Rust film armorer gets maximum sentence

[Ombligo]

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film armorer on Rust who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the on-set fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday.

“You were the armorer, the one that stood between a safe weapon and a weapon that could kill someone,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said. “You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Ms. Hutchins would be alive, a husband would have his partner, and a little boy would have his mother.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rust-armorer-...19741.html

While I think she was in an ugly situation and wasn't alone to be at fault, she still was the last safeguard. She should be glad that the maximum was only eighteen months

[Racer X]

Nope, the final safeguard was, is, and always will be the person holding the firearm. Baldwin flat out refused firearms safety training on the set. They have the email exchanges. If he participated, things likely would have been different.

[pdq]

Someone took shells made by a company that makes no live rounds and is described as the dummy rounds of choice for Hollywood. This company brandmarks every one of their empty carts on the back end. Someone took those and reloaded them with a live load and bullet.

And they think they know who did that.

Then the live rounds were mixed in with other blanks and somehow ended up on the Rust set. The armorer loaded Baldwin’s prop gun and gave it to him.

If someone had been electrocuted on set during rehearsal because of faulty wiring, would it be an actor’s fault or the head gaffer?

[RAMd®d]

“You were the armorer, the one that stood between a safe weapon and a weapon that could kill someone,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said. “You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Ms. Hutchins would be alive, a husband would have his partner, and a little boy would have his mother.”


All that, not one false word in the bunch.

Gutierrez-Reed is a flake on a great day, a waste of protoplasm on any other.

What she gave the court doesn't qualify as allocution in my book.

She gave a statement, but zero allocution.

Her only concern was how this was impinging on her life.

Had she known and cared enough about her job to do it properly, or had a real armorer done the job, Ms. Hutchins absolutely would be alive today, and this would have never happen.

First, last, and alway, the armorer on set is responsible, it's in the J-O-B description.

It's why an armorer is hired in the first place.

Without some clever orchestrated effort to turn a day on the set into an assassination, a good armorer keeps everyone safe.

No matter what anyone else did on that set, she could have and should have prevented the tragic death of Ms. Hutchins.

Gutierrez-Reed is going to a prison, and not the 'cozy' facility she wanted to remain in.

The other tragedy in this is that the maximum is only 18 months.

There should have been a longer maximum sentence, and I'm sure she would have received it.

I am curious if she'll do the full 18 months.

I hope so.

[mrbigstuff]

pdq wrote:
Someone took shells made by a company that makes no live rounds and is described as the dummy rounds of choice for Hollywood. This company brandmarks every one of their empty carts on the back end. Someone took those and reloaded them with a live load and bullet.

And they think they know who did that.

Then the live rounds were mixed in with other blanks and somehow ended up on the Rust set. The armorer loaded Baldwin’s prop gun and gave it to him.

If someone had been electrocuted on set during rehearsal because of faulty wiring, would it be an actor’s fault or the head gaffer?

this is incredible. I've not been following this much at all, but why would this not be the main focus of the case? not to absolve this woman of any guilt, but it would be impossible to tell if she were not used to checking every round (assuming she knew how to do that).

[cbelt3]

A tragedy at so many levels. And hopefully one that helps the industry finally give up on the idea of function guns being used as props.

[Speedy]

mrbigstuff wrote:
[quote=pdq]
Someone took shells made by a company that makes no live rounds and is described as the dummy rounds of choice for Hollywood. This company brandmarks every one of their empty carts on the back end. Someone took those and reloaded them with a live load and bullet.

And they think they know who did that.

Then the live rounds were mixed in with other blanks and somehow ended up on the Rust set. The armorer loaded Baldwin’s prop gun and gave it to him.

If someone had been electrocuted on set during rehearsal because of faulty wiring, would it be an actor’s fault or the head gaffer?

this is incredible. I've not been following this much at all, but why would this not be the main focus of the case? not to absolve this woman of any guilt, but it would be impossible to tell if she were not used to checking every round (assuming she knew how to do that).
Nice link, pdq! It’s two years old and nothing new has turned up since.

[Rolando]

cbelt3 wrote:
A tragedy at so many levels. And hopefully one that helps the industry finally give up on the idea of function guns being used as props.

"No certification process for armorers"

Amazed. and an amazing opportunity for a reputuble gun trainer.

[Black]

Anyone else have a hard time following that article?

[Racer X]

pdq wrote:
Someone took shells made by a company that makes no live rounds and is described as the dummy rounds of choice for Hollywood. This company brandmarks every one of their empty carts on the back end. Someone took those and reloaded them with a live load and bullet.

And they think they know who did that.

Then the live rounds were mixed in with other blanks and somehow ended up on the Rust set. The armorer loaded Baldwin’s prop gun and gave it to him.

If someone had been electrocuted on set during rehearsal because of faulty wiring, would it be an actor’s fault or the head gaffer?

If the actor blew off the safety meeting where they learn about safe use of electrical devices, and as a result, violate safe practices, yes.