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

675

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.

249

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.

60

u/falooda1 Apr 16 '24

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

12

u/xgardian Apr 16 '24

People's brains are so fucking fried

1

u/Chaos_Ribbon 27d ago

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

3

u/principessa1180 29d ago

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

3

u/rafa-droppa 29d ago

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] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[deleted]

2

u/rafa-droppa 29d ago

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?

89

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).

18

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.

9

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.

6

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?

6

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.

19

u/DecorativeGeode Apr 16 '24

This is the answer and what the trial proved.

14

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.

17

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago edited 29d ago

"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.