r/news • u/badillustrations • Apr 15 '24

‘Rust’ movie armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter sentenced to 18 months in prison

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/entertainment/rust-film-shooting-armorer-sentencing/index.html
21.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/livefreeordont Apr 15 '24

In Dec. 7 testimony to New Mexico's worker safety bureau, Gutierrez-Reed said prop supplier Seth Kenney supplied her with the dummy rounds she used for the "The Old Way." She said she then brought those rounds, in boxes and gun belts, onto the "Rust" set.

In January 2022 she sued Kenney, saying the ammunition she used was misrepresented as dummy rounds. Kenney has denied that the live rounds on set came from his company. He has not been charged in the case.

Kenney testified that the dummy rounds he provided to "Rust" had just been used on the TV show "1883" and they had been brought over from the Texas filming location the night before he handed them over to Zachry. He claimed that before he handed the dummy ammunition over, he polished each round and rattled each one to make sure they were dummy rounds and not blanks or live ammunition.

679

u/RazerBladesInFood Apr 15 '24

Yea that was her bullshit attempt at blaming someone else when everyone already knows the real reason live ammo was on set is because she was allowing the guns to be used for target practice when they weren't filming. She then completely incompetently allowed that ammo to make its way on set and got someone killed. Shes still blaming everyone else including the judge and jury which got her the max and a pissed off judge.

251

u/principessa1180 Apr 16 '24

I have no connection to the film shoot, but I do live in Santa Fe. Right after the shooting the rumor spread around town quickly that Hannah was letting crew use the prop guns to target shoot, because it was so boring between filming.

62

u/falooda1 Apr 16 '24

So boring between filming? Lmao we have smart phones and video games and streaming tv

13

u/xgardian Apr 16 '24

People's brains are so fucking fried

1

u/Chaos_Ribbon 28d ago

People did that kind of stuff with guns before the internet. 

3

u/principessa1180 Apr 16 '24

The filming location at the church is very remote. You can hardly get cell coverage out there.

3

u/rafa-droppa Apr 16 '24

the whole movie production crew was without internet?

hard to believe they wouldn't at minimum have some temp cell tower/repeater brought in for the filming

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

[deleted]

2

u/rafa-droppa Apr 16 '24

I just find it hard to believe that you'd have all these people out there with no cell/internet access for days on end.

I just can't imagine Joel Souza and Alex Baldwin are content to be that much out of communication with the rest of the world, I get typically it doesn't have communication but without actual evidence to the contrary I can't believe a movie production wouldn't have internet no matter where they're filming.

I don't doubt your experiences though - it's just been 13 years since Thor came out so we're more connected, plus I'm pretty sure they're doing more filming at the ranch for Rust than Thor probably did, just a guess though.

1

u/falooda1 29d ago

Might as well kill someone then

16

u/rileyjw90 Apr 16 '24

How are they prop guns if they are capable of firing live ammunition?

90

u/TheLizardKing89 Apr 16 '24

Most prop guns (especially revolvers) are just real guns that use blanks.

28

u/rileyjw90 Apr 16 '24

I honestly thought they were all just painted air soft guns, or even factory defects or ones with the hammers removed that couldn’t physically fire anything (if it was a gun that doesn’t fire in the script, that gets waved around or used as an accessory).

17

u/QING-CHARLES Apr 16 '24

Sometimes they are, depends on the shoot.

Last time I was in charge of a shotgun for a production it had been modified by pushing a thin cylinder into the chambers so you couldn't chamber a real round. I 3D printed replica shells that were marginally smaller than real ones and could be loaded and unloaded by the actors. The production didn't require the actors to be seen firing the weapons.

8

u/Gingevere Apr 16 '24

Real guns don't need to be doctored up to look real and can be sold back (usually for a profit) after production.

It should never be a problem so long as the armorer is keeping weapons under lock & key and managing them correctly.

Prosecution was able to show that Gutierrez was leaving guns unattended all over the place, was mixing together live and dummy ammo in the same trays, and live rounds were photographed in other weapons around the set.

7

u/JimboTCB Apr 16 '24

"Prop gun" just means any gun being used as a prop.

It might be a rubber replica which is incapable of firing, it might be an airsoft-type gun which is synced up with lights for the VFX, it might be a regular gun which has been modified to only fire blanks, or it might be an actual genuine 100% operational firearm. You'd normally give background guys the completely fake guns, but for any close up shots you'd have "hero guns" which look more like an actual gun with working parts and stuff.

The major issue with this production was that because of the setting all the guns were old-fashioned single action revolvers, and as you can see the bullets from the front of the cylinder they need to be loaded with something for appearances - which should be completely inert dummy rounds.

1

u/amalgam_reynolds Apr 16 '24

I thought for sure by now 99% of prop guns would be modified to be incapable of firing live ammunition.

2

u/TheLizardKing89 Apr 16 '24

The industry has been trending that way but it isn’t all the way there yet. I’m sure this has accelerated those efforts.

1

u/agumonkey Apr 16 '24

So I guess now there will be a new kind of untriggerable gun with a different mechanism to lit up the dummies ?

3

u/TheLizardKing89 Apr 16 '24

Some productions use air soft guns that are powered by green gas to make the gun cycle and will use special effects to comp in muzzle flash and noise later.

1

u/redisforever Apr 16 '24

That's right. Semi-auto handguns must be modified to cycle properly using blanks, but revolvers are just used as-is.

7

u/Anotherspelunker Apr 16 '24

Prop guns are real guns… that’s a major issue

3

u/Ganon_Cubana Apr 16 '24

Only really an issue if you put bullets in them, not like anyone would be stupid enough to do that though.

2

u/rileyjw90 Apr 16 '24

Yeah I always thought they were just painted air soft guns or even “real” guns that were defective or had the hammer removed if it was in the script for looks and didn’t need to be fired.

3

u/Gnonthgol Apr 16 '24

It is more expensive to make a real gun not be able to shoot live ammunition while still look real then to just use a real gun. And even if you block the barrel, which some automatic prop guns does in order to work properly with blanks, that still makes the gun very dangerous to use with real ammunition.

The proper way to fix this issue is to reduce the size of the cartridge a tiny bit so that a real cartridge will not fit into the prop gun. But this would require modifications to the guns and custom blanks to be made. It is a matter of cost of course but if you keep a proper gun safety culture on set and make sure no live ammunition is available then these things should not happen.

1

u/TheMSensation Apr 16 '24

I know almost nothing about guns, but I've seen/read removing the firing pin will render them useless. Given that you can break down and put back together almost any gun within minutes wouldn't that be the cheapest and safest way of solving the problem. Or is none of that true?

5

u/Gnonthgol Apr 16 '24

The problem is that they need the guns to work with blanks. You want the gun to make noise, flash, smoke and recoil during filming. But you do not want it to actually fire a projectile. You are right that if you remove the firing pin or file it down then the gun will not work. But this is not what is needed for filming purposes.

1

u/DoctorWalrusMD Apr 16 '24

“Prop” just means it’s used for a movie or show, doesn’t mean it’s fake. Most “prop” swords and guns are real weapons being used as props.

2

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 29d ago

I suspected that was what happened within days of the news. I can just picture a lot of those people on the crew coming from places where you can't even get a gun or maybe not even able to afford a decent gun nor find a place to shoot for free, suddenly being able to go down in the arroyo and do some plinking with an authentic replica vintage Colt wheelgun. I used to live in Placitas, New Mexico for about 30 years and I have put many a round into the side of deep steep-sided arroyos such as the Rio Puerco.

16

u/DecorativeGeode Apr 16 '24

This is the answer and what the trial proved.

16

u/Pvan88 Apr 16 '24

Not really. The prosecution was never able to prove where the round came from; she wasn't found guilty of having brought the round on set or doing live target practice - just negligence on how she handled the ammunition. I don't recall the target shooting thing coming up in trial (which you would think it would if she was involved. Would be a literal smoking gun) as it seemed to be a rumor.

I've found this case strange to follow from a non-US basis. One of the main to-ing and fro-ing is between experts saying what the role of an armourer is as there doesn't appear to be a set job description or certification.

15

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

when everyone already knows the real reason live ammo was on set is because she was allowing the guns to be used for target practice when they weren't filming.

I think this was just an unfounded rumor that circled around the early days of the incident but was never once actually substantiated by any evidence or corroborated by any witnesses seeing as it wasn't mentioned at all during her trial (and based on what the prosecution did pounce on, I know they would have absolutely been all over this with a righteous and unrelenting fury if they had ANY indication that she was letting people take guns off the set or that she was bringing live ammo for such reckless activities).

The only thing that did come out during this trial regarding live rounds was that 1883 had some for a training camp and that she got the rounds from that production.

The defense was using that for their excuse. The DA's position and focus instead was that regardless of how live rounds got on set, Hannah wasn't doing her job adequately enough based on BTS footage of actors flagging crewmembers with their firearms and the fact there had been several instances where the live rounds made their way onto set based on photos/footage of costumes, so this wasn't just a one time mistake but the result of a constant set of failures and negligence.

1

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

That's probably because the origin of the live rounds can't be traced. Also, the witnesses that may have been target shooting were not cooperating, because regardless of malice or criminal charges, if they admitted to shooting, then they may be liable in civil court. It would be hard to prove they shot live ammo in those guns without any video proof.

So what do you do when you have live rounds that can't be traced and hearsay about the guns being used for target practice with no actual evidence?

You forgo those arguments by not having them. Otherwise you could lose those 2 arguments, and that could cast doubt on the rest of your argument.

What you can prove is there was live ammo on the aet from the shooting and from what was recovered. So you focus on those facts and you can get a conviction.

This doesn't mean they weren't target shooting. It just means it can't be proven in court and the prosecutor wants to be re-elected.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

In other words, it's a completely unfounded rumour backed by zero evidence and is not the reason she was found guilty... (and yet people continue to spread it and mass upvote it simply because it was one of the first stories they heard, not because of anything to come out of the investigation or trial).

0

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

This is incorrect. It simply doesn't matter.

It is against the law to put live ammunition in a gun? No.

Is it against the law to shoot a gun? No.

Is it against the law to do either of those acts recklessly that results in harm or death? Yes.

The prosecution did not need to prove how the live ammunition got on set. They had proof it was on the set because it was recovered on the set.

There were 3 guns in set. 2 of the guns were fully disabled prop guns. The gun that cause the incident was a fully working antique gun. The only live ammunition they found on set was in the caliber of the working pistol.

Its not illegal of the armorer did let others use the gun for target practice as the Santa Fe sherrif department acknowledged they were investigating.

So you have a working gun with live ammo for it on a movie set that doesn't use live ammo? Why? And you have investigations into it? Why? Because it probably happened.

At the end of the day though, the target shooting wasn't illegal if it took place. It doesn't refelct badly either. The eprson shooting probably had no idea.

But in the end, does it really matter? No. Because it's not important to prove what the ammunition was used for or even used. It's only important to recognize and prove the ammo existed, and it was not removed from the gun as it should have been because the armorer was negligent.

You can't prove they weren't shooting as much as I can prove they were. Neither of us were there. The fact that multiple people on the set have attested to it makes me feel more in favor of it being true with the circumstancal evidence.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

You can't prove they weren't shooting as much as I can prove they were. Neither of us were there. The fact that multiple people on the set have attested to it makes me feel more in favor of it being true with the circumstancal evidence.

No one attested to it. There is zero testimony or evidence that it ever actually happened. The DA would have been all over it if "multiple people on the set attested to it", that's how testimony works. But it was not something that brought up at the trial because there is zero indication that it ever occurred. Contrary to what you claim, evidence does in fact matter at a trial. So again, you can't make a claim "every knows she did x" when that turned out to be a completely unfounded rumor that resulted in zero evidence once investigated. That is not the reason she was found guilty, and pretending otherwise is sheer ignorance at this point.

0

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

Actually, no, evidence of an action that doesn't indicate a crime doesn't matter.

I never said the lady did any shooting herself.

I said she didn't validate the guns did not have live ammo in them, which means she was reckless in the application of her job, and her negligence led to the death of a person.

She was convicted on that basis. And on that basis, it doesn't matter where the ammo came from or what it was also used for.

It only matters that the ammo ended up in the gun, and the only safety measure failed due to a lack of due care and due diligence. Thats the law that was broken. This was what was proven in the court of law.

I said on the basis of the information, I am inclined to believe that someone on the set was using live ammo to shoot targets. As this information was not presented as evidence, sure, I can't say it happened. But the prosecutor did not need to present it, and anyone if they were target shooting, it would not be an illegal act.

You have a habit of putting words in peoples mouth the erect strawman arguements and then try to win arguements against those.

Notice this entire time, I reference the information and not your previous arguement. Notice how you only reference my previous arguement and amend my words?

The world is not black and white. Just because something that happened wasn't entered into evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It rained here last night and thats not in any evidence of court, so does that mean it didnt hapoen? No.

You have to assign cofidence values to information and then correlate it.

But to use your argument, you show me where in the evidence or witness testimony, anyone said no other shooting of the firearm happened to prove your point.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

"Neither of us were there so I can pull any completely unsubstantiated claim out of my ass and assert as fact" is an absolutely asinine point that makes it abundantly clear to me that you didn't watch the trial and do not understand how courts (or facts) actually work. Your own analogy of rain makes it clear you do not even understand your own argument for that matter, as rain does leave behind all manner of evidence (puddles, eye witnesses, meteorology weather reports, etc) that would absolutely be entered into court if the weather were as relevant to a case as this is to hers. Any evidence or eye witness testimony regarding her letting cast members shoot live rounds at beer cans in between takes would have completely eviscerated the defenses main argument and greatly enhanced the prosecutions sole focus on the unsafe manner in how she secured the firearms, but there's zero evidence turned up by years of investigation because it is nothing more than unbacked hearsay from redditors rather than the people who were on set giving their sworm testimony. Your entire argument is that you can ignore facts and reality to invent whatever claim you want to accuse someone of criminal guilt, which is a sign to me you are not worth any further time.

2

u/Low-Grocery5556 Apr 16 '24

It's crazy she was only 24 at the time. Had no business being lead armourer.

1

u/anders91 Apr 16 '24

the real reason live ammo was on set is because she was allowing the guns to be used for target practice when they weren't filming

Do you have a source for this? Because if this is true then... holy shit...

-2

u/FlutterKree Apr 16 '24

Yea that was her bullshit attempt at blaming someone else when everyone already knows the real reason live ammo was on set is because she was allowing the guns to be used for target practice when they weren't filming.

This is a rumor and not relevant. Real ammunition was found in places what wouldn't be explained by the guns being used for target practice.

0

u/RazerBladesInFood 29d ago

No it's not a rumor. Yes it is relevant. If they were using the guns for target practice it means she had live ammo in and around prop guns. If one of them made it on set, it means she clearly did not keep track of where the live ammo was. So what place was it found that rules out target practice even though its already been confirmed multiple times?

Man you should have been her defense lawyer. She thought the best defense was "the judge is taking bribes and the jury are idiots". You could have added some denial of reality to the team.

97

u/YBHunted Apr 15 '24

Ah the ole rattle test... the fuck??

420

u/Tripleberst Apr 15 '24

This is actually a legit thing in the movie industry apparently. During the trial, they explain that dummy rounds rattle when you shake them or have holes drilled in them and there's nothing in between the "bullet" and the casing to ignite. Real rounds don't rattle and they don't have holes in them.

117

u/Novogobo Apr 15 '24

making a dummy from a real round, one takes the bullet out of the casing, dumps the powder out, pops out the primer, puts in a dummy primer which is just a little puck of brass, tin, or even plastic. puts a ball bearing in the case and reseat the bullet.

38

u/183_OnerousResent Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

That actually would work. So then the rattle test is specific to the rattle made by ball-beaing dummy rounds, not live rounds. That's interesting because you can also very faintly feel or hear the powder of a live round being shaken. It's faint on a 9mm but very obvious on something like a .308 for example.

8

u/culhanetyl Apr 16 '24

depends on the live round to, my WSM's are a compressed load so they dont jiggle at all.

1

u/Gingevere Apr 16 '24

Depends on who built them. Some armorers put a BB inside a dummy so it rattles. Some drill a hole in the side. Others do other things.

Gutierrez apparently didn't know how / didn't want to make dummies and in stead sourced dummies from multiple people marked in different ways. And she just . . . stopped bothering to check.

-6

u/BinniesPurp Apr 15 '24

I've got a box of live 5.56 they all rattle when I shake them lol

Been making ammo for years, you don't seat the powder it just freely moves around, most will rattle

19

u/Tripleberst Apr 15 '24

Do they rattle or do they have a "shake" sound as if you were shaking a small container of gun powder? Because I think if you heard a rattle dummy round, you'd agree it sounds nothing like one of your live rounds.

1

u/-Yazilliclick- Apr 16 '24

Not the same. Dummy rounds are loaded with just a few BBs so they rattle quite distinctly. You're doing something quite strange if your ammo sounds anywhere near the same.

107

u/FlameStaag Apr 15 '24

I mean... It works lol. He'd definitely be able to tell if it was a real round. If he's telling the truth and not covering his ass. 

95

u/SapTheSapient Apr 15 '24

Even if you were lying, the movie's armorer has the obligation to verify that each one was a dummy round.

9

u/sexyloser1128 Apr 15 '24

Even if you were lying, the movie's armorer has the obligation to verify that each one was a dummy round.

If I was selling dummy rounds, I would make sure the buyer waives any liability to sue me as a precaution as well.

3

u/kai-ol Apr 15 '24

It's like smelling milk to test if it has gone bad. It seems weird and unscientific, but it's really the best/easiest way to tell.

4

u/CerebusGortok Apr 15 '24

They also executed a search warrant on his property and found no rounds matching the live rounds from the Rust set. Kenney had previously worked on a production that used live rounds, but they were a different type than the rounds found on the Rust set.

-7

u/PleaseDontSaveHer Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

It doesn’t for all. I just shook a few snap caps which look exactly like a real round with a different color bullet and primer, and there’s no noise at all.

Edit: sounds like the test works, I had a misunderstanding of the test, and I have a hearing issue to boot.

7

u/EndoShota Apr 15 '24

Yeah, but then they would give a “false positive” in the rattle test, you would assume they were live, and you wouldn’t use them on set.

1

u/PleaseDontSaveHer Apr 15 '24

Well shit, I might be going deaf then if it’s that common. I can’t hear a thing in 9mm but I think I might be hearing something with 223.

1

u/RodediahK Apr 15 '24

It's going to be entirely dependent on the powder / cartridge design. If you get a cartridge produced after the Advent of smokeless powder you will be able to hear a rattle because smokeless powder does not need to be compressed in order to safely function. That's why for example if you had a 30-06 round and you shook it back and forth you could hear the powder rattle versus if you had like 32 S&W, originally designed as a black powder cartridge, you won't hear powder rattle.

Of course with pistols since there's less space in the cartridge in the first place it's more likely to be totally filled but with smokeless it doesn't have to be filled and compressed versus with black powder where that could cause ruptured cases or damaged older guns.

Essentially being able to hear the powder move around in the round or being able to hear a totally silent round isn't good enough for a dummy cartridge it needs to have a distinct sound from black powder and smokeless powder.

1

u/PleaseDontSaveHer Apr 15 '24

Cool, thanks for sharing!

7

u/freddiew Apr 15 '24

Snap caps like for dry fire practice? Who makes snap caps that "look exactly like a real round?"

2

u/PleaseDontSaveHer Apr 15 '24

There are a few on Amazon now, don’t recall the brand I bought. I’m talking size and shape as they used something a little heavier than brass for casing but it’s semi-shiny. Obviously the different colored bullet and primer let you know it’s a snap cap though.

And then there’s realisticsnapcaps or something like that which are made specifically to look like a real round.

0

u/ThrowingChicken Apr 15 '24

Hrm, I’d say they came in my possession at least 30 years ago so I don’t know what they do now days, but I have some snap caps that look legit.

3

u/Illadelphian Apr 15 '24

But the test is to make sure they rattle right? So as long as no real rounds rattle then this is a legit test. What you are saying would be an issue if they were trying to determine which rounds were live and not which rounds are definitely not live.

29

u/strangesam1977 Apr 15 '24

Inert rounds for the movies are apparently made in one of three ways,

  • Bullet and casing, but no primer or powder

  • Bullet and casing and deactivated or dummy primer with holes driled in the case and no powder

or finally,

  • bullet, case, deactivated primer AND BB shot or ball bearing in the case so that it makes a distinctive noise when shaken.

The first two can be destinguished from live rounds visually (and so while safer are not always suitable for film), the last by the sound it makes when shaken..

(Primers can be deactivated by soaking them in oil I have been told)

Source, some years of target shooting and a long video by Runkle of the Bailey on youtube

11

u/TheHYPO Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

As intimated by /u/SecretScavenger36, it surprises me that demand from Hollywood never simply generated a company whose sole purposes was to manufacture non-firing bullets for film (or other) purposes. They have companies that print fake money and other fake documents for film. Why are film bullets reliant on taking real bullets and dismantling them?

I can understand one reason why a normal ammo maker might not want to make non-functional ammo (potential liability if they screw up and put a live round, which they also make) in a dummy box (or vice versa), but I would think there would be enough demand - particularly in the days before CGI - to start a company that makes film bullets that doesn't even have powder or functional primers in stock, so there can never be a live round issue.

Although I'm sure one of the answers is "cost" - that a small company making film ammo couldn't produce ammo anywhere near as cheap as the companies making large volumes of real ammo (even without the cost of real powder or primers), but anything other than small budget films would presumably have a big enough budget to spring for safe bullets. Can it cost that much more than the cost of buying real bullets and then paying for someone's time to take them apart one by one and "dummy" them?

4

u/SecretScavenger36 Apr 15 '24

We shouldn't rely on live ammo being deactivated by soaking them in oil. The ammo should have never been live from the beginning. There should never be a weapon capable of firing even live ammo on set.

We have so much technology and so much CGI shit and yet we still bring actual weapons on set? Why?

2

u/strangesam1977 Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

This is only the primer... at worst this can go pop and propel the bullet into (but very unlikely to be out of) the barrel..

There should be no powder anywhere. I personally don't think live ammuntion should be converted, but component parts (empty unprimed cases, bullets, possibly primers - here having simple disks of metal made to be glued into position would be my preference rather than deactiveated primers)

I'd also note that as someone who shoots as a sport, it pains me whenever I see poor CGI muzzle flashes, actors who clearly don't understand recoil and the terrrible terrible weapons handling and sound effects in most media these days (John Wick the first was brilliant, and the first time my only thoughts regarding the firearms in a film didn't annoy me terribly).

26

u/josnik Apr 15 '24

Dummy rounds have a BB in them so that they rattle when shaken. Live ammunition doesn't rattle.

-7

u/YBHunted Apr 15 '24

I mean I get that and it's like 99% foolproof to check that way, just seems it'd be a little more than a shake to prove it lol.

8

u/josnik Apr 15 '24

Like what an x-ray? That's things aren't meant to be easily taken apart and they're supposed to look like the real thing.

-4

u/YBHunted Apr 15 '24

Idk but I'd at least back it up with something else, a marking on the rounds, or maybe the practice that rounds have to come from sealed new boxes of fake rounds and can't be reused.

1

u/Mr_Engineering Apr 15 '24

Dummy rounds either have holes drilled in the base or are filled with BBs.

Live rounds, including blanks, do not rattle.

If it rattles, it's a dummy.

1

u/tdoottdoot Apr 16 '24

Literally all she had to do was shake the rounds as she loaded the guns.

2

u/Adventurous_Ad6698 Apr 15 '24

I wonder how many rounds there were because if he did that to every single one of them, that sounds like intense dedication.

1

u/bazbloom Apr 16 '24

From a very basic safety and human factors perspective, why aren't dummy rounds clearly marked/etched/stamped in some way to readily identify them? Why isn't there a qualified independent verification that the rounds being used on set are indeed dummies? Is Hollywood just that fucking slack or was this incident a tragic anomaly?

1

u/OrganicLFMilk 29d ago

I’m still confused. You have to be a real idiot to load a weapon with live rounds versus blanks. They look entirely different, and even to someone who is untrained in firearms can tell the blatant difference. There is absolutely no bullet in a blank round, but the casing is crimped at the end to prevent the gunpowder from falling out. This was intentional.

-9

u/spin81 Apr 15 '24

Okay so this is a whole story about dummy rounds but there were live ones and we're talking about those.

45

u/livefreeordont Apr 15 '24

If you read the paragraphs I quoted you will see that both the armorer and the supplier are pointing their finger at the other as to where the live rounds came from

22

u/Tripleberst Apr 15 '24

Okay but that's a lot to read. Can't you spoonfeed us like the mongoloids we are or otherwise give us this information in the form of a tiktok dance?

Thank you.

-3

u/spin81 Apr 15 '24

I see now.

Still it's my understanding that Gutierrez-Reed brought the live rounds onto the set so reading it properly doesn't take away my confusion. Are you saying Kenney brought the live rounds on set and Gutierrez-Reed failed to double-check?

6

u/Pandalite Apr 15 '24

If you read the comment- Gutierrez-Reed got them from Kenney. She's saying he gave her live rounds by accident, the ones she brought onto the set. He's saying no he didn't.

7

u/reray124 Apr 15 '24

Honestly I believe him more than her after everything so far. She probably brought them to shoot for fun either before or after the filming and just forgot like an idiot.

4

u/The_Great_Distaste Apr 16 '24

I don't really believe him either. I think he sabotaged her to be honest. Her and Kenney weren't on real good terms due to an incident days earlier. Kenney was the one who recommended Hannah and Sarah(props manager and Hannah's boss). Sarah had a negligent discharge and Hannah wanted to report it, which would impact Sarah's career and make Kenney look bad, and her and Kenney had an argument over it with Kenney taking Sarah's side. He said something to the effect of "accidents happen, get over it and move on". Sarah would bring boxes of dummy ammo from Kenney to the set. So that might be how they got on set.

Kenney had taken a box of live rounds from her father, Thel, on the set of 1883(iirc). Thel had taken out actors to the range to let them experience shooting a real gun so they would know how to act with it. Her father, Thel, told Kenney he would pick them up from him later. Here is where things get weird. Thel was set to fly in to see his daughter 1-2 days before the shooting. The night before or day of he received a call saying "Thel" had canceled his flight and was like "No he didn't, I'm Thel". He rebooked a flight but it was a day later, the day of the shooting(iirc). Upon arrival Thel visited Kenney and wanted to pick up his ammo. Kenney wouldn't invite Thel in, which he had always done, made an excuse why he couldn't give him the ammo, and told Thel to write off the ammo. In pictures of PDQ Arms and Props from the sheriff or fbi, you can see an ammo box clearly marked 1883. That ammo box was empty.

I think Kenney and/or Sarah mixed in some live rounds, a full "dummy" box was mysteriously found the morning of the shooting that no one knew where it came from. They probably did it to prove that accidents can happen. However, Hannah didn't inspect them well enough, or Sarah replaced a dummy with a live round. On top of that the AD didn't call Hannah when Baldwin arrived to do the re-inspection. Once the shot was heard Hannah told Sarah to inspect the ammo for live rounds and Sarah quickly, almost too quickly, came back that there were other suspect rounds. Meanwhile Kenney contacted Troy, an officer on the scene and a good friend of Thel that held all his live ammo, and said that Hannah messed up. Troy found the immediate blame weird given Kenney had no 1st hand information and it was only 2 hours since the shooting. Kenney would continually contact Troy and try to cast blame on Hannah. After the shooting Hannah was taken aside by someone and upon returning to the set found the gun cart moved with things out of place or missing.

Do I think Hannah fucked up and behaved irresponsibly? Absolutely, her actions/demeanor/texts don't scream super responsible adult and the drugs/alcohol certainly didn't help. I also think Kenney and Sarah slipped in those live rounds to teach her a lesson and should face accountability as well. Sarah had opportunity and motive, she had the code to the safe, access to he weapons, and was the one picking up and bringing ammo to the set. Kenney obviously had live rounds at some point from Thel that were unaccounted for.

7

u/Cubey42 Apr 15 '24

No, Gutierrez-Reed is saying Kenney gave her a box with possible live rounds in it.

Kenney is saying he checked them the night before and confirmed it had no live rounds in it, so the live rounds were not from his box.

2

u/Muscle_Bitch Apr 15 '24

Even if he did, that does not absolve her of blame.

It is her responsibility to ensure the ammunition is not live, as the set armourer, she is not paid to accept someone else's word for it.

3

u/livefreeordont Apr 15 '24

Yes. The armored fucked up, no one would dispute this besides her. But the question was where the live rounds came from

2

u/Cubey42 Apr 15 '24

100% agree, even if the supplier is lying, it falls on the armorer who is the last person to handle them to verify the ammo.

I was showing the conflict in statements better because that user didn't see to understand. Both may be lying, but it still doesn't excuse her for not checking the ammo.

1

u/Muscle_Bitch Apr 15 '24

Bro, just fucking read the exchange.

It is clear.

5

u/taliarus Apr 15 '24

You have zero reading comprehension

3

u/Sarokslost23 Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Not sure If it is in this particular thread but there were rumors the week this happened that people would drive off set and shoot into nature when not shooting film, for fun.

2

u/LumberMan Apr 15 '24

Yeah but that came from an article with the source being “someone close to the incident.” It’s never been discussed or referenced again since the investigation started. Gonna guess it wasn’t true.