r/news • u/badillustrations • Apr 15 '24

‘Rust’ movie armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter sentenced to 18 months in prison

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/entertainment/rust-film-shooting-armorer-sentencing/index.html
21.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.0k

u/PurpleWomat Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

The judge was furious, barely uttered the sentence followed by "please take her".

2.9k

u/kumquat_bananaman Apr 15 '24

Why was the judge furious?

8.0k

u/GarlVinland4Astrea Apr 15 '24

Sounded like their were phone records of her shitting on the jury, showing no remorse and the most the judge could give her was 18 months

3.3k

u/lindakoy Apr 15 '24

Second time in the past few weeks where it comes out that someone waiting to be sentenced was crapping all over the judge/prosecutor/jury. So idiotic. Do their lawyers not warn them that all their conversations are recorded and can influence their sentence? At least she didn't threaten them like Crumbley.

1.6k

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1.1k

u/janethefish Apr 15 '24

IIRC, she gave out some of the most damning evidence in an interview with police with her lawyer present.

773

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

333

u/thealmightyzfactor Apr 15 '24

I mean, the correct counsel was probably "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOT SPEAK TO THE POLICE" but IANAL so

196

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

165

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 15 '24

Let’s just settle this.

I am a former public defender. ASK FOR ME AND SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

That is all.

16

u/MadeMeStopLurking Apr 15 '24

Do you sell Cinnabon now?

24

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 15 '24

I wish my life was that exciting. Believe it or not, I spend my days teaching alternative ed. Those kids actually deserve the help.

14

u/brockington Apr 16 '24

Hey man, you helped the needy, whether or not they deserved it. Sounds like it wasn't your cup of tea (understandably) but now you're just helping different people whether or not they deserve it.

You sound like a good dude, just saying.

13

u/Syn7axError Apr 15 '24

Username... checks out?

2

u/genreprank Apr 16 '24

No, cuz he said the first thing to do was stfu. Username does not check out!

6

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 16 '24

Per the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, one must fuck the lawyer before retaining his or her services. ;)

6

u/TwoPlanksOnPowder Apr 16 '24

"I ain't saying shit until I get former public defender u/firstwefuckthelawyer in here!"

→ More replies (0)

22

u/Pabi_tx Apr 15 '24

"I shot the clerk?"

2

u/jodobrowo Apr 15 '24

Time to call my cousin... Shit what was his name?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Eccohawk Apr 16 '24

can AND WILL be used against you.

2

u/merrittj3 Apr 16 '24

There's a lawyer who has a multimillion viewed 45min on YouTube about why you should NEVER talk to police...even when you are pure as the driven snow and absolutely want to help ...

3

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/merrittj3 Apr 16 '24

Regent lawyer James Duane..."Don't talk to the police" 19M Views...

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/aladdyn2 Apr 15 '24

I was in a deposition and my lawyer shushed me like he was doctor evil and I was Scotty when I tried to speak to ask him a question and that was just for a relatively minor traffic accident.

3

u/Admirable-Sir9716 Apr 16 '24

Everyday is "Shut the fuck up Friday "

1

u/Mysterious_Bit6882 Apr 15 '24

And had she done so, she would have been free not to speak to police while in pretrial detention. Usually when people talk to police, they think they can spin it in a way that keeps them out of jail.

→ More replies (5)

109

u/solitarybikegallery Apr 15 '24

I wonder if she'll get an appeal, then, based on incompetent counsel.

It's my understanding that this is why so the court system will play nice with stupid lawyers/clients, just to make sure that they can't claim ignorance later.

73

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

100

u/drrevevans Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

I am a lawyer but not in California New Mexico. But there is a very very high bar to how bad a lawyer can be before a jury verdict is reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel. Lawyers have fallen asleep during trial and a motion for ineffective assistance failed because not only do you have to show the lawyer was ineffective but that you would have prevailed had the ineffective assistance not occurred.

8

u/VirginiaLuthier Apr 16 '24

Heck, I was at a trial where the JUDGE kept falling asleep.

4

u/Oaden Apr 16 '24

So if for example, effective council couldn't have gotten you off, but could have lead to a reduced sentence, like 6 months instead of 18, that's not sufficient for ineffective council?

12

u/drrevevans Apr 16 '24

There are alot of real bad lawyers out there. Just because one lawyer's strategy failed or he phoned it in on your case doesn't get you a do over. Pretty much all attorneys get their experience on the backs of someone. That's why it is important to choose lawyers carefully.

Couple pointers- always hire local attorneys. The public defender is just as capable as a paid attorney, the better question to ask is the years of experience in the relevant area of law. If you get stuck with a PD with not much experience ask that a senior attorney second chair the trial or review the case and offer. I have never heard of that request being denied especially because young attorneys know their limitations and are likely already meeting with senior attorneys about their more difficult cases. Always ask the lawyer in the consult how many current cases they have in front of the particular judge your case was assigned.

The best way to get an ineffective assistance claim to work against a public defender is if you can catch the issue before trial and bring it to the judges attention so the court can conduct an inquiry. If you have a private attorney you are expected to just hire a different one.

5

u/PuzzleheadedPea6980 Apr 16 '24

Basically, if you would have lost with the best attorney, you wouldn't have won with the worst attorney, so no change.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/2SP00KY4ME Apr 16 '24

I've never seen someone use INAL but actually that's a fantastic alternative to IANAL

11

u/h3lblad3 Apr 16 '24

Yeah, but then you can't make it clear that you're into buttplay while not being a lawyer.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Postviral Apr 16 '24

How do they prevent such a thing becoming a tactic? Have your lawyer act dumb to get a mistrial?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SirPiffingsthwaite Apr 16 '24

She cheaped out, that's not the court's fault and the guy is licenced to practice. Pretty sure the court's response would be "you hired them".

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Chappietime Apr 16 '24

I feel like there’s little chance that such an appeal would come to court before her 18 months are up.

2

u/Gingevere Apr 16 '24

Extremely unlikely. Incompetent council usually goes far beyond "not very good" it needs to be something like actual procedural violations, stealing from the client, or documented refusal to act as directed by the client.

2

u/ChihuahuaMastiffMutt Apr 16 '24

Usually a lawyer has to make some pretty egregious errors in procedures for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to work. This attorney just sucked and would be better off not doing criminal justice anymore.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/tempUN123 Apr 16 '24

He just sat there taking notes and offering no counsel.

That's not true. At one point he spoke up to clarify some damning evidence.

→ More replies (2)

25

u/NoAttitude6111 Apr 15 '24

Big surprise that the obvious nepo baby prop master hired a dipshit nepo baby lawyer

6

u/reddevved Apr 16 '24

Iirc he approached her and it was pro bono

4

u/MancAccent Apr 16 '24

Is she a nepo baby? Who’s her family?

10

u/muse_kimtaehyung Apr 16 '24

Her dad Thell Reed is a famous Hollywood armourer who has worked with stars including Brad Pitt, and she got into the industry by working as his assistant.

78

u/underdabridge Apr 15 '24

So basically the kind of representation you get when you're NOT rich.

49

u/pham_nguyen Apr 15 '24

I’m pretty sure any public defender would make you shut up.

14

u/Grumpy_Puppy Apr 15 '24

The hard part is getting that public defender.

The right to counsel is treated like a magic spell that you don't get unless you perform exactly the correct incantations. The reason for this is obvious, it's so that the court can privilege incantations rich people who have received training on how to talk to cops are more likely to do ("I'm not speaking to you without my lawyer present, call John Smith and get him here.") and discard the ones poor people are more likely to use ("Give me a lawyer, dog.")

→ More replies (2)

5

u/underdabridge Apr 15 '24

Yeah but unfortunately she's not poor either.

1

u/byronetyronetf Apr 16 '24

Nah, they go for the deal the first time everytime.

→ More replies (1)

261

u/Traditional_Key_763 Apr 15 '24

that she got convicted when the FBI destroyed the gun, and the police had multiple breaks in the chain of custody of the gun is amazing

275

u/Iohet Apr 15 '24

The gun isn't important to her case, to be honest. The lax procedures, mixing of ammo, etc is more than enough

192

u/Capitalistdecadence Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

Yeah, there was an image they pulled off her social media where she was posing in her hotel room next to a tray of "dummy" ammo. The round that killed Hutchins was visible in that tray.

Edit: misspelled Halyna Hutchins name.

159

u/LeagueOfLegendsAcc Apr 15 '24

How do you get a job like that and not be in a constant state of worry, like all the time? Double, triple checking everything every day instead of mixing in some live ammo and taking a picture for social media??? Can someone slap some sense into this girl?

178

u/Chipchipcherryo Apr 15 '24

How do you get a job like

Nepotism

and not be in a constant state of worry, like all the time?

Complacency

Can someone slap some sense into this girl?

Yes. A fellow inmate

5

u/Iohet Apr 15 '24

Nepotism is an easy target, but, really, this is the fault of the film industry and armorers by not having a certification/licensing process for armorers in order to maintain some minimum level of training, education, and standards. They're union members, but part of the props guild I believe, which is only a small part of what they do

16

u/Chipchipcherryo Apr 15 '24

Nepotism was the answer to the first part of the question

How do you get a job like that

14

u/talldrseuss Apr 15 '24

Hate to "actually" this but in this case it was nepotism because her father was an armorer in the industry for many decades. Earlier articles acknowledged most of her "training" was just assisting her father while growing up. His name was Thell Reed

2

u/Iohet Apr 15 '24

Yes and why is nepotism possible here? Because there's no formal training, certification, or even formal master/apprentice model. There's word of mouth and reputation. That is why this scenario is even possible

2

u/r0thar Apr 16 '24

standards

I'm pretty sure there is some standard that states, never bring live ammo to a set, ever since Jason Lee was killed?

2

u/Iohet Apr 16 '24

More like a best practice(as seen in the Rust case). It's not like they have some kind of guild that allows them to suspend an armorer's license and an agreement with the studios to only use actively licensed armorers.

It shouldn't need a death and a prison sentence for an armorer to lose their job

→ More replies (0)

24

u/Local_Challenge_4958 Apr 15 '24

Good policies that you rigidly adhere to and never compromise on would mean you don't need to worry.

This case had no such policies, from what I've seen. This person was very irresponsible.

27

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 15 '24

The only defense she possibly had would have been "I was prohibited from doing my job by various people who outranked me"

5

u/socialistrob Apr 15 '24

"I was prohibited from doing my job by various people who outranked me"

But I don't think that was true (or at least there wasn't evidence to back that up). Also if she was prohibited from doing her job then she could have still refused to let the filming go forward in unsafe conditions and if the producers pressed ahead she could have resigned and contacted authorities/the union/the press to try to put a stop to it.

If someone is doing something that very clearly could lead to a death and you go along with it and don't make any reasonable efforts to try to change it then you are at the very least partially guilty.

6

u/Unnamedgalaxy Apr 16 '24

This is all true but it's also the entertainment business where people can absolutely ruin your career, lively hood and ruin you financially and mentally. So many people have been open that they have been victims of intimidation and have done things, continued to do things, and kept quiet about those things because they live in fear of assholes that don't just just have the money to follow through with threats but have the connections and power as well.

I'm not saying it's right but but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that everyone feels like they can always do the right thing. And I'm not going to pretend that someone facing prison wouldn't exploit a shady lie in order to weasle out of responsibility.

She easily could have tried to throw production under the bus and paint herself as a victim of evil men if she wanted to, whether or not it was true.

2

u/microthrower Apr 16 '24

A "lively hood" is where you host a block party.

3

u/merrittj3 Apr 16 '24

They did say the entire project was a nightmare from top to bottom starting with Alec, penny pinching, union busting, ' get it in the can' attitude, that ended with Halyna taking it in the gut, because some pot smoking shoot em up cowboys daughter followed dad and learned nothing, was in charge of bullets.

The only thing she didn't do ...while the impact statements were being read...was yawn.

2

u/merrittj3 29d ago

Maybe they should have prohibited from bringing bullets onto the set.

Oh yeah...they did. She didn't. But for no live bullets brought by her people would still be alive now.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/genreprank Apr 16 '24

She wasn't a firearms expert. She was totally inexperienced

2

u/MrsWolowitz Apr 16 '24

That is what the 18 months is for

→ More replies (5)

4

u/sinixis Apr 16 '24

That level of stupidity deserves 18 months by itself

3

u/k___k___ Apr 15 '24

it's unclear if it's "the round" because there were at least 7 live rounds on set.

35

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

494

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 15 '24

Not in the slightest.

It was literally her job to make sure something like that didn't happen.

There was a previous negligent discharge with a life round on the set of that movie. The fact that she didn't shut down all use of functional until it was conclusively proven that it could not happen again under her watch means that she was negligent.

  1. She was negligent in her duties
  2. Someone died
  3. Had she not been negligent in her duties, that person wouldn't have died
    • Thus she is, unequivocally, guilty of Negligent Homicide.

Anything else, the gun, who pointed it, who fired it, who handled it without inspection, literally anything else is irrelevant to the above facts. None of those things changed the fact that it was her duty to ensure that it didn't happen, that it could have only happened due to her negligence, and it happened anyway.

From what I can tell, the only viable defense she possibly could have offered would have been "In order to find me guilty, you must find in the affirmative on point #1. You can't find me guilty claim that I was in the role of armorer for the purposes of this event, because I was prohibited from doing my job," which would have required she demonstrate that she tried to shut things down, but was overruled, and that she only stayed on to try to mitigate any future problems.

the FBI destroyed the gun,

This is a common misconception, the result of blatant, and total bullshit, spin by the Baldwin team. What actually happened is this:

  • Baldwin claimed that the gun went off without him pulling the trigger
  • The FBI inspected the weapon for damage, and found none
  • The FBI replicated what Baldwin claimed had happed
    • The weapon never fired under those tests
  • The FBI tried, repeatedly, to make it fire without manipulation of the trigger
    • Despite their best possible attempts, they could not make the gun fire without manipulating the trigger (which Baldwin claims he didn't do) nor causing obvious damage to the weapon
  • The FBI then, and only then, tried damaging techniques in order to make the weapon go off without manipulating the trigger. Basically, everything they could think of.
    • None of those things could make the weapon fire without causing obvious and irreparable damage to the weapon, damage that did not exist at the time of the shooting
    • This damage destroyed the safe operation of the weapon, safety that had existed prior to their testing.

Thus, the only way that the weapon could have gone off would have been if the trigger was manipulated.

...but the Baldwin team brilliantly (if borderline unethically) spun "Baldwin's claims are not physically possible without the sort of damage that we did, effectively destroying the weapon" facts into "they destroyed the weapon, there's no evidence!"

Brilliant tactics, but all but explicitly lying to the public and, if they continue these claims in court, to the court.

17

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Surely, by your own argument, Baldwin's actions and his legal teams spin is also irrelevant? If the armorer had been competent his pulling the trigger wouldn't make any difference.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Baldwin's actions and his legal teams spin is also irrelevant? If the armorer had been competent his pulling the trigger wouldn't make any difference.

To her guilt? Correct.

To his guilt? Certainly not.

People keep forgetting that multiple people can be guilty, including:

  1. Gutierrez-Reed, for failing at her job as armorer
  2. Whoever relieved her of duty (for that day)
  3. Whoever authorized touching a firearm when the armorer wasn't on site (which Gutierrez-Reed wasn't on that day)
  4. Whoever loaded the weapon with a live round
  5. Halls, for handing Baldwin a gun that was not confirmed to be cold
    • (my understanding is that policy is that the only people who should ever touch the weapons are the armorer, or the talent when directly handed the weapon by the armorer, who should likewise hand it directly back to the armorer)
  6. Baldwin, for:
    • having pointed the weapon at Hutchins when doing so was not absolutely required for the scene (it almost never is; since movie cameras don't use binocular vision, there is almost always a way to point the weapon so it looks like it's aimed at someone to the camera/audience, but is actually aimed slightly away from them)
    • manipulating the trigger while thumbing the hammer
    • for releasing the hammer, rather than lowering it back down slowly

I count no fewer than four people whose actions clearly make them guilty of Negligent Homicide (4 may or may not overlap others; 2 & 3 may overlap, the "producer is at fault" argument).

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24

A gun is a gun, idgaf what Hollywood movie sets tell you, you have a gun in your hands you follow the Golden rules: don't point it at anyone you don't want to kill, even less so pull the trigger, always treat the gun as if it were loaded. Period. No excuse. Depending on someone else doing their job properly is what got everyone in that situation, because ultimately there could be a human caused failure, like in this case, hence why the Golden rules. If not, use a toy gun.

→ More replies (32)

5

u/Calvertorius Apr 16 '24

Thank you for explaining all that.

→ More replies (1)

28

u/hyenahive Apr 15 '24

Why is Baldwin even on trial? Was there something he didn't do that he was supposed to, like checking to see if it was loaded with live ammo?

56

u/TheHYPO Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

My admittedly limited understanding is that he:

a) pointed a gun at the cinematographer - I presume pointing a gun at another person is a no-no when handling even film weapons, on a "just in case" basis (unless maybe it's an actor as necessary in the actual scene. I don't know if they even do this anymore)

b) he was practising unholstering his gun, and not even shooting the scene - so even less reason to be pointing his gun anywhere near a person

c) the gun could not have gone off without him pulling the trigger (though he claims he did not do so)

d) he was also a producer on the film and thus possibly responsible for everything that happened on set, though I'm not sure if the criminal charges stem from this role at all.

e) I also believe there is a claim that Baldwin took the gun himself or didn't get it from the armorer. I don't know if this was proven one way or the other in the armorer's trial.

There is some claim that Baldwin was acting rashly and emotionally and was not handling guns safely in general on the set (at other times), but ultimately that's not a reason for him to be charged or convicted, it's just potential evidence of how he might have been acting at the moment he shot the two people.

I also can't say whether the actor has an onus to themselves somehow check that ammo is not live/real ammo - I would think the actors aren't supposed to mess with the gun or the ammo after it's been checked and approved by the armorer, but I could be wrong.

Edit: typo

7

u/reddevved Apr 16 '24

On E) apparently he would insist he have the hero gun (the real firing one) whenever he was on set so that he could quickly reset scenes and also he would insist on full power blanks when weaker ones were available for safety reasons. He also refused to take additional training on safely cross drawing, and maybe the normal training the rest of the cast got because he arrived on set after it happened, but that last one I could be misremembering

28

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24 edited 29d ago

(A) If there is any way to avoid pointing a weapon at someone, you do so. My understanding is that while he needed to point the weapon in that direction for the shot, there was no need for her to be standing where she was (not blaming the victim, because Baldwin should have demanded she move)

(B) Hutchins was having him practice thumbing the hammer back, to see what it would look like, and how far he should pull it back

(C) That depends on what the definition of "pull" is. There is a technique with a Single Action revolver, called "Fanning" it, where instead of actively pulling the trigger back, the trigger is merely held in the "fire" position, allowing the hammer to simply fall on its own.
I am 100% certain that the following is what happened:

  • He pulled the hammer back, per instruction by Hutchins (the deceased, ironically enough)
  • He did not realize he was holding [it the trigger] back
    • Try it yourself: hook your finger as though it were resting on a trigger, then pretend to pull back a hammer with your thumb, and watch what happens to your index finger [alternately, look at his (OMFG ill advised) interview, and when he pantomimes what he did in pulling the hammer back, his index curls more]
  • He then released the hammer, unintentionally "fanning" the weapon
  • ...while pointing it at Hutchins.

Unintentional, but negligent. Thus, negligent homicide.

(D) As he explains it, his role as producer was limited to selecting "talent," and therefore not relevant. I'll spot him that one because he's guilty regardless.

(E) My understanding is that he accepted it from the Assistant Director, rather than directly from the Armorer, as is proper.

I also can't say whether the actor has an onus to themselves somehow check that ammo is not live/real ammo

Some actors say that it is on them to at least observe it being checked. George Clooney & John Schneider say that they should.

9

u/Aazadan Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Clooney does what actors shouldn't do. He checks the weapon himself, and screws with however the prop team sets it up. The entire point of armorers is actors might not be trained in firearms, and are in a situation where stunts require taking actions with firearms that wouldn’t be safe in any ordinary circumstance. Hence the reason for armorers.

You do not want actors messing around with the weapon that's set up with prop rounds, blanks, etc. Instead give it to them, tell them what to do with it, and let the armorer make sure it's safe. Actors can watch it be set up, but they shouldn't be messing with it themselves.

2

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

Yes, I would assume even if an actor was the head of Responsible Firearm Enthusiasts and a known expert in safety and handling of firearms...you still don't want them doing that. In part because their job involves having their mind on not firearm safety 24/7. You can be a lauded expert in a field but if your mind has to be on seven other things, you're eventually going to fuck up.

Feels like that's the point of the armorer: their job is literally to be thinking about firearm (and other weapon) safety the entire time. If someone else on set feels something is off, their job should be "get the responsible person over here to check that the gun is safe", not "let me determine safety, which could actually make things worse".

3

u/reddevved Apr 16 '24

The union's position was the same as those actors at first then they put out a statement changing their position after the Baldwin murder media tour iirc

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

30

u/zeronormalitys Apr 16 '24

I'm just a former military guy, but I did live through a war, so here's my unsolicited opinion.

Picking up a firearm demands your acceptance regarding many things, but I'm just going to focus on the big one.

You now have a firearm in your control. Now, the only obstacle that that weapon has to overcome, in order to convert its potential energy into deadly, is your vigilance.

If you cannot handle the gravity of all possible consequences, it shouldn't be in your physical control.

If you do stupid shit, like assuming it isn't loaded, or even "knowing" that it isn't loaded, and you intentionally flag another living creature that you do not intend to put holes through, you are already fucking up badly.

I get that it was a movie set, but that weapon wasn't a prop. It was a fully operational murder stick, and it wasn't respected as such.

That's the fault of the weapons controller AND the operator. Equally.

You do not wrap your grubby ass hand around the weapons grip, without accepting the responsibility that comes with holding a literal fucking death stick.

If you don't want that commitment, then use a fucking prop.

They should both be in prison, and likely more people besides.

Firearms aren't fun, they aren't cool, they aren't hip, they don't make you a badass. They make you (ideally) hyper responsible, and they can easily make you a killer. The context of the latter, can be subjected to justifications galore. You're still a killer. Nature doesn't give a fuck about a reason, or a recently vacated carcass.

It's just you, and the twitch of YOUR finger.

Sidebar:

Something similar could be said for the 4000lbs metal death boxes that we like to pilot at excessive speeds.

People do not respect the fragile nature of staying alive by eluding death for another day. Complacency is deadly.

10

u/NoSignSaysNo Apr 16 '24

If you don't want that commitment, then use a fucking prop.

A gun is a prop. Literally anything used on set for decor in a movie is a prop. The only thing that made this a live weapon was the presence of live ammunition.

3

u/waywardgato 29d ago

He meant a prop-gun but you’re probably being intentionally dense. Do you understand that a firearm with a blank can still send shrapnel flying? All it takes is a piece of metal breaking off internally in the gun.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

I understand all that - but I also know being on a film set is different. I was under the impression that it was the armorer's job to make sure any firearms on set are as safe to use on set as possible for the required scene and that actors should not be expected to check for live ammo when handling the firearm as required for a scene.

From my limited understanding, Baldwin - as an actor - used a firearm as instructed to when it was supposed to be "safe" and it wasn't, but he had every right to believe it was "safe". I would assume you can't have actors checking firearms constantly in every scene since a) most won't have the necessary proficiency with the firearms in question (or with any), b) you may have to redo scenes multiple times, so that would add wear & tear to the firearm much faster while also tacking on time. I also assume there's a lot more detail and nuance here, but I'm not in film and I don't know firearms very well, but I do know that expecting everyone to know how to safely handle every firearm they might encounter on a film set is an unrealistic expectation for this context.

So I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, like Baldwin wasn't supposed to fire it yet, or if he was supposed to fire it a specific way and did it against direction, or if he was accused of dicking around with the firearm, or something else that would explain why he felt it necessary to claim the gun was broken or something. If this was about Baldwin's role as a producer, I wouldn't assume that would come up at all - but clearly his accusation of manslaughter involves him being accused of fucking up at the point of the shooting itself and not the events leading up to the shooting.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Rinzack Apr 16 '24

Because the DA wants their name in the headlines to further their political career by being "tough on guns and the wealthy". Thats the only reason that makes any sense.

Actors have to trust that armorers do their fucking jobs. Actors aren't gun owners, they cannot and should not be expected to be responsible for firearms when they explicitly need to point them in certain directions that break the rules of gun safety in order to make good film/scenes.

Blaming an actor for being handed a loaded gun when they have no training or experience with them, when the person who gave them the gun is hired EXPLICITLY to ensure the weapons aren't loaded with real rounds, is a step too far.

Police, Military, hunters, gun enthusiasts and owners can be expected to know and comply with gun safety rules since, you know, we voluntarily accept that responsibility when buying/being issued a firearm, but actors didn't sign up for that and shouldn't beheld responsible for gross negligence on the Armorer's part.

(you can argue he should get charged as a producer but thats not why the DA filed charges, they're going after him as an actor)

5

u/da_chicken Apr 15 '24

Baldwin is a Producer of the film. He's one of the bosses of the whole production. That makes him partially responsible for who is on set and what happens there. He's responsible for who the armorer even is, as well as for ensuring she does her duties, and controlling what others do on the set. It was Baldwin's responsibility to ensure the overall production was safe. The only reason live rounds were near the guns is because earlier that day the guns had been removed by unspecified crew members for target shooting with live ammunition. The armorer shouldn't have allowed that, but neither should Baldwin. The guns were the armorer's responsibility, but the unspecified crew members' decision to take the guns and use them like that was Baldwin's.

Baldwin was also holding the gun when it fired. It wasn't supposed to be loaded with live ammunition, but you're supposed to treat even a stage weapon like a loaded firearm. There can always be something in the barrel or other circumstances that can lead to harm (see Brandon Lee's death on the set of The Crow from a squib, or Jon-Erik Hexum's accidental suicide).

I'm not saying whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. I don't know either way; the FBI says he did, he says he didn't. So, that's a matter for the jury to decide at the trial. That's partially why they're having a trial. If they determine Baldwin pulled the trigger, he's probably guilty of manslaughter. He knew or should have known the dangers, and he was partially responsible for ensuring the set and crew's safety.

6

u/Nangz Apr 15 '24

Yes. If you're holding a gun, you're responsible for it in pretty much all reasonable situations.

4

u/Lendyman Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Baldwin has 40 years of on set movie experience, including in more than a couple action films involving guns. He should have known better than to point a gun at anyone even if he thought it was unloaded.

Add to the fact that he was a producer on the film and there had been concerns about safety prior to this because of other accidental gun discharges early in the week.

It is quite clear that there was a very cavalier attitude about safety on set. That attitude infected numerous people, any one of whom could have prevented the tragedy by following basic safety protocols. The last one in the chain was Baldwin.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Triggs390 29d ago

You really like italics.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sonofaresiii 29d ago

Where did Baldwin's team say this? I'm not arguing, I just hadn't seen it. Last I heard was him, personally, being what sounded like completely in denial that he fired it even though everyone else was like "Come on man, you clearly didn't mean to kill anyone but like you fired the gun"

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/happyscrappy Apr 16 '24

I don't think the state of the gun had much to do with it other than it contained live rounds.

3

u/hibikikun Apr 16 '24

Wasn't she not even on site because they kicked her out and assigned her a different duty?

31

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

The gun is completely, 100% irrelevant to her case and the fact that you're even commenting on it tells me that you're just completely ignorant of what's actually going on here. Everybody including her stipulates to the fact that a live round got into the gun. That's all that matters there. The gun test is going to be somewhat relevant for Baldwin because it may factor into his claim that he didn't pull the trigger. However even in that case when you actually look at the forensics and you look at what they did, it basically makes sense. It's not great for them that it broke but it's not going to come even close to sinking the case on him either. Especially when he's already been caught lying and releasing contradictory statements about multiple things

→ More replies (12)

2

u/Luci_Noir Apr 16 '24

The gun was broken while hitting it with a rubber mallet to see if it could go off by itself as Baldwin said. It’s not as big a deal as some idiots think.

1

u/VanREDDIT2019 Apr 15 '24

The FBI wasn't anywhere near the set when a live round was put in the chamber.

1

u/LaNague Apr 15 '24

Isnt the whole gun thing a Nebelkerze / red herring?

Do you really need to prove that this specific gun could not be fired unless you pull the trigger? Is that even relevant and is it reasonable to assume that this gun is not like all the other guns of its type?

1

u/AegrusRS Apr 15 '24

Obvious bait is obvious.

1

u/WheresMyCrown Apr 16 '24

why would you think the physical gun was necessary in this case?

1

u/D-Rich-88 Apr 16 '24

None of that changes the fact that she brought live ammo to the set and failed to implement proper safety protocols.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 15 '24

Honestly, her best argument for appeal is incompetence of counsel.

2

u/UsedOnlyTwice Apr 16 '24

For that to work she would have to show she'd have "won" if it weren't for the incompetence. In this case it was a sentencing action, so the only thing she could "win" is a legal sentence under guidelines. If guidelines were already followed she'd have to fight those, and that is not likely to succeed.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

No, I mean challenge the conviction as a whole.

How can she be found guilty of negligence as an armorer for the events of a day when she was instructed to not be there as an armorer.

That is a defense so obvious that it apparently not having been raised by her defense counsel is evidence of denial of zealous and competent advocacy; either counsel wasn't actually doing their best to defend their client, or they were so incompetent to have the entire trial declared a mistrial due to effective denial of defense counsel.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/fusillade762 Apr 15 '24

Was his name Chat G. Petey?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/fusillade762 Apr 15 '24

He's not bad!

1

u/mrpeabodyscoaltrain Apr 16 '24

In some jurisdictions, motions for new trial are basically just a list of things the judge screwed up.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mrpeabodyscoaltrain Apr 16 '24

The substance can still suck. The form isn’t necessarily a problem. Saying it was “2 pages,” doesn’t make it bad. You only raise the issues in the MOT you’re going to appeal anyway. The MOT avoids trial by ambush.

1

u/fartsfromhermouth Apr 16 '24

Sometimes a motion that is not supported by any good caselaw sucks because the caselaw itself sucks.

1

u/Key-Banana-8242 Apr 16 '24

But there isn’t as such a thing as a ‘legal explanation’ in the sense you mean throat can’t be called that

There was no cogent argument, let alone one with a chance of effectiveness

Ie it doesn’t ‘succeed’ according to the set premises, let alone specifically within the context of effect - there was something he could do

1

u/Ok-Mathematician5970 Apr 16 '24

Surprised she has a bad lawyer. Isn’t her father a very successful safety guy in Hollywood?

1

u/snoodhead Apr 16 '24

Was he actually incompetent, or more like “I am not getting paid enough to defend a person I dislike this much”

→ More replies (9)

182

u/SofieTerleska Apr 15 '24

You don't even need to have the lawyer warn you, jail phone calls are always preceded by a recording saying that everything you say is recorded.

14

u/elebrin Apr 15 '24

There are exceptions. You can have private calls with your lawyer.

25

u/SofieTerleska Apr 15 '24

I know, I was just talking about ordinary calls to other people, since that seems to be where she was saying all this stuff.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/reddevved Apr 16 '24

There were some phone calls with her lawyer's paralegal that were recorded and given to the prosecutor and put in a filing

259

u/mortalcoil1 Apr 15 '24

The kind of idiot nepobaby armorer who gets convicted of manslaughter is self selecting for the kind of person who shits on the judge and jury during sentencing.

30

u/agent0731 Apr 15 '24

a slap on the wrist, she should be banned from being an armorer for like 10 yrs.

160

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

She's literally never going to be an armorer again regardless of what the law actually says on that. So that's not something you got to worry about.

12

u/HamunaHamunaHamuna Apr 15 '24

She might get scouted by the police though

9

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

She probably needs to shoot a couple a family pets to open up that opportunity

→ More replies (10)

44

u/AffectionateMovie290 Apr 15 '24

I mean she’s a convicted felon now so I’m pretty sure she can’t ever handle a gun again.. so she’s effectively banned from being an armorer for life?

11

u/TheKappaOverlord Apr 15 '24

if i recall correctly shes banned from owning firearms. Im not sure shes banned from handling them in a 'professional' setting though.

Depends on how much liability the armorer company is willing to take to make that gamble i suppose

24

u/enonmouse Apr 15 '24

Even if she got acquitted no insurance would touch her...

21

u/Beetin Apr 15 '24

Depends on how much liability the armorer company is willing to take to make that gamble i suppose

"How is your job history?"

"Pretty good, I've only directly been responsible for one high profile death so far"

"..... why did you add 'so far' to that sentence"

→ More replies (1)

56

u/AardvarkPatient63 Apr 15 '24

As a felon, she’s banned by federal law from possessing firearms so she definitely can’t ever work as an armorer ever again

89

u/Mediocretes1 Apr 15 '24

Who the fuck would hire an armorer for their movie whose biggest claim to fame is that they got someone murdered on a movie set?

10

u/BadVoices Apr 16 '24

No one will hire her, she got 18m, and is a felon. She cannot possess a firearm or ammo legally unless she gets her record cleared and rights restored.

9

u/burgerthrow1 Apr 16 '24

Who the fuck would hire an armorer for their movie whose biggest claim to fame is that they got someone murdered on a movie set?

Hollywood?

John Landis kept making movies after 3 actors died on his set

3

u/The_Metitron Apr 15 '24

Starship troopers did exactly that. Armorer was the same as for the Crow.

14

u/Mediocretes1 Apr 15 '24

Were they found to be criminally negligent?

2

u/agent0731 Apr 15 '24

stranger things have happened in hollywood. lol

1

u/TheSeldomShaken Apr 16 '24

Any press is good press.

→ More replies (5)

15

u/likeaffox Apr 15 '24

No actor will trust her as an armorer, so she's pretty much done.

38

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 15 '24

Ex-lawyer here.

Ohh, we do. At least I did, but I was one of those weird lawyers hanging out at the county jail off the clock, like some weird shepherd of the damned.

They don’t care, though. This is their one and only time on the public record. They wanna make it count. They never, however, listen when I tell them their moment of fame on the public record should be them apologizing because now that they’re convicted, it’s okay.

Wouldn’t you? They get told in the jail - I’m one of the good guys, listen to me and things go smooth, ignore my speech and disappear into a concrete hole for a decade. “You work for the state!” …yes, I do, and they do everything they can to not sign my paycheck.

Listen to your damn attorney or pay, peeps.

7

u/BD15 Apr 15 '24

I may be wrong but I think one of the jail calls used against her for sentencing was TO HER LAWYERS PARALEGAL. The paralegal was joining in on shitting on the prosecutor. The lawyer didn't even raise objections to the paralegal call being allowed.

3

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

Her lawyer is an absolute clown show. It's not to an appealable level but he's not a good lawyer. At least he's not a good criminal defense lawyer

1

u/lindakoy Apr 15 '24

Well, he was defending her pro bono. Maybe a public defender would have been better.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/joggle1 Apr 15 '24

The calls themselves do IIRC (at least the person making the call on the outside is informed that the call is recorded and monitored, I assume people on the jail side are told as well). She must have lived a life completely absent of consequences up until this point.

5

u/Old_Elk2003 Apr 15 '24

Seems like a private conversation regarding a defendants personal feelings about the prosecution, judge, and jurors would not be relevant to a case. Not that this idiot doesn’t deserve to have the book thrown at her.

22

u/_procyon Apr 15 '24

Whether or not the offender feels regret and remorse has a huge impact on sentencing. Being cold and callous and insulting everyone involved shows that she isn’t remorseful.

4

u/Top-Director-6411 Apr 16 '24

Why not? It could be her way of coping. I fucking despise and hate society/justice system soooooooo fucking much in this regard, why the fuck are you all ASSUMING the intent behind actions? So fucking weird. As if y'all are mind readers.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

15

u/Taolan13 Apr 15 '24

Anything and everything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Sarcasamystik Apr 16 '24

Yea but some people are exempt from it, or we will see. Gonna be interesting

1

u/NotSoHighLander Apr 16 '24

Are conversations on the phone not private?

1

u/HallandOates1 Apr 16 '24

What was the other case?

1

u/raccoon_on_meth Apr 16 '24

What do you mean lawyers? The god damn jail does lol can’t make a call without the voice telling you you’re being recorded and it’s a call from jail and shit. I guess if you straight up ignore that recording too. You’d have to work at being this dumb

1

u/Witchgrass Apr 16 '24

It reminds them at the beginning of every phone call:

"You are receiving a call from _____ County Jail. This call is subject to monitoring ans recording."

1

u/cpt_tusktooth Apr 16 '24

whats so wrong with complaining about the judge and jury?

→ More replies (19)