Rust armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter for on-set death of cinematographer. Shooter Alec Baldwin goes on trial soon

Originally published at:


The most amazing thing to me about this entire debacle is that they let live rounds anywhere near a film location.


Part of me is conspiracy-minded enough to wonder if this was some sort of setup… Alec has made his fair share of enemies.

No. It was just gross negligence by the people in charge.

And if Baldwin knew about and didn’t correct the shenanigans on set, then he is partly responsible being an Executive Producer.


Some of the testimony during the trial was particularly damning for Alec Baldwin. Apart from Ms. Gutierrez-Reed’s own incompetence, she was getting pressured by her boss. See how the next trial goes. 0_o


NYT has an article on that topic today. From reading that, it’s still unclear where they came from, although it sounds like she was convicted because didn’t go through all the steps she could have to make absolutely sure there were no live rounds (which is really what her job was).


That’s the main thing. I did a short course on guns being on set- a course given to crew who might be on the same set as the guns. The gist of it is that the guns to not leave the possession of the armourer unless cameras are about to roll. It should not be possible for a live round to get into the gun without the armourer personally putting it there.


I’m surprised that film productions don’t have a bunch of replica guns; make the ammo out of a really odd sizing of caliber .24 or something so it can’t take real bullets, don’t allow any powder in the cartridge just the percussion cap, the bullet out of clay not lead.


Perhaps this might cause some of those changes. After all, they used to actually shoot live rounds at actors on set. The current rules are the result of past incidents. And while it could be argued that they are adequate if actually followed, there is still room for improvement.


There are all kinds of safety measures they take for prop guns in the industry, including barrel restrictions which help make the flash more visible for the camera, but do partially block the barrel. (Not used on all props, but some).

The problem isn’t that there aren’t altered prop replicas to make them more safe or procedures in place. The thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of blanks fired out of props in Hollywood and other places with out incident are a testament to that.

The problem was catastrophic lax adherence to those standards and procedures.


I’m mostly surprised that they went ahead and continued making the film. With all the bad vibes attached to it, many watching it will probably be unable to suspend disbelief and fully enjoy the story, especially when they show scenes in the church where the shooting took place.


IIRC, shortly after this happened, it came out that some of the cast/crew were using the weapons with live rounds to do some “plinking” when they were not filming. Which has “Incredibly Bad Idea” stamped all over it.


It seems pretty clear that the armourer WAS the one who put it in the gun. The question raised was how live rounds got on set in the first place, mixed in with the dummies.

The incident you’re describing was apparently the production of “1883,” not “Rust.” See the NYT article linked above. There wasn’t supposed to be live ammo anyhwere near the “Rust” set.


Yeah. Having live ammo on set is gross negligence on the level of keeping your drain cleaner and rat poison in old soda bottles in the fridge.

1 Like

FWIW, from my own understanding during the interviews of experts immediately following the incident, there is such a thing as replica guns with non-standard gauges that would only accommodate blanks. They, of course, would be more expensive. As would, I assume, proper layers of security when dealing with firearms.


A friend is a line producer who has worked in the Southwest, and he said this happened on his set too.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.