Rust armorer needed more time to check guns, says OSHA
Testifying in the ongoing Rust shooting trial, an OSHA investigator argued that armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed wasn't given adequate time to check firearms
Aux News Osha
Photo: Gabriela Campos-Pool
The tragic Rust shooting that left cinematographer Halayna Hutchins dead could’ve been avoided had armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed had more time, an OSHA investigator testified earlier today. OSHA investigator Lorenzo Montoya, the first witness called by the defense, blamed the shooting on the rushed production, believing that Gutierrez-Reed could not be expected to “conduct her duties to the best of diligence.” Per Variety, Montoya stated that Gutierrez-Reed had no “authority” to make decisions about gun safety on set, violating industry safety rules.
“The employer is asking an individual to perform multiple safety-related functions for them while also telling them that they’re spending too much time engaging in those safety-related functions,” said Montoya.
Gutierrez-Reed’s defense focuses on the assertion that she has been scapegoated for the lack of oversight by producers, including Alec Baldwin. Ultimately, OSHA blames managers who failed to follow complaints of accidental discharges or even create an atmosphere where gun safety is taken seriously. “They adopted firearms safety policies, but they totally failed to enforce them, train their employees on them, practice them, reference them,” said Montoya.
The prosecution refuted the claim that Gutierrez-Reed lacked time, though. Prosecutors argued that the production started late that day, allowing Gutierrez-Reed to check the guns on set. Prosecutors also took some swings at OSHA, which they pointed out are not firearms experts.
Among the many tragic failures that led to the Rust shooting, the idea that anyone would be rushed into production without adequately checking the gun’s rounds is among the most distressing. As previously reported, Gutierrez-Reed testified that first assistant director Dave Halls told her, “We don’t have enough time” for a weapons check on the gun that killed Hutchins. Hall took a plea deal for six months of unsupervised probation. Additionally, this was Gutierrez-Reed’s first solo armorer job. However, she was not the first choice. Numerous more experienced armorers turned the job down because they were also expected to act as prop assistants, which was deemed “completely unsafe” in such a production. This brings us back to OSHA’s point: On-set gun safety isn’t the place to rush or get cheap on. Had there been “enough time” for a gun check, there’s a chance none of this would have happened.
Closing arguments in the case are expected tomorrow.
22 Comments
I’ve been watching the testimony and there was plenty of time. Check to see the barrel is clear – 30 seconds. Rattle each of 6 rounds, 3 seconds each or look for the hole drilled in the side to ensure there is no powder in the shell – about 18 seconds more. Think about what a nice day it is and close up the pistol. Total 60 seconds to 2 minutes. Since the film crew had bailed and no shooting was going on there was around an additional 4 hours to get the cart ready. The person in charge of the spending said that Gutierrez-Reed was on an as-needed hours for armorer – she just had to ask for the next day or so to get that into the system so the use could be managed.I think Gutierrez-Reed didn’t check because she didn’t believe she had to check; she was certain that no real rounds were there to put into the real gun but she had not checked the rounds before putting them on the cart. More time would not change her mind about checking.One armorer commenting on the task said that dummy rounds were the most dangerous ones on the set. If you think there are live rounds, they are all treated like live rounds. If you see they are blanks, you can spot that they are blanks easily. But dummies are there to look live and not be live. They have to be examined to be sure. Once in the gun, that chance for examination is basically over unless the gun is unloaded. Skip a check and one cannot distinguish until it’s too late. Gutierrez-Reed skipped that check.
Do they have ANY footage of the goings on on the set? Were there any cameras recording? Hell, even smartphone footage would be welcome.
There is quite a bit and it shows all the times stuntment and others were wandering about with real guns, too often pointing them at other people. One particular instance was a stuntman using a revolver as a pointing tool to indicate the direction some piece of action would occur, just aligning the barrel with most of the people in the immediate area. Sure, the odds of anything bad coming from any one instance is really small, but if there is enough stupid it will eventually go terribly wrong. As it did. The expert armorer witness for the prosecution was sometimes having trouble describing how bad the situation was. In at least one clip, there were two such incidents at the same time in the same frame and he was so stunned with the one that it took a while to notice the second one.
It makes you wonder why her boss commanded she skip a check that doesn’t take much time at all
Neither her boss nor anyone else told her such, but even had the request been made it is Gutierrez-Reed’s responsibility to do the check regardless or walk off the set.
To update: I see that she testified the assistant director told her that, the one who took a plea deal. That person is not her boss, but I accept it counts as “anyone else”. The point remains – it is her job to politely tell them to go f’ themselves or walk off the set, like the camera crew did.Per the prosecution armorer expert, the one who did not point a gun at the judge from the witness box, his policy when someone tells him to hurry up is to work half as fast so the pressure and distraction to get the job done doesn’t result in something being missed. I do feel sympathy for her, but all she had to do was say “No,” either to the job or to being rushed. I am still glad for the guilty verdict. Not so much as to punish her, but because this situation came about because Baldwin and the rest of the backers went out of their way to avoid the Hollywood unions that would have provided Gutierrez-Reed the backing and support and guidance to not have this happen. With this conviction it will be harder for someone who is a beginner armorer to accept a job they aren’t qualified for and give them motivation to say “No!”
Assistant director I guess isn’t literally her boss but they are the mouthpiece for the director so if they tell you to do something it’s like the director tells you to do something. Movie sets are complicated
The director is also not her boss. If directors were the boss they could fire people. The only thing a director is able to do is control who is or is not on the set, mostly. If the director decides she was not to be on the set it is the producer’s decision to continue to pay them, fire them, or to tell the director to STFU and let the armorer do their job or they fire the director.
Prosecutors also took some swings at OSHA, which they pointed out are not firearms experts.
What a winning argument. “Ah well you may be safety experts, but you’ve never seen this particular ladder before!”
To be totally fair, there’s a pretty big difference between firearms and ladders. Being a general safety expert doesn’t necessarily make one specifically an expert on firearm safety, so it’s a pretty logical way of undermining the credibility of the witness.
Osha is concerned with the management of a workspace, both in the procedures and the physical layout, not affixing blame to individual workers. If a worker is found climbing without a fall arrester the employer is in trouble.
So – will this result in safety inspections actually being allowed? Why aren’t we thinking more of studio shareholders that might lose dollars if a movie is delayed by minutes because of the increased safety time?
They usually are very careful and strict about safety in major studio productions. It’s low budget movies like this that will cut corners since everything is rushed and they generally won’t have anywhere near the budget they should to do it right.
they generally won’t have anywhere near the budget they should to do it right. I’d think it was less of a matter of money and more of a matter of allowing the armorer the time to inspect things.
Time is an expensive commodity on a low-mid budget film.
Crew injuries and deaths are a slight bit more expensive, at least in a country that cares about human life.
Anyone else catch the video clip of the defense expert witness flagging the judge with a gun used as an exhibit? Just fucking wild.
I have now. Damn
How fucking long does it take to check whether a gun is loaded or not? The goddamn thing should have never been on set in the first place, what a load of shit OSHA’s attorney is giving here. “They adopted firearms safety policies, but they totally failed to enforce them, train their employees on them, practice them, reference them,” said Montoya.”I’M PRETTY SURE THAT’S THE PROPMASTER’S JOB. I’m not a huge fan of Alex Baldwin as a person, but he is absolutely not responsible for killing someone with a gun that should have never been loaded in the first place, and now he has to live the rest of his life knowing he accidentally killed someone based on the prop master’s negligence. Disgusting
Gutierrez-Reed was definitely negligent and is also definitely being scape-goated.Hall got off crazy light with 6 months probation. Baldwin shouldn’t be on trial for pulling the trigger but whichever of the producers were responsible for overseeing production (including, possibly Baldwin) should be held accountable for creating a rushed and under-resourced environment where something like this can happen.
The fucking witness for the defense not practicing proper gun safety on the stand is just the chef’s kiss of disaster.She is at fault as the armorer. Period.
Why were there live rounds on the set in the first place?