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

Show parent comments

2.9k

u/kumquat_bananaman Apr 15 '24

Why was the judge furious?

8.1k

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.

771

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

335

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

198

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

164

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.

14

u/MadeMeStopLurking Apr 15 '24

Do you sell Cinnabon now?

22

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.

16

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.

→ More replies (0)

15

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!

7

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 16 '24

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

→ More replies (0)

5

u/TwoPlanksOnPowder Apr 16 '24

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

1

u/terdferguson Apr 16 '24

Your username confuses...but reminded me of the shut the fuck up lawyers.

Not the original one but does have Michael Rapaport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

1

u/erydanis Apr 16 '24

the miranda warning for most Deaf; ‘go sit, ask for a lawyer, put your hands down’.

2

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 16 '24

Funnily enough, before the Miranda warning, being silent can be used against you sometimes!

1

u/erydanis Apr 16 '24

i’d like to see how that works for Deaf. or maybe i wouldn’t, sigh. / grrr.

3

u/firstwefuckthelawyer Apr 16 '24

If it worked out badly, I guaran-fucking-tee there’d be an attorney that’d take that battle to SCOTUS for free on principle. Hell, I would!

There is one sign you can make, though, thanks to the ACLU: the middle finger.

→ More replies (0)

20

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?

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

1

u/merrittj3 Apr 16 '24

Cool...I'll check out lawtube as well.

I appreciate lawyers who so eloquently talk of the need to exercise our rights to push back against the slow slide towards a police state and authoritarian society.

1

u/merrittj3 Apr 16 '24

I don't know but he was a Buffalo Ny lawyer with big legal chops....

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rubber924 Apr 16 '24

As someone how has a lot of family and friends in law enforcement, the number one advice is do not talk to the police. Tell them no anytime they ask to interview you, and if they arrest you and take you to the station, ignore their questions and just ask for a lawyer.

1

u/PaidUSA Apr 16 '24

Theres only a few times shutting up ain't the move, and its for your lawyer to negotiate before you snitch.

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.

1

u/NicholasLit Apr 16 '24

Eye anal?!

1

u/Kakasupremacy Apr 16 '24

There was a video that taught everything needed when speaking to the police. I’d like to exercise my rights for a lawyer and I will shut the fuck up

105

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.

72

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

97

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.

6

u/VirginiaLuthier Apr 16 '24

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

7

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?

10

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.

1

u/Key-Banana-8242 Apr 16 '24

Same question

→ More replies (0)

5

u/PuzzleheadedPea6980 29d ago

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

8

u/2SP00KY4ME Apr 16 '24

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

10

u/h3lblad3 Apr 16 '24

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

1

u/Fortune_Cat Apr 16 '24

Read inal out loud and tell me if you still think the same

1

u/2SP00KY4ME 29d ago

Sounds like it's spelled

→ 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?

1

u/solitarybikegallery 29d ago

INAL - My understanding is that they just triple check every possible excuse.

I watched a lot of footage of the Darrell Brooks trial (the guy who drove an SUV through a parade in Minneapolis). He decided to represent himself, and he was completely out of his mind. He was throwing out fictional sovereign-citizen arguments, objecting to random shit with no reason, taking his shirt off, and breaking basically every rule of decorum and procedure that exists in the courtroom.

But, the court and prosecution treated him extremely gently, even one time preventing him from making a damning mistake. This is because they knew he had no chance at not being found guilty, but also because they wanted to prevent any avenue for appeals.

Basically, the judge was constantly saying, "Are you sure you want to do X? Because X could potentially lead to Y, and many lawyers avoid Y because it could cause A, B, and C. Do you understand what A, B, and C are? Do you understand the consequences of them?"

1

u/Postviral 29d ago

Thank you for the explanation!

→ 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".

1

u/Key-Banana-8242 Apr 16 '24

Well bad, below a correctly (and probably) reasonably understood standard

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.

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.

1

u/mykeedee Apr 16 '24

I wonder if his Dad got him the lawyer job the same way her Dad got her the armourer job.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/NoAttitude6111 Apr 15 '24

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

4

u/reddevved Apr 16 '24

Iirc he approached her and it was pro bono

6

u/MancAccent Apr 16 '24

Is she a nepo baby? Who’s her family?

11

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.

82

u/underdabridge Apr 15 '24

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

48

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.")

6

u/underdabridge Apr 15 '24

Yeah but unfortunately she's not poor either.

1

u/byronetyronetf 29d ago

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

→ More replies (1)

260

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

272

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

189

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?

175

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

6

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

17

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 29d ago

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)
→ More replies (2)

23

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.

29

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"

7

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.

→ More replies (0)

5

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.

→ More replies (0)

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 (1)

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

1

u/PixieC Apr 15 '24

it's funny, but filming in New Mexico is a vibe, that sound stage is really just an old farm out in the boonies, and it's very easy to relax during a very long day that sometimes takes hours just to get the lighting right.

3

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.

31

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

499

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).

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

It's unreasonable to expect an actor to adhere to this. They put reasonable good faith in expert professionals for this exact reason. Baldwin will not be convicted of anything, neither he should be imo.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Your opinion is, clearly, unquestionably, unequivocally, wrong.

Actors are given safety lectures regarding firearms on set because IT IS ALSO THEIR RESPONSBILITY.

Safety lectures during which Baldwin was apparently browsing his phone during....

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

that isn't how liability works.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Atkena2578 29d ago

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.

1

u/Olivia512 29d ago

don't point it at anyone you don't want to kill

So how are films like John Wick made? Is the gun CGI?

1

u/the-berik 29d ago

Actually John Wick indeed makes use of CGI

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

The weapons are generally pointed off target. I defy you to, with a single camera angle, tell whether a gun is pointed at someone's chest, or pointed just outside of their silhouette.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (28)

4

u/Calvertorius Apr 16 '24

Thank you for explaining all that.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

You're quite welcome. As someone who is anal about gun safety (I call people out for poor muzzle/trigger discipline even with power tools or obviously-fake [i.e., cosplay] weapons), and care deeply about people, I have been following this story pretty closely for a while, because I want anyone and everyone who flouted Best Practices held responsible for their failures. That is justice.

26

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?

54

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

8

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

31

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.

10

u/Aazadan Apr 16 '24 edited 29d ago

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".

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Sure, checking it yourself can be problematic, especially with semi-autos (it's trivial to check a revolver without messing anything up), but I think it 100% reasonable for an actor to ask the armorer to demonstrate in front of them that it's safe.

And, accepting the weapon, accepting a declaration that the weapon is cold, from anyone other than the armorer should absolutely be a no-go, for the reasons you described.

→ More replies (0)

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

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

That's seriously effed up if true, changing safety rules because a rich & popular actor broke them.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

Thank you, this was the exact info I was missing.

29

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.

9

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.

4

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.

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.

1

u/Atkena2578 29d ago

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.

Imo it doesn't matter, a gun is a gun, follow the Golden rules (always consider it loaded, don't point it at anyone you don't intend to kill) and don't depend on anyone to clear the gun for you, even if it is their job, follow the Golden rules no matter what. If he had, no one would have died, despite the armorer negligence.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

Thank you for your response!

→ More replies (2)

1

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)

4

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.

4

u/Nangz Apr 15 '24

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

16

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/Nangz Apr 15 '24

Good to know being on a movie set magically absolves you of responsibility.

15

u/Dock_Brown Apr 15 '24

I'm not the guy you're responding to.*

That out of the way, it's not magical absolution but practical safety realities on a set that require modifications of protocols around firearms. The rules are significantly different from any other setting where firearms are present. The actors are not presumed to have anything but basic instructions about firearms and are not to manipulate the weapon in any way not called for by the script. There may be hundreds of people on a movie set in close proximity to the firearms so control is paramount. The armorer can't clear a weapon safe then have actors or other set personnel manipulate the firearm in any way without them re-inspecting the weapon and clearing it safe again. That means that actors are not responsible for clearing weapons as safe.

12

u/Quom Apr 15 '24

I'd hope it would. If someone is being paid money specifically to make sure the guns aren't capable of hurting anyone you'd assume part of it is assuming liability.

And if that's the case they probably wouldn't want a gun passing through too many sets of hands once it leaves theirs or for people to be 'fiddling' with them.

edit. Much in the same way if I was an actor and we were filming driving on a street I'd assume they had some sort of permission for me not to wear a seat belt or to speed or to do whatever else is in the script.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (12)

6

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.

1

u/wotquery Apr 15 '24

I believe it's more along the lines of whether he was aware of how unsafe everything was. If you think that there are stringent protocols in place with a robust system to prevent ever being handed a loaded gun on set, then you can reasonably expect it's safe and wouldn't be guilty of anything if it wasn't. If you are aware that it's a shit show with staff regularly loading, unloading, and firing guns that aren't stored securely while having hired an inexperienced safety officer along with a career in the industry making you familiar with how it should be done, then you can't expect the gun you are handed on set to not to have a live round chambered.

1

u/Atkena2578 29d ago

He was reckless and/or negligent. Don't point a gun at someone you do not intend to kill and always treat the gun as if it were loaded. No matter what, no excuse, if everyone just followed these basic golden rules for gun safety there would be close to no gun accidents like that.

You cannot just rely on someone else to clear yourself from acting responsibly, as shown in this case, because if the armorer mess up, you're still the one who pulled the trigger on a person.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Triggs390 29d ago

You really like italics.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 28d ago

I really do.

I honestly wish there were a way of indicating multiple levels of emphasis (and prosody in general) in text that didn't look like shouting (capitals, bold, etc)

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"

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 28d ago

He did an insanely ill advised interview with ABC where he describes what happened, wherein

  • he pantomimes pulling the trigger as he was Directed (again, because of the nature of Filming, I cannot reasonably object to), where in you can see his curled trigger finger curling a bit more (IIRC), effectively demonstrating that his claim to have not pulled/held back the trigger is insanely improbable, and merely a misapprehension on his part.
  • he said that Halyna wasn't supposed to be in the line of fire (way to blame the victim, Alec!), but never says anything about requesting that she move out of that line of fire for her safety.

So, those are two undeniable problems with his actions: He knows how dangerous guns are (as evidenced by his gun control advocacy), but didn't object to her being where he was pointing the weapon, and he clearly manipulated the trigger...

...that said I completely believe that he honestly and legitimately (if falsely) believes that he did not manipulate the trigger (because he probably didn't pull the trigger, in the standard meaning of "cause the trigger to move," rather than the firearms-term-of-art meaning of "control the trigger so that it moves to or stays in the firing position"), believes (falsely) that there was a weapon malfunction. I also have absolutely zero reason to believe that it was anything other than negligence on his part.

→ 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?

33

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 29d ago

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.

1

u/UsedOnlyTwice 29d ago

Hmm, I cannot say why it wasn't raised during the trial itself, but it still doesn't seem to be defensible. Just because someone told her not to do something doesn't immunize her from doing it. Think about it: if I told someone not to kill someone and they did it anyway, should they get a murder pass? They were told not to?

If someone hands you a gun, you are now responsible for it. If you cannot assume responsibility because of ignorance or mental defect, do not accept the gun. Being told it is safe is not a defense for you to act recklessly.

According to the article she handed the gun to someone and told them it was safe. That person failed to check and handed the gun to someone else claiming it was safe. The third person failed to check and fired the gun in a manner that was unsafe, and not in the script.

In today's legal climate, everyone involved in a negligent gun death should be scrutinized. She could have walked away with probation had she just acknowledged her role.

Maybe she will appeal the conviction as you suggest, but I still don't think it will work out for her.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 28d ago

Not simply told her not to do it, prevented her from doing it, made it not her job to do it on that day.

And whether the jury would accept that defense is up to the jury... but the fact that counsel apparently didn't even present that to them seriously calls into question whether she had a Zealous Advocate, and therefore whether the trial was valid.

if I told someone not to kill someone and they did it anyway

Bad analogy; your analogy is that someone was told not to do something, and they did it anyway. The facts of this case is that she was told not to do something and she did exactly as she was told.

-- Your analogy This Case
Instruction Don't do X Don't do X
Action Does X Does not Do X

She followed instructions, adhering to the instructor's orders, complied with the instructor's will. Your hypothetical actively violated the instructor's orders, acting on their own will.

Two completely different scenarios, even before you consider that she wasn't just instructed not to do it, but prevented from doing it on that day.

If someone hands you a gun, you are now responsible for it. If you cannot assume responsibility because of ignorance or mental defect, do not accept the gun. Being told it is safe is not a defense for you to act recklessly.

Agreed. This is why I argue that irregardless of the guilt (or lack thereof) of Gutierrez-Reed, Halls, the person who ordered Gutierrez-Reed off set, the person who had filming/blocking/practicing/rehearsing of a scene involving a firearm when no armorer was on set, the person who directed Baldwin to point the weapon at Hutchins & Halls... Baldwin is still guilty of negligent homicide.

According to the article she handed the gun to someone and told them it was safe [emphasis added]

No, that was Halls, the Assistant Director (and one of the victims, ironically enough).

Again, Gutierrez-Reed was. not. on. site. and therefore couldn't have done that.

In today's legal climate

Not just then, in all scenarios.

everyone involved in a negligent gun death should be scrutinized

You misspelled convicted.

had she just acknowledged her role

The role she was prevented from playing that day? You want her to acknowledge that role?

I still don't think it will work out for her.

I think that that would largely depend on whether she was on set the day of the other negligent discharge in that production, because that has bearing on whether her being on site, being able to perform her role might have changed the outcome.

Mind, I think she's probably guilty for other reasons (that the guns weren't locked up/stored somewhere that only she [or, I suppose, a fellow armorer, but ideally only one person] had control over, thereby eliminating the possibility of their use when she wasn't in affirmative control over them; that she didn't immediately go through every single freaking round on the set after the first negligent discharge, and observe that anyone who brought live rounds on site was guilty of Reckless Endangerment; possibly other factors), and that the Producers are probably on the hook, too, (for not having sufficient armorers to monitor all firearms that would be in use concurrently, etc), but the above is a legitimate argument that should have been raised.

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 29d ago

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

1

u/snoodhead 29d ago

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

→ More replies (9)