SayCheeZ! wrote:
EVERY competent investigation considers ALL possibilities, evidence, and leads until it's proven wrong.

You’ve doubled down on this statement and it’s misleading. I have conducted official investigations into both civil and criminal cases, including fatal police shootings. I have presented the evidence of these investigations either to a jury during trial or to a city council for a discussion on the best course of action legally.

The Golden Rule is to follow the facts that are revealed during an objective investigation. You don’t consider “ALL possibilities” as that would encourage hunches and biases to creep into your investigation. You would also waste a lot of time pursuing a possibility that has no factual support. You consider all possibilities that fit into the facts of the investigation.

Concerning the Baldwin case: The sheriff/D.A investigators are more than aware of the “sabotage” issue. That issue is subsumed by the investigation of the chain of custody of the round(s) of live ammo that was put into the weapon. You can be sure that the authorities are tracing back (chain of custody) the fatal bullet-where it came from, who it came from, how it got into the weapon, etc. If after establishing chain of custody there are facts to support a deliberate act of sabotage (which would result in a murder charge), then have at it. But I think you’re jumping the gun.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
After all, the law requires people to be convicted BEYOND the shadow of a doubt.

Absolutely untrue. The burden of proof for a criminal trial is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Jurors are specifically instructed by the judge that a mere possibility, not supported by facts, is not reason to acquit a defendant. Allowing the law to be “beyond a shadow of doubt” would welcome jurors to speculate wildly and detach themselves from reality.

SayCheeZ wrote:
If a halfway decent defense attorney brings up such possibilities in court and reminds the jury that those possibilities were not investigated (or not thoroughly investigated), that throws at least some doubt onto the defendants guilt.

I have tried 129 jury trials (mostly criminal, but some civil) to verdict. In every criminal case, the defense attorney says exactly what you wrote. That’s their job. But if you present to the jury a competent, factual investigation and connect the dots based on the facts, you will likely hear those lovely words “we the jury in the above-entitled complaint find the defendant guilty of ….

SayCheeZ wrote:
If a halfway decent defense attorney brings up such possibilities in court and reminds the jury that those possibilities were not investigated (or not thoroughly investigated), that throws at least some doubt onto the defendants guilt.

Baanthai wrote:
I have tried 129 jury trials (mostly criminal, but some civil) to verdict. In every criminal case, the defense attorney says exactly what you wrote. That’s their job. But if you present to the jury a competent, factual investigation and connect the dots based on the facts, you will likely hear those lovely words “we the jury in the above-entitled complaint find the defendant guilty of ….

... yet a famous murder suspect is found not guilty because a glove didn't fit.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
... yet a famous murder suspect is found not guilty because a glove didn't fit.

Huh?  Do you mean the one that, at the time, had been made a critical part of the prosecution's case?  Trying to "place" the person at the scene of the crime?

Yes, "justice" doesn't always get the right end result including, I suspect, in that particular case.  But the prosecution's repeated (and disastrous) emphasis on "the glove" is a pretty poor example to try and use.

Just a suggestion.  You've heard from people who have far more REAL expertise on both movie sets and in criminal trials.  Not to mention some great gun "explainers".   Personally, I'm grateful for their insights into these types of situations.  Attacking their expertise and the very real knowledge that they've shared, seems like a strange tactic, at least to me.

As far as this particular case goes, we will likely learn more as the investigations play out.

rfordphotos wrote:
If I understand correctly the gun in question is a Single Action Army or similar- so .45 caliber -  I have a .45 "long" Colt - the round used in the single action army. The loaded rounds have significant weight to them- the standard load is ~250 grain lead bullet - each projectile weights ~.57ounces---- surely the FX department could make a look alike (3D printed???) dummy round that weighed only a fraction of that- making it immediately obvious it was a dummy when held in the hand... Live primers are made of a bright steel cup ... a dummy round primer could either be missing altogether or made of rubber...no one can see the cartridge base in a "loaded" gun...

so why would dummy rounds need to be so realistic they could be confused for real live ammo?

Unfortunately current dummy rounds ARE real rounds without powder in them. So the real reality is that there is very LITTLE difference between a dummy round and a live round and in looks, they are identical, at least so it seems.
I don't know the actual weight of the live round, maybe you can weigh on.
You say that the bullet(lead) weighs 250 grains. I'll guesstimate the case weighs 1/3 or about 80 grains. I assume a typical charge of about 30 grains. Total weight of about 360 grains. A dummy would weight only the 30 grains less off the powder or 330 grains.
That 1/10th difference is almost non perceptible in the hand!
It's the difference between a 10 pound bag of sugar and an 11 pound bag. How many could feel that 1/10th difference??
Someone had said that the dummy rounds have a BB in them, that would sure help!
John

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Why are real guns used at all with the plethora of CGI options available these days ?

My Question from pg 2 that go no response..
Seems the idea had merit
Dwayne Johnson says his production company will stop using real guns
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dwayne-joh … -shooting/
Fix it in post...problem solved!!!!

John Silva Photography wrote:
Unfortunately current dummy rounds ARE real rounds without powder in them. So the real reality is that there is very LITTLE difference between a dummy round and a live round and in looks, they are identical, at least so it seems.
I don't know the actual weight of the live round, maybe you can weigh on.
You say that the bullet(lead) weighs 250 grains. I'll guesstimate the case weighs 1/3 or about 80 grains. I assume a typical charge of about 30 grains. Total weight of about 360 grains. A dummy would weight only the 30 grains less off the powder or 330 grains.
That 1/10th difference is almost non perceptible in the hand!
It's the difference between a 10 pound bag of sugar and an 11 pound bag. How many could feel that 1/10th difference??
Someone had said that the dummy rounds have a BB in them, that would sure help!
John

Bullet weights and powder weights for guns in the US are traditionally measured in grains, 7000 grains equals one pound.

By the numbers: (from one of my old data books) empty brass case, about 115 grains, primer about 4.5 grains, a lead semi wadcutter bullet 255 grains and about 8 grains of powder--- or about 382.5 grains, 24.8 grams or about 0.87 ounces per loaded round...

8 grains of powder is about 0.52 grams, or about 0.02 ounces.

by hand, powder weight would be imperceptible.

Seems to me ANY FX department could drill out the base of the bullet (projectile), reducing it to a more or less hollow shape reducing the weight perceptibly.

Adding bb's to the cases of dummy rounds so they "rattle" is a good idea.

I still dont see any real reason for a dummy round to have any primer at all, even a fired primer. If the cartridge base is going to be visible in the movie, fake primers would be easy to fabricate. Fake primers that cant go bang....

"Blanks" or squibb loads are a WHOLE different can of worms.

Even the mildest blanks can propel a projectile- be it a fake bullet or a wad of wax at a speed that can kill or maim. Just the jet of burning powder can kill up close.

Like I said, there have been people killed with the blanks fired by starter pistols at track meets.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Why are real guns used at all with the plethora of CGI options available these days ?

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
My Question from pg 2 that go no response..
Seems the idea had merit

Dwayne Johnson says his production company will stop using real guns
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dwayne-joh … -shooting/
Fix it in post...problem solved!!!!

I wondered the same thing, the only answer I found was CGI was too expensive and not "quite" as convincing.

standard disclaimer- not a movie maker or FX guru. I dont know the industry.

John Silva Photography wrote:
Unfortunately current dummy rounds ARE real rounds without powder in them. So the real reality is that there is very LITTLE difference between a dummy round and a live round and in looks, they are identical, at least so it seems....
It's the difference between a 10 pound bag of sugar and an 11 pound bag. How many could feel that 1/1ifference??
Someone had said that the dummy rounds have a BB in them, that would sure help!
John

The POINT is that there IS a difference. And trained PROFESSIONALS know how to tell. Does ANYONE think that dummy rounds used in the film industry are INDISTINGUISHABLE from live rounds? Seriously?

"How many could feel that 1/10th difference??"

Professionals can. Not you. Not me. PROFESSIONALS. And by her lawyer's own admission, the armorer loaded the gun in question. That she did not "expect" any live rounds in the mix is NO EXCUSE for lax diligence.

And in all the times I have worked on films involving gunplay, including westerns and war scenes, never have I heard of the property master or armorer allowing picture guns used for recreational plinking with live rounds. THAT is INSANE. And except in very rare situations, live rounds ARE NEVER PRESENT ON A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION ANYWHERE ANYTIME.

Focuspuller wrote:

The POINT is that there IS a difference. And trained PROFESSIONALS know how to tell. Does ANYONE think that dummy rounds used in the film industry are INDISTINGUISHABLE from live rounds? Seriously?

"How many could feel that 1/10th difference??"

Professionals can. Not you. Not me. PROFESSIONALS. And by her lawyer's own admission, the armorer loaded the gun in question. That she did not "expect" any live rounds in the mix is NO EXCUSE for lax diligence.

And in all the times I have worked on films involving gunplay, including westerns and war scenes, never have I heard of the property master or armorer allowing picture guns used for recreational plinking with live rounds. THAT is INSANE. And except in very rare situations, live rounds ARE NEVER PRESENT ON A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION ANYWHERE ANYTIME.

I am not doubting anything you said BUT...., from what I've read, is that the plinking thing was being investigated. I have not seen that it ACTUALLY happened as of yet and I could easily have missed it since I'm not looking.
And the Armorer did say she had NO idea where a live round could have come from, indicating SHE is not the one that brought them? Again only what little I've seen.
And as to the 1/10 weight difference, I feel it would be very difficult to tell unless you were suspecting it, even then I have my doubts, by anybody. We all do things in our professional lives that involve object we handle every day and it would be very difficult for any one of us, in our professional capacities to feel a 1/10 weight difference. Just my opinion!
John

rfordphotos wrote:
I suspect the point Focuspuller is making about "dummy" rounds is that there are more perceptible differences between "dummy" rounds and live rounds than simply the powder weight....

Yes. It would be unconscionable to use dummy rounds identical in every way to live rounds so that a professional could not discern the difference. That would be begging for tragedy.

John Silva Photography wrote:
And the Armorer did say she had NO idea where a live round could have come from, indicating SHE is not the one that brought them? Again only what little I've seen.

Well that is a pretty weak defense by the one person who is supposed to maintain custodial supervision of all guns and ammo storage and use.

John Silva Photography wrote:
And the Armorer did say she had NO idea where a live round could have come from, indicating SHE is not the one that brought them? Again only what little I've seen.

Focuspuller wrote:
Well that is a pretty weak defense by the one person who is supposed to maintain custodial supervision of all guns and ammo storage and use.

This what I mean when I say it seems normal, acceptable standards and practices broke down. I am not sure where, or who failed, but somehow, a live round ended up in a gun that should have been "cold".

There was discussion earlier about combined roles putting too much load on one person- I dont know if that enters into this, but it does stress how very important having ONE person responsible for ALL firearms and ammo is for safety. Someone needs to maintain positive control, at all times... when that doesnt happen, it opens the cracks in the system where mistakes can creep in.

rfordphotos wrote:
Like I said- I am hard headed about gun safety.

Not being from the industry I probably have unrealistic expectations.

The way I was brought up, the training I got in the service, years and years of experience makes me believe there is only one way to handle guns safely... the person holding the gun has to insure it is safe. He/She CANNOT rely on anyone else. To my hard headed mind, Alec Baldwin should have cleared that firearm at the beginning of the scene, when it was handed to him. As I have noted many times, I am not from the industry, and maybe I just dont "understand"--- but if you want positive knowledge of the load status of a gun, you do it yourself.

I would bet the farm Mr. Baldwin wishes he had cleared the gun himself. You KNOW he will live with this for the rest of his life.

The thing is, Baldwin could only have confirmed that the chambers were loaded, but not with what. That is why the armorer has to be on top of the situation at all times (and not distracted with other prop duties).

Also, what is nagging at me is, do we know for a fact that only ONE live round was chambered? Would it be likely that the ONE live round would be the NEXT round in a six chambered cylinder? Or were more live rounds loaded? All six, maybe?

rfordphotos wrote:
I would bet the farm Mr. Baldwin wishes he had cleared the gun himself. You KNOW he will live with this for the rest of his life.

Yes, and Baldwin probably wishes things were different. And I did not read the rules that had been provided BUT my guess is it was not the actors responsibility to check the gun. They have expert professionals to do that part for them but for sure something broke down and std. safety practices we’re not followed.
If the pros can’t do their job then that’s like saying the ultimate responsibility falls on whomever ultimately has the gun pointed at them since they are the ones with something to lose.
Only so much redundancy should be needed when everyone does their job correctly!!
Maybe Focuspuller can shed a little light on where the responsibilities end?
John

John Silva Photography wrote:
Yes, and Baldwin probably wishes things were different. And I did not read the rules that had been provided BUT my guess is it was not the actors responsibility to check the gun. They have expert professionals to do that part for them but for sure something broke down and std. safety practices we’re not followed.
If the pros can’t do their job then that’s like saying the ultimate responsibility falls on whomever ultimately has the gun pointed at them since they are the ones with something to lose.
Only so much redundancy should be needed when everyone does their job correctly!!
Maybe Focuspuller can shed a little light on where the responsibilities end?
John

Yes, ultimately, everyone on a set is responsible for confirming their own safety. If anyone feels they are in an unsafe position, the 1st AD should be notified and concerns addressed. In the case of guns, It is impossible to know if all precautions have been taken, so there has to be trust that those responsible have done their jobs. That goes for stunts, explosions, actor driven car shots, and precarious camera positions as well as guns. No set can be perfectly safe as we have seen numerous times over the years. In the case at hand, BY DEFINITION, there was a lapse of proper procedure, somewhere, somehow, by somebody and all the rules in the world can't prevent a bad result if that is the case.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I was always under the impression that firearms used in movies were props,  not the real thing.  I could see if this were an amateur shoot but why would these industry professionals have real weapons on a set?

We don't know for a fact that these were "real weapons" or not. There is WAY too much speculation and opinions being thrown around about this case with very little, actual facts being known.

You can certainly kill someone with a prop gun firing blanks.

That said, what was Baldwin doing firing it at on-set staff anyway? That part of all this is just moronic, and there is a LOT more to this case than any of us know worthy of making an informed opinion on it at this point in time.

Shot By Adam wrote:
We don't know for a fact that these were "real weapons" or not. There is WAY too much speculation and opinions being thrown around about this case with very little, actual facts being known.

You can certainly kill someone with a prop gun firing blanks.

That said, what was Baldwin doing firing it at on-set staff anyway? That part of all this is just moronic, and there is a LOT more to this case than any of us know worthy of making an informed opinion on it at this point in time.

Shot By Adam, I'm afraid you missed a couple of items...

The Sherriff's Dept. released the fact that it was a real gun (an antique gun).  They'd also released the statements indicating that the set direction for the scene (that they were rehearsing for) directed Baldwin to draw the gun and "point it at the camera lens".  The two that were shot were directly behind the camera considering camera angles at the time (the same shot went through the Director of Photography, killing her, and then struck the director who was behind her).

There IS a lot we don't know.  But those facts are known and have been officially confirmed by the authorities.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I was always under the impression that firearms used in movies were props,  not the real thing.  I could see if this were an amateur shoot but why would these industry professionals have real weapons on a set?

'
FYI a "prop" is ANYTHING handled by an actor. Has nothing to do with "fake" or "real."
'
Real weapons are used when absolute authenticity is required and also PRECISELY because "industry professionals" know what they are doing.

Shot By Adam wrote:
We don't know for a fact that these were "real weapons" or not. There is WAY too much speculation and opinions being thrown around about this case with very little, actual facts being known.

You can certainly kill someone with a prop gun firing blanks.

That said, what was Baldwin doing firing it at on-set staff anyway? That part of all this is just moronic, and there is a LOT more to this case than any of us know worthy of making an informed opinion on it at this point in time.

"... what was Baldwin doing firing it at on-set staff anyway?"

YES, way too much misinformation and speculation, yet you engaged in it yourself. FYI, the gun was fired at camera, not "staff", which has been done on films since at least 1903 ("Great Train Robbery") safely. If proper procedure had been followed, the gun would not have fired at all. Somebody fucked up, hugely.

John Silva Photography wrote:
As to the gun in question, if I remember correctly, it was indeed a real gun but not an authentic period gun. I thought I read it was actually a reproduction of a period gun.
The old guns used black powder and today's smokeless powders pack a lot more punch and build up much higher pressures and much more quickly than the old cartridges. A new copy would be built from steels more apt to shoot and handle the more powerful loads available today and not have the gun blow up in your face!
Maybe the true gun experts here can shed a little more light on the subject ballistically?
John

I am FAR from an expert, there have literally been hundreds of books written about the Colt Single Action Army Pistol and its  history, and I wrote exactly NONE of them.....

I posted pictures earlier in this thread of an actual Colt Single Action Army pistol.

The Colt Single Action Army, "The Peacemaker" was  designed for the US Army, and was adopted as the official sidearm in 1873. It used a .45 caliber "all-in-one" brass cartridge (.45 Colt) loaded with a 255 grain lead bullet powered by 40 grains of black powder. At the time of is introduction, it was the most powerful pistol round available.

Colt did not guarantee their pistols to be safe with the new, significantly higher pressure "smokeless" powder until around 1900 (actually around serial number 192,000 according to many Colt "historians").

Those early guns, by the way are  collector items- and actual Army issued pistols, in very good cosmetic condition could cost up to $50K, with $8k-$10K being a "bargain". Original "black powder" pistols are prized by collectors and would not commonly be fired. (Simply to preserve their value.)

There have been more than 450,000 Colt Single Action Army pistols manufactured by Colt, and Colt still manufactures the model today - newly manufactured Colt Single Action Army pistols cost about $1800.00 from the factory. (Last I heard, there was a waiting list to buy them).

The differences in original and currently manufactured guns are easily seen by enthusiasts but would be generally unnoticeable to a "non-expert".

On a movie set, in the hand of an "actor" in action, a "new" gun would be virtually indistinguishable from an original 1873 made pistol.

There are also numerous "look alike", fully functioning replicas made today that, from a distance would appear like the originals.

I have no idea if the pistols used on set were actual Colts or look alikes. Functionally it would make zero difference.

JSouthworth wrote:
I dont think a shot of the revolver from the front would show empty chambers.

.
Now you write:

JSouthworth wrote:
If the gun involved in the fatal incident was a Single Action Army revolver, then there would have been a case for loading it with dummy rounds because the open front ends of the chambers are visible from the front, so this would be necessary to give the appearance of a gun loaded with live rounds.

First you write in support of your murder theory:

JSouthworth wrote:
I think the key question is still the one of who put the live rounds in the gun. The AD/armorer denies ever having seen them on the set, which we can take as a denial. Who else could have done it, and for what reason? Since no-one has admitted doing it, the malevolent hobo theory is still relevant.

But now you write:

JSouthworth wrote:
In this case, if there were earlier discharges of live rounds on the set, as has been alleged, then it seems even more extraordinary that basic safety precautions were neglected with fatal results. You would think that after the earlier incidents, people would have become paranoid about safety on the set.

I’m dizzy. And I want to apologize for actually relying on some facts, but “after the earlier incidents” people did become “paranoid about safety on the set.” Again a complete misstatement of fact.

Baanthai wrote:
I’m dizzy. And I want to apologize for actually relying on some facts, but “after the earlier incidents” people did become “paranoid about safety on the set.” Again a complete misstatement of fact.

There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence. Paranoid is based on fear, safety is based on Knowledge, Respect for the firearm and upcoming use, and acting accordingly. The only thing that is obvious and a fact is that a live round was in the gun and multiple people handled the gun before the actor and all of them should have checked the gun, not doing so was negligence and the final check is the actor should have also checked it.

In the modern history of guns on set there have been three fatalities involving guns and one was an actor playing Russian roulette with a gun with a blank in it ( a failure of training or paying attention during training) . More rounds  have been fired on set than in some wars. Before the opening credits of the season opener of"Yellowstone" a gun battle involving about with shooters, all firing fully auto rifles ( and a pistol or two), involved hundreds of shots-- no one was shot. I would love to see how that scene was shot and how long it took for the several minutes of screen time.

There was a movie a few years ago about Navy SEALS,using genuine SEALS all firing live ammo just like they do in training and no one got shot.

In most cases a 'prop" gun , one made out of rubber or plastic, can be used up to the time of actual firing. Some productions are going to CGI and that is one way or minimizing risk, the other is doing things right.

BTW I am not a gun nut but got my gun training ( and explosive) courtesy of the US Army.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence. Paranoid is based on fear, safety is based on Knowledge, Respect for the firearm and upcoming use, and acting accordingly. The only thing that is obvious and a fact is that a live round was in the gun and multiple people handled the gun before the actor and all of them should have checked the gun, not doing so was negligence and the final check is the actor should have also checked it.

In the modern history of guns on set there have been three fatalities involving guns and one was an actor playing Russian roulette with a gun with a blank in it ( a failure of training or paying attention during training) . More rounds  have been fired on set than in some wars. Before the opening credits of the season opener of"Yellowstone" a gun battle involving about with shooters, all firing fully auto rifles ( and a pistol or two), involved hundreds of shots-- no one was shot. I would love to see how that scene was shot and how long it took for the several minutes of screen time.

There was a movie a few years ago about Navy SEALS,using genuine SEALS all firing live ammo just like they do in training and no one got shot.

In most cases a 'prop" gun , one made out of rubber or plastic, can be used up to the time of actual firing. Some productions are going to CGI and that is one way or minimizing risk, the other is doing things right.

BTW I am not a gun nut but got my gun training ( and explosive) courtesy of the US Army.

No accidents involving firearms? That's a slight exaggeration I think.
Most so-called accidents involving guns are caused by negligence, or human error on the part of the user. Very occasionally, a fatal accident may result from a manufacturing fault in a gun or it's ammunition. Barrel explosions, hangfires and so on resulting from such faults are not unknown.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:

There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence. Paranoid is based on fear, safety is based on Knowledge, Respect for the firearm and upcoming use, and acting accordingly. The only thing that is obvious and a fact is that a live round was in the gun and multiple people handled the gun before the actor and all of them should have checked the gun, not doing so was negligence and the final check is the actor should have also checked it.

In the modern history of guns on set there have been three fatalities involving guns and one was an actor playing Russian roulette with a gun with a blank in it ( a failure of training or paying attention during training) . More rounds  have been fired on set than in some wars. Before the opening credits of the season opener of"Yellowstone" a gun battle involving about with shooters, all firing fully auto rifles ( and a pistol or two), involved hundreds of shots-- no one was shot. I would love to see how that scene was shot and how long it took for the several minutes of screen time.

There was a movie a few years ago about Navy SEALS,using genuine SEALS all firing live ammo just like they do in training and no one got shot.

In most cases a 'prop" gun , one made out of rubber or plastic, can be used up to the time of actual firing. Some productions are going to CGI and that is one way or minimizing risk, the other is doing things right.

BTW I am not a gun nut but got my gun training ( and explosive) courtesy of the US Army.

Mostly agree, but I will tell you this: The very LAST person I would EVER trust to have the final  say on the safety of a weapon being used in a shot is the actor.

Baanthai wrote:
First you write:

JSouthworth wrote:
I dont think a shot of the revolver from the front would show empty chambers.

.
Now you write:

JSouthworth wrote:
If the gun involved in the fatal incident was a Single Action Army revolver, then there would have been a case for loading it with dummy rounds because the open front ends of the chambers are visible from the front, so this would be necessary to give the appearance of a gun loaded with live rounds.

To answer the point about the gun, with most modern revolvers you cannot see the chambers from the front because they're concealed by the frame, however on some older guns like the Colt Peacemaker, the chambers are visible, so you would need to load it with dummy rounds to give a realistic impression of a gun loaded with live rounds. My earlier comment was written before the gun was identified by type.

JSouthworth wrote:
Another possibility is that since the AD and armorer were the same person, the director thought it was a waste of time.

Just to keep the facts straight.  The AD and armorer were not the same person.

The armorer was Hannah Gutierrez Reed.

The AD (Assistant Director) was Dave Halls.

And I'm not sure how the Director (who was shot) also got dragged into that scenario, (supposedly) possibly thinking that it might have been a waste of time...

LightDreams wrote:
Just to keep the facts straight.  The AD and armorer were not the same person.

The armorer was Hannah Gutierrez Reed.

The AD (Assistant Director) was Dave Halls.

So where did I get the idea that they were the same person? Was the regular AD absent when the fatal incident occurred? Was Hannah Reed acting as temporary AD?

Standard procedure calls for the AD to check the gun over before handing it to the actor, but that didn't happen in this instance. It was the director's responsibility, as the person in overall charge of the set to ensure that safety procedures were followed.