren’t shooting delays caused by the wrong dummy rounds being supplied by the rental house.

The armorer should also have inspected any and all firearms and ammunition before they get anywhere near anyone else. If the AD is going to be handing a firearm to the actor, the armorer should have verified it was operational and ONLY had dummy rounds anywhere on set, and done something to keep it that way. Somewhere, somehow, the chain of custody for the revolver was broken. Were crew members playing with the thing? Did the AD assume the revolver was safe, or did the armorer say it was?

Basically it looks like there was so much half-assing going on on that set that if one person is culpable for the death on that set then a bunch of others are accessories, and should be held criminally liable.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 08:05 PM
 
Here’s a photo.



My understanding is the defense argues the live rounds came from the rental house. FWIW, as of yet I’ve seen no direct evidence to the contrary, and have assumed this is true. We can make a fairly safe assumption that tray is from the rental house, and how they arrived is in a manner consistent with what’s seen here.

The dummies have BBs in them.

The standard protocol as I understand it is to take out each individual round and shake it for verification prior to being allowed on set. This wasn’t done. If it was, it would have been caught. The live round would have never made it to the set in the first place.

Ironically, this would have been a windfall for the penny-pinchers. What is keeping quiet worth to the rental house?

I’ll leave determining which round in the photo is the live one as an exercise for the reader.




Edit: an interesting detail is all the brass in the photo is identical. My understanding is it comes from fired blanks which were then cut down.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 4, 2024 at 08:23 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2024, 08:52 PM
 
The Independent axed their live coverage so I missed today until now.

Rental house guy testified. Said the live rounds didn’t come from him and there were other sources of dummy rounds for the production.

Relevant to why live rounds might be intentionally brought on a set, he said he did exactly this on a different production for purposes of training the actors. Presumably because blanks don’t kick like the real thing, so actors need to fake some recoil during their performance.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2024, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I’m with subego on this. The person responsible for firearms and ammunition on the set is responsible for establishing that the set is safe. This would include inspecting all firearms and all ammunition, dummy or not.
Responsible, sure, we all agree. But subego and you just write “responsible” without distinguishing between responsible and criminally responsible (in the legal sense), responsible ≠ criminally negligent/reckless. I'd like to suss out the differences, not to argue, but just to understand. I am not clear whether your and subego's responses are states your “is” vs. your “ought”. Are both conclusions the same to you? My impression is that both of you just talk “ought” whereas I focus more on “is”.

There are multiple entities who are responsible:

- The movie production company, not least because it happened on their set.
- Gutierrez-Reed who was responsible for safety.
- Whoever brought live ammo on set/the rental house for mixing in live ammo. (Depending on the circumstances.)
- Baldwin, because he pulled the trigger.
- Potentially others.

Two, Baldwin and Gutierrez, are being sued for involuntary manslaughter. To my understanding, the victim's estate has settled with the movie production company. The more people/entities were necessary to poke holes in the slices of Swiss cheese, the less convincing is a charge of recklessness and criminal liability. Do you agree or not? If not, why?

The bare wording of the statute does not seem super helpful since handling guns on a movie set does not follow the basic firearm safety rules. The actor who played Piles in Full Metal Jacket did not when he playacted his suicide in the latrine.

What would an analog be for you in the context of an accident (vehicular manslaughter)?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
One thing to ponder here is how the rental house provided the ammunition; was it in sealed containers, in a standard gun store-purchased box (styrofoam tray in a cardboard box), or just loose? A sealed container would put the responsibility for the ammunition on the rental house.
If this is what happened, then the person in charge at the rental house bears at least as much responsibility in my mind. (A valid conclusion could be that also they should be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in your minds, it is not an either-or proposition.)
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The armorer should also have inspected any and all firearms and ammunition before they get anywhere near anyone else. If the AD is going to be handing a firearm to the actor, the armorer should have verified it was operational and ONLY had dummy rounds anywhere on set, and done something to keep it that way.
Just trying to play Gutierrez-Reed's defense council for a moment: what if she had inspected all ammunition when it was delivered and someone else brought live ammo on set without her knowledge and then mixed it in?

While your supposition sounds plausible, it is your supposition on what happened and I am not sure this is enough in a criminal court to find someone guilty. Reasonable doubt is enough.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Basically it looks like there was so much half-assing going on on that set that if one person is culpable for the death on that set then a bunch of others are accessories, and should be held criminally liable.
Yes, but who ought to be held criminally liable? What if someone else brought live ammo on set without the armorer's knowledge and then mixed live ammo with dummy rounds, potentially after the ammo had been inspected by Gutierrez-Reed?

PS In case it wasn't clear, I am trying to figure out what the prosecution would need to prove to ensure a conviction. I'm just not convinced it is a slam dunk case in criminal court.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2024, 09:18 AM
 
I am attempting to argue things as I understand them to be, not how I believe they ought to be. Of course, my understanding could be mistaken.

From your link, here’s a direct link to the statute with annotations:

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en...qRgAEbQpOySkkA

“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter… in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

In my mind, for this case, what establishes due caution and circumspection is standard industry protocol, which is to verify each round before it’s allowed on the set.

If Gutierrez-Reed failed to do this, she behaved without due caution and circumspection.

I apologize if I’m being dense, but this strikes me as unambiguously straightforward.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 5, 2024 at 03:37 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2024, 06:29 PM
 
I spent quite a while ranting about how either the rental house, the production company or (probably) both had vertically fornicated the whole thing at every opportunity, but even with good formatting it was a wall of text, and not really applicable.

The dummy rounds in the picture are made with cases from Starline Brass. They ONLY sell empty cases, and no big manufacturer uses cases with someone else’s label on them. This indicates to me that these were made from new cases. The industry does use a blank round called the “5-in-1 Blank” which fits the .45 Colt, and a bunch of other “old West” style chambers. These aren’t a great choice for making .45 Colt dummies because they tend to be oddly shaped after firing. It’s much easier to just use a regular case in the first place.

I mention that they appear to be dummies made from new brass because it indicates to me that someone set out to make a bunch of good-looking (photogenic?) dummy rounds, instead of someone just asking Cousin Bill to churn out some dummies in his garage (which is quite doable). It also looks (again to me) like these dummies have been “through the wringer” a few times. Many of them have dented primers, which would indicate someone has “fired” them. This speaks of these dummies having been rented and returned many times.

Then there’s the ONE round with a silver primer, and that’s something that troubles me.

Firearms primers in the U.S. are made from brass, and some are nickel plated while others are not. There are technical reasons for wanting plated or unplated primers, but when you have a box of “theatrical, dummy rounds”, having “one of these things not look like the others” should be a big red flag. From a filmmaking perspective, it’s a continuity problem waiting to happen.

From a firearms safety perspective, this raises a bunch of questions: Why only one, and why any at all? Did the live round that Baldwin fired have a silver primer or a brass primer? Are these the ONLY rounds on the set at the time, and if so, where are the 13 missing from the tray? And crucially here, is that one round with a nickel plated primer really a dummy, or is it live?

And of further great importance, who made them, who supplied them, and who handled them between making, supplying, and showing up on the set. This is a very devilish detail that I hope someone picks up and runs with

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2024, 11:29 AM
 
Thank you for the correction! I had misunderstood/misremembered some things.

Other events.

Looks like Gutierrez-Reed replaced her lead attorney. Old one still has to participate, but was instructed by the judge not to speak to his client.

Defense firearms expert witness accidentally pointed a gun at the judge.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2024, 11:58 AM
 
To answer some of the questions about the ammo, mostly from a year-old Variety article.

The round in the photo with the silver primer is indeed live.

In the article, the police mentioned three other rounds they suspected were live. Those also had silver primers and Starline brass. Same with the round that killed Hutchins.

The rental guy said he rented the production a full box of 50 dummies. No idea if it’s this particular box

Presumably, what’s in the photo is how the tray was discovered by investigators on the set. Also presumably, the missing rounds were in use as props.

No idea if all the live rounds came from this box. The article mentioned dummies with different brass were found on the set, but the article didn’t clarify if any of those were .45 Long Colts, like in the photo.


The part i misremembered/misunderstood is during the interview with Gutierrez-Reed and the police there seemed to be a consensus only movie people make .45LC dummies out of Starline brass, so it was believed the live rounds were likely made by a movie person.


God damn I’m tired of typing Gutierrez-Reed.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2024, 10:34 PM
 
She’s G-R as far as I’m concerned.

An industry insider who assumes (apparently just because that’s what they have seen) that ONLY the industry uses Starline brass for dummies? That’s worrisome on a number of levels. Anyone who is familiar with firearms and ammunition should at least know who the big players in the ammunition industry are, and what their part of the industry is.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2024, 01:52 AM
 
Verdict is guilty.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2024, 02:50 AM
 
As for the brass, “only” was too strong of a word to characterize that part of the interview.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2024, 09:04 PM
 
Hmmm. Now when are the liability lawsuits going to show up? G-R may have been “the” criminally guilty party, but there’s plenty of responsibility to go around.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2024, 11:48 PM
 
Shortly after this happened, I read that G-R filed a civil suit against the supply house. For letting live rounds slip through. But I haven't heard anything at all since the one mention.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2024, 12:55 AM
 
The rumor is…

1) Live ammo came from Thell Reed.
2) Hannah’s taking a fall for him.
3) That’s why she dropped the lawsuit.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2024, 02:54 PM
 
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/r...ls-1235969666/

Based on her phone calls from jail, prosecutor claims “Hannah says that people have accidents and people die, it’s an unfortunate part of life but it doesn’t mean she should be in jail.”

That’s going to leave a mark.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2024, 03:10 AM
 
Why is that relevant after she has been found guilty?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2024, 03:34 AM
 
Sentencing.

The prosecution is arguing she’s not remorseful.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2024, 06:09 PM
 
18 months in the slam.

I would have gone with probation, but she didn’t do herself any favors.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2024, 08:16 PM
 
Did they establish where the live rounds came from? That seems kind of important.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2024, 12:06 AM
 
Only two people supplied the production with dummies in this calibre.

Gutierrez-Reed was one. The prosecution argued they were mixed in with hers.

Seth Kenney was the other. The defense argued they were mixed in with his.

Gutierrez-Reed sued Kenney and then suddenly dropped the case. This points to a scenario where at one point she was firmly convinced Kenny had supplied them, but then later found evidence putting her innocence in doubt.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2024, 03:47 AM
 
Sounds more like Kenney was able to prove his rounds were clean.

Side question, for you rather than the case. Is it odd for multiple parties to bring ammo to a set? Feels like a security concern, and a liability issue. I'd expect all ammo to be accounted for through a single person, perhaps called an armorer.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2024, 12:12 PM
 
The armorer is going to be the only person authorized to bring ammo to the set.

Kenney handed his supply over to the armorer.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,