Rust

[JAMedia]

You are factually wrong and constantly making suppositions that have nothing to do with fact or understanding of firearm safety protocols on US movie sets.

I mean you just posted the at the AD thought the weapon was safe.

what you left out from that shows your ignorance of what is supposed to happen.

Hint. The AD did not know the weapon was safe and it was not handed to him and told it was safe. You are misrepresenting how the weapon got into the ADs hand.

That fact alone seems to be consistently forgotten in your incessant posting about how live bullets made it to set or primer colors not being the right way to tell dummy rounds from live rounds.

That massive failure of protocol tells anyone who has so rked with firearms a great deal but you are on sessing over other details that are less consequential.

Ive corrected you many times and you just gloss over it to fit your own decided upon narrative.

Youre making ignorant statements about the union status of the show. I am not going to correct you but once again it shows your continued ignorance.

Ive seen firearms accidents on set first hand. Camera department crew are the most likely to be injured of any department on set including stunts. I just wants facts and you just are speaking from a perspective of an outsider who has no idea what is supposed to happen vs what did happen, vs what you think happened.

Oho dear...

Primer colours... This has been raised in court.

As for the AD... you are making mistakes in comprehension as you seem blinded by your bias. It was morgan_moore who was saying that you can take it on trust from a crew member the gun was safe. Actually, the AD did *think* the gun was safe when he handed it to the actor. That is why he did not physically check the gun.

As for your constant bleating about US Union narrative set protocols, It is clear that these protocols were NOT being followed in many places. Not just with the firearms. Many rules were being broken all the time, both on who did what and what was done. So US Union narrative set protocols are a horse that has long since left the stable. If that was your only defence, it isn't holding up in court, where all this will be decided. I have been in a court as a witness to real world firearms use, and the lawyers go at it from every angle.

I also note that many of the things I am saying here are being mentioned by both defence and prosecution in court.

 

[morgan_moore]

When on set you must trust professionals. If you take on a 'key' role on set you must be a 'competent person' prepared to go to court and stand your ground

If the trapeze artist is presented a with a rig to allow her to perform a 10m swing she will not be doing structural calculations. Rig fail? Riggers fault.

If the grip tells the A/C that the jib is strong enough for the camera package. Jib fail? Key Grips fault.

If the armourer tells the actor the gun is safe. Gun fail? Armourers fault.

Make up - impetigo goes round. MUA fault.

Food Alergy reaction? Chefs fault.

No actor or ad can be across food, rigging, jibs, guns etc.

--

I would agree that both sides of the court seem to miss this simplicity. But we do have to consider the question 'did the production hire a 'competent person' for the role?' which may be a secondary negligence which the court may somehow be leading to.

 

[Doug Bee]

Err..... They were told it was safe...

No they were not. The AD picked up the weapon off his own volition from the props table not in the presence of the armorer. How would he know it’s a safe weapon? In your version he was TOLD it’s safe? By whom? Two pages later after I called you out on this you still do not get it.

As I have explained many times, Union or not. An AD would never ever ever be the one to pick up a weapon from the props table to hand to an actor. Only the props master or armorer can do this.

This is a crucial failure of protocol. And here you are , which is one of many times I’ve quoted you, saying he (the ad) was told it was safe.

Youre making an argument he was told it was safe skipping the part where he should have under no circumstances picked up the weapon and that there was no way he knew it was safe. On any show under any union or non union jurisdiction this is forbidden.

By making this kind of comment you demonstrate you have no clue about what the correct firearms protocol is on a functional normal everyday low or high budget, union or non union US drama show.

You do not even know what the union status of this show was so I’m happily letting you dig your own hole on those facts as well. No doubt you’ll Google and still make a mistake because there is a lot of nuance in how these things are administered.

The union status is not relevant to these protocols and facts. It’s relevant to how a show is managed and administered and the ways in which the crew deal with safety failure.

Youre fixated on the color of the primers. No one relies on that except the armour themselves as one of many checks which also include other ways of demonstrating a weapon is safe including shaking the bullets individually. It’s one way a live bullet would stand out in a box of dummy bullets with a custom color primers but it’s not the way an ACTOR would be shown a weapon is safe.

Again your understanding of the how and why is simplistic.

 

[JAMedia]

As I have explained many times, Union or not. An AD would never ever ever be the one to pick up a weapon from the props table to hand to an actor. Only the props master or armorer can do this.

So what you are saying is that this set was not being run like a US Union or even a non-union naritave film set.
So why do you keep banging on about it.

BTW It is Morgan Moore who keeps saying he would be happy if he was told it was safe by a responsible crew member. My point was that the actor was told it was safe by the AD which is the problem, the AD hadn't proved the gun himself.

Youre fixated on the color of the primers. No one relies on that except the armour themselves as one of many checks which also include other ways of demonstrating a weapon is safe including shaking the bullets individually. Itâs one way a live bullet would stand out in a box of dummy bullets with a custom color primers but itâs not the way an ACTOR would be shown a weapon is safe.
Again your understanding of the how and why is simplistic.

I didn't focus on the colour of the primers. Please do try to keep up with reality. I keep saying, because the armourer, PDQ, the defence and prosecution lawyers bring it up, that you can not use the colour of the primers as a differentiator.

Again, you are out of touch with reality, no one mentioned "custom color primers" except you.
You don't seem to have any idea of handling firearms except on a US Union Narrative film set, which we have already ascertained is not the way this set was being run.

You seem to be flowing dead horses and reaching for a conclusion then trying to make random facts fit it, for some reason, rather than going through the evidence to see what actually happened.

 

[Doug Bee]

So what you are saying is that this set was not being run like a US Union or even a non-union naritave film set.
So why do you keep banging on about it.

You keep posting spurious comments that have no basis of understanding how things are meant to go. You keep deflecting every time I call your mistakes.

I quoted you saying

Err..... They were told it was safe...

with "they" being the AD and Actor.

This is just plain wrong and shows you no understanding of what happened (as admitted by the AD) and what is supposed to happen. It's just wrong and here you are posting it as fact.

You have many examples of these basic miscomprehentions littered thoughout this thread.

You're turning yourself in circles over the union status aren't you? Because you have no local understanding of how that factors either.

 

[morgan_moore]

"Morgan Moore who keeps saying he would be happy if he was told it was safe by a responsible crew member."

Indeed running a film one must trust the HODs and the risk assesments will say as much.

As an actor or AD one cannot be expected understand firearms, technochranes, make up, pyro smoke, whatever

You have to defer to crew .. which is different to 'helping yourself' to any item be it gun preston focus control or cat eye contact lenses

 

[Doug Bee]

"Morgan Moore who keeps saying he would be happy if he was told it was safe by a responsible crew member."

And that's not what happened here. The AD said the weapon was safe when the AD didn't actually know it's status, and handed it to an actor whom he shouldn't have and told the actor it was safe which he had no authority to do and the actor accepted that the weapon was safe despite not having it demonstrated to be safe as is accepted protocol from a person he should have never have accepted a weapon from ever and then pointed it at a person which you should also never ever do on a set even with blanks or dummy weapons.

 

[Doug Bee]

Here's a relevant set of protocols for firearms. This is from Contract Services (which is not the union btw). Contract Services are an organisation funded by the producers that oversee crew safety and compliance.

https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/

Eh gads the primer resurfaces!!!
"Dummy rounds do not have a firing component but often are used by performers to simulate the loading of a firearm. It is strongly recommended that dummy rounds have an audible BB and that the primer itself is a dummy inert primer."

Settles the idea of jurisdiction - I was just play acting and someone told me it was safe!
"All use, handling, storage, and transportation of firearms, blanks, and dummy rounds shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations."

No mention of AD's handling weapons here
"The Property Master, Assistant Property Master, or the Armorer (collectively, the Property Master shaill be the individuals acting in the interest of the Production for obtaining, maintaining, and handling all firearms. Firearms in the film industry are considered props and are the responsibility of the Property Master. The Property Master will work in conjunction with the Production to ensure adherence to these guidelines."

Under production responsibilities
"Allow the Property Master to safely perform all assigned duties and responsibilities. In order to accomplish this, the Property Master should be adequately staffed, taking into consideration, in part, the number of firearms required for a particular scene or sequence."
This will be part of the armorers defence I'm sure.

Under Property Master responsibilities...
"Being present whenever a firearm is being used or handled."
Clearly this didn't happen...
"Ensuring the custody and control of all firearms at all times."
or this
"Allowing cast and crew who are required to stand near the firing sequence to witness the loading of the firearm."

And under safety protocols

"Whenever the Property Master gives a firearm to a performer, the Property Master shall advise the performer of the type of blank or dummy round being used and afford the performer, cast, and crew the supervised opportunity to verify the same."
Didn't happen.

"Anyone handling the firearm will refrain from pointing a firearm at any person, including themselves. If it is necessary to aim a firearm at another person on camera, the Property Master will be consulted to determine available options. Remember: a firearm, including one loaded with blanks, can inflict severe damage to anything/anyone at which/to whom the firearm is pointed."

Actor pointed a weapon at a person.

So to refresh.

The AD had no business picking up the weapon and giving it to the actor and the actor had no business accepting that weapon and then pointing it at a person.

 

[morgan_moore]

And that's not what happened here. The AD said the weapon was safe when the AD didn't actually know it's status, and handed it to an actor whom he shouldn't have and told the actor it was safe which he had no authority to do and the actor accepted that the weapon was safe despite not having it demonstrated to be safe as is accepted protocol from a person he should have never have accepted a weapon from ever and then pointed it at a person which you should also never ever do on a set even with blanks or dummy weapons.

So her (armourer) defence should be simple. 'I was bypassed' nothing about if the red bullet had a blue circle or was in a green box or rattled.

 

[JAMedia]

So to refresh.
The AD had no business picking up the weapon and giving it to the actor and the actor had no business accepting that weapon and then pointing it at a person.

Welcome to the start of the debate. Some 29 pages back up this thread, it was established that the rules were not being followed. So we have to look at reality and work out what was actually happening on the location and the chain of events. Waving around a piece of paper (PDF/web-page) that was ignored from the start isn't going to help.

In fact the first paragraph of the document you reference states "Live ammunition (“ammunition”) is never to be used on set nor brought onto any work location, including any studio lot, stage, or location unless it meets the specific exceptions as described in Safety Bulletin #2" Well that was clearly not being observed, and it goes downhill from there.

Do you have a link for Safety Bulletin2? I would be interested to read it.

 

[Doug Bee]

https://www.csatf.org/02_safety_bltn_live_ammunition/

And to paraphrase, live ammunition is only to be used for training (actor training basically) recording sound or reality shows about sports shooting or in documentary scenarios like Police training videos.

 

[Doug Bee]

And before you go there...

I've never seen armed guards on any set including with way more famos actors in more accessible environments.

No studio I've ever worked for allows their employees to carry firearms to set for personal protection either. A gaffer I worked with in Atlanta was fired instantly when someone noticed he had a hand gun on him.

 

[JAMedia]

And before you go there...
I've never seen armed guards on any set including with way more famos actors in more accessible environments.
No studio I've ever worked for allows their employees to carry firearms to set for personal protection either. A gaffer I worked with in Atlanta was fired instantly when someone noticed he had a hand gun on him.

Well I had already said, several times, that the only exception for live ammunition would be for armed security. I was not thinking of armed security for famous actors. Rather, the general situation in the location. There are many countries where you get armed security. I wouldn't have thought there would be many places in the USA where you would need armed security for a film set. It's usually easier to film somewhere else than in a dangerous area.

As for letting an employee carry a live weapon. The only person I would suggest would be the armourer, as they are responsible for a truck/shed/container load of weapons and pyrotechnics that to the untrained eye might look like an easy haul to steal. This is an extension of armed security. No one else needs a firearm. It would be quite right to fire [sic] anyone bringing a firearm (real or replica) on to a set.

The other exceptions were documentary, which I am familiar with or working with the military/police, which I have done on both sides of the fence.

The big problem is that the set for Rust does not appear to meet any of those criteria for live ammunition.
As you have said, there was no armed security. So there should have been no live rounds at that location. So who brought the live rounds to the location?

If there was target practice in the breaks, who permitted that?
It is not something you can hide, it's noisy, and it seems involved several people in view of others. Surely this is down to the Producer's running and controlling of the location?

More to the point, who brought the live ammunition on to the location?
Where the live rounds came from, and when, is important as I suspect the lawyers will be looking at in some detail.

The safety aspect the Actor now has a problem with is that it was clearly known there were live rounds on the set.
There can be no assumption there are only dummy rounds on the set. The problem being is the only way they can see that the rounds in the pistol are dummy would be to "fire" all the chambers in view of the actor when handing it over to the actor. There is no visual inspection of the rounds you can do afaics.

 

[Tom Roper]

I want to know about the reports of live fire on set, what specifically led to Halyna Hutchins' film crew to walk off, witness testimony in regard to these subjects. Until we get the sworn testimony, it's just speculation or hearsay. If it doesn't come up at some point, it's either not true, mischaracterized or not useful to anybody's case.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Here is link for Safety Bulletin No. 2:
https://www.csatf.org/02_safety_bltn_live_ammunition/

I don't know why there is a need to gatekeep the information on whether or not this was a IA signatory production, it's documented that it was, on a Tier 1 agreement.

 

[JAMedia]

I want to know about the reports of live fire on set, ..........
If it doesn't come up at some point, it's either not true, mischaracterized or not useful to anybody's case.

The problem here is the defence is trying to get their people acquitted or minimum charges/sentence, and the prosecution is going for a win.
Call me cynical, but neither side is interested in the truth if it doesn't advance their case.
This is almost any adversarial court case anywhere in the world, and not a reflection on the US system.

 

[Doug Bee]

The big problem is that the set for Rust does not appear to meet any of those criteria for live ammunition.
As you have said, there was no armed security. So there should have been no live rounds at that location. So who brought the live rounds to the location?

As per the guidelines I linked. Actor training is a legitimate reason to have live rounds. Though this would typically happen in pre-production. But a day player might come in for a few days and require training. The armorer was budgeted and scheduled to do actor training in this way. It's a line item in the budget.

As I have said many times, that isn't the biggest problem here.

If there was target practice in the breaks, who permitted that?
It is not something you can hide, it's noisy, and it seems involved several people in view of others. Surely this is down to the Producer's running and controlling of the location?

You're quoting a rumour and hearsay from the very early days. I've not seen anything that confirms this was actually happening.

More to the point, who brought the live ammunition on to the location?

Who cares. There were potentially legitimate reasons for it to be there possibly. (actor training)

Maybe it was nefarious.

That's not the biggest issue. It's because the regular safety protocols were ignored someone died. Not because a live bullet somehow found its way top where it shouldn't be. The protocols are designed to prevent this. There's a lot of reasons it could have happened. The basic idea of gun safety is to always assume it's loaded right? A live round could come from anywhere at anytime. That's why you do the same checks each and every time.

The safety aspect the Actor now has a problem with is that it was clearly known there were live rounds on the set.

I don't believe that's been shown, other than the fatality.

There can be no assumption there are only dummy rounds on the set.

True. And that's why there's a process every single time a weapon is brought to set that was totally ignored.

The problem being is the only way they can see that the rounds in the pistol are dummy would be to "fire" all the chambers in view of the actor when handing it over to the actor. There is no visual inspection of the rounds you can do afaics.

Incorrect.

If dummy rounds are used the armorer shakes each round BEFORE loading them in the presence of the actor, AD any anyone else interested or relevant (typically camera crew as they are most at risk)

As an additional check a dry fire of all chambers is done after loading the dummies. Again, in the presence of the actor, AD and any other interested parties.

I want to know about the reports of live fire on set, what specifically led to Halyna Hutchins' film crew to walk off, witness testimony in regard to these subjects. Until we get the sworn testimony, it's just speculation or hearsay. If it doesn't come up at some point, it's either not true, mischaracterized or not useful to anybody's case.

While it was a union show, they are in a right to work state. The local 600 camera crew walked that morning over safety concerns including two misfires with blanks where the gun fired when it wasn't supposed to. And remember most fatalities with weapons on movies from fire arms are from blanks, not live ammunition.

The operator stayed at her request but they replaced the camera crew with non-union crew.

 

[Tom Roper]

Day 2 Updates: 2-23-2024

The Defense suggests Rust’s supplier PDQ could have passed along the live rounds after .45 caliber Colt live ammunition was seized from the business. (The jury has not yet heard from the expert who is expected to testify those rounds were later tested and found not to be of the same chemical composition as those found on the Rust set.)

• Rust Unit Production Manager testifies 6 members of the crew resigned the day before the shooting of Hutchins–citing safety concerns.
• A few days after the incident and before police executed a search warrant Hannah Gutierrez asked for access to the prop truck and retrieved a gun belt and cardboard boxes.
• Pictures of PDQ both inside and outside appear to show a business in disarray and disorganization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's take a careful look at that middle bullet point first:

The prop truck. She had to ask for access to it. It's not her truck, it belongs to Seth Kenney's PDQ Props LLC. There are two ways to look at the intent of her actions:

1.) She knows there were live rounds she is responsible for in the cardboard boxes, and gun belt, and she's going there to collect them before they can be used against her.
2.) She's didn't know about them and wants to find out how extensive the distribution of live rounds was contaminating boxes that were thought to contain only dummies or blanks.

Let's remember the defense in its opening statements review of pictures of the crime scene showed police tape forming a perimeter of the crime scene that did not include the prop truck which was outside the perimeter. The prosecution is alleging evidence tampering by Hannah. Will prosecution be able to prove tampering if the evidence was not secured within the crime scene tape, or was the 22 yr. old Hannah to know and understand at that early point, that articles inside the prop truck would later even constitute future evidence?

A.) Regarding her possible motives for seeking access to the prop truck. Was it 1.) (above) or 2.)? Well one immediate question arises; the truck obviously belonged to Seth. If they were her live rounds, they were her property. Did she use Seth's truck to store for safekeeping any *other* property belonging to her, purse, backpack, lunchbox etc.?

B.) An expert is expected to testify live rounds seized from the business address were not the same chemical composition as those found on the Rust set. Are you going to conclude by the process of elimination, that meant they were hers? Would you exclude the possibility that a well-stocked prop supplier could have more than one type of 45 LC ammunition, or that he did not accumulate it at different times, jobs, vendors?

I tend *not* to agree with 1.) (above) that she possessed rare ammunition for a gun she probably did not own herself since it was not something she had already and was thus being rented to the production, unless she purchased it specifically for the purpose of recreational use on the set, which doesn't make a lot of sense either. Why wouldn't a person that did that not maintain possession in the original carton it came in when she purchased it, instead be donating those rounds that came at her expense for a gun she didn't own into a gun belt and mixed into cardboard boxes belonging to Seth for use on a corporate production?

For those reasons I'm more persuaded by argument 2.) (above) that she was seeking an answer same as everyone else for how the hell did live rounds come to be in the boxes we used for dummies and blanks?

As for the first bullet point, the resignation of 6 crew members citing safety concerns, I would speculate about two scenarios:

C.) Members were taking guns to a practice/target area away from the immediate vicinity of the set where live rounds could safely be fired; or

D.) In the course of their filming preparations, rigging loud reports from blanks were popping off all around them creating very loud distractions and fear. We know the dummy rounds don't need to be numerous but blanks are expendable and a large supply on hand in a remote filming location might not be unusual, hence a lot of boxes at PDQ address and inside the prop truck. Somebody hears a ricochet! ****! How did that happen? No question the armorer missed that! But damn, there are hundreds of these blank rounds on set. Are we supposed to check them all? If it would have saved Halyna's life, then absolutely yes. Does Hannah really have that kind of free reign over the set? Perhaps she does. I cannot say.

E.) Who else could PDQ acquire the blank rounds from? Did Seth assemble the blanks himself from components supplied by others, or were they purchased as finished products? It is very typical for people in the arms business to save spent brass for recycling, not to be melted but remanufactured into reloads. Reloads don't need to be the same loads they started with, can be different configurations, projectile weights, styles, velocities, characteristics and uses. Someone who does that and runs a sloppy disorganized operation as PDQ appears to be, could be expected to have some mixups, and they could be expected to be involved in the business of reloading, recycling, remanufacturing of spent cartridges because it makes money on sales and reduces costs of supply.

 

[CharlesPapert]

While it was a union show, they are in a right to work state.

Incorrect. New Mexico is not a right to work state.

In the instance of there being no available union personnel that meets hiring standards in a local area, it is acceptable to hire non-union personnel on a union show.

The local 600 camera crew walked that morning over safety concerns including two misfires with blanks where the gun fired when it wasn't supposed to.

Much is being made of this elsewhere so I think it bears addressing. The safety concerns were absolutely brought up to production by the camera dept. head, but the reasons for the camera crew departing was as much about late payment and housing disputes as safety. The reason I think this is an important distinction is that if the department's walkout was purely centered around safety concerns, that would cast Halyna's choice to continue working in a particularly negative light. I experienced a version of this myself on a low budget feature that I shot 20 years ago, so I have sympathy for the moral dilemma involved.

 

[Doug Bee]

Incorrect. New Mexico is not a right to work state.

In the instance of there being no available union personnel that meets hiring standards in a local area, it is acceptable to hire non-union personnel on a union show.

My mistake.