She Looks Exactly Like I Thought She Would

She Looks Exactly Like I Thought She Would

This is the armorer in the Alec Baldwin shooting.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has now been officially named as the person who loaded a live round into the gun that was used in the shooting.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was seen for the first time as she paced outside her home on Monday, October 25

Share this post

Comments (22)

  • Dave W. Reply

    I don’t know about you, but that’s EXACTLY what I think of when I hear the word “armorer”.



    October 27, 2021 at 1:44 am
  • Kyle Reply

    Was it a real bullet or a blank with a little too much gun power in it?

    Either way be prepared for the anti gun people coming out.

    October 27, 2021 at 2:59 am
    • furor kek tonicus Reply

      Ryan Kinel says they were intentionally loading live rounds in it

      because they were using that gun to plink with earlier that very day.
      with a gun that was going to be used in filming?
      there’s nothing i can say that could exaggerate how grotesquely stupid and incompetent these people are.

      October 27, 2021 at 6:12 am
  • Bibliotheca Servare Reply

    In a *cap-and-ball style* revolver, no less. Unless they modified it to take cartridges, or the first info was incorrect, at least.

    October 27, 2021 at 4:07 am
    • Dave W. Reply

      Where’d you see that? Every report I’ve read said it was a shotgun.

      October 27, 2021 at 4:26 am
  • Christopher Lopes Reply

    Whoever loaded the round (and yes, she should never be allowed to work in the industry again), Baldwin is the one who pointed the gun at another human being and pulled the trigger. He did it without spending the half a minute it would have taken to actually check the gun, and a woman died. All guns are assumed to be loaded until checked by the person who is using them. That’s because people screw up, and a failure to verify the condition of the weapon can get people killed.

    October 27, 2021 at 6:49 am
    • WOPR Reply

      You’re assuming the round in the gun was noticeably a live round. If you want, you can take the argument further and say that the people in the line of fire should have checked the round as well. They are the ones who could get shot.

      The only people responsible are the prop people. Their job is to make sure the gun isn’t loaded with live ammo.

      October 27, 2021 at 11:31 am
      • furor kek tonicus Reply


        October 27, 2021 at 12:23 pm
      • Brick Hardslab Reply

        The man holding the gun is also responsible. Always.

        October 27, 2021 at 1:11 pm
      • Christopher Lopes Reply

        As they were reportedly blocking the shot, there shouldn’t have been any round in the gun. And yes, the person holding the gun is the one responsible for its safe operation. People make mistakes, so the person holding the gun has to verify its condition.

        October 27, 2021 at 5:08 pm
      • Leatherwing Reply

        The dummy rounds did have a particular hole in the case to indicate that they were dummies: “David advised he could only remember seeing at least four “dummy” casings with the hole on the side, and one without the hole.”

        That is according to this article, that quotes from the police interview with Halls

        October 28, 2021 at 2:53 am
    • SirFalterBrawley Reply

      “All guns are assumed to be loaded until checked by the person who is using them”

      That may be true in reality, but Hollywood is the land of make believe. There are likely Film Actors’ Guild rules that actively bar actors from checking the status of a firearm specifically for liability reasons in situations like this one. If the onus is solely on the prop department for checking the safety of a prop, then it limits the scope of the legal action while protecting both the actor and the production as a whole.

      October 27, 2021 at 9:23 pm
      • Christopher Lopes Reply

        As I understand it, the actual procedure is for the armorer to demonstrate to the actor that the weapon he is about to take possession of is unloaded, then hand the gun to the actor. That didn’t happen here (the armorer was apparently too busy being awesomely incompetent), so the final check was still up to Baldwin.

        October 28, 2021 at 3:31 am
    • Herman Sheeple Reply

      Agreed. At the very least Alec Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter. Let’s see if his satanic friends bail him out of this.

      October 28, 2021 at 2:57 am
  • Joe S.Walker Reply

    There’s one photo of her looking quite cute, but in most you can see she’s really rather hefty and plain. Perhaps she thought being an armourer would give her some edge and badassery – after all, in a movie the goth-style girlie armourer would be super-competent and always ready with a line to put down the dudes.

    October 27, 2021 at 8:49 am
    • The Dark Herald Reply

      Her Dad works as an armorer. It gave her the connections she needed to get work she wasn’t qualified for. For her, this was the path of least resistance and nobody in The Club thinks being incompetent disqualifies you for your job.

      October 27, 2021 at 9:13 am
    • Herman Sheeple Reply

      I would like to see that photo because every picture I have seen is of a rainbow colored “woke” pig-tard. 🤢🤮

      October 28, 2021 at 5:06 pm
  • SirFalterBrawley Reply

    A lot of focus is being put on the armourer, which is certainly warranted because she wasn’t qualified for the job, by her own admission. However, not much is being said about the Assistant Director who picked up the gun and handed it to Baldwin. First, props are not an AD’s responsibility, they’re the propmaster’s/armourer’s. An AD shouldn’t be handling a firearm on set for any reason. Second, given that the AD did take the gun to Baldwin, it became his responsibility to check the gun to make sure it was ready for use on set. Gutierrez has a decent defense against legal liability if she didn’t directly approve the use of the gun at that time, even if it was negligent to leave an unsupervised firearm loaded with live rounds on set.

    October 27, 2021 at 9:14 pm
    • SirFalterBrawley Reply

      After reading the most recent post, I’ll say that my incorrect understanding of the chain of custody for firearms on set was a result of third hand knowledge from a relative with connections to film industry veterans who don’t have direct experience with firearm handling. That said, with better information, I still think the AD has the most culpability in the incident based on the reporting.

      October 27, 2021 at 9:38 pm
  • Herman Sheeple Reply

    Neither person shot by Alec Baldwin were actors so why did he shoot at them in the first place whether he believed the gun was loaded with blanks or not ?
    Alec Baldwin is a dirt bag and personally I wouldn’t put anything past him. It doesn’t take much to reload a gun with live rounds.
    Seems having an inexperienced unlikable tard in charge of the armory is a pretty good way to get a Hollyweird pass.
    Alec Baldwin has a huge ego. Is it possible some old fart didn’t get his dinky wet, got mad and lost it ?

    October 28, 2021 at 2:44 am
    • Leatherwing Reply

      He was shooting at the camera because it was the point of view of the person he was shooting. If you’ve ever watched a movie, you’ve seen it. James Arness did it in the opening of Gunsmoke, James Bond has done it in the opening sequence of every Bond film, it’s a very cinematography technique. Baldwin probably has culpability, but it isn’t that he pointed the gun at the camera rather than another actor.

      October 28, 2021 at 2:59 am
      • Herman Sheeple Reply

        Thank you for explaining the cinematic technique that could have led to someone other than an actor being shot at. I haven’t watched a movie since “Rogue One” back in 2016 because of all the “woke” BS and of course the virus. I wish I hadn’t wasted my money on that boring forgettable cookie cut money grab. I would like to see “Dune” as it looks like it’s free of “woke” BS and David Lynch 🤡. Maybe Hollyweird is getting tired of losing money.

        October 28, 2021 at 12:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *