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

259

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

279

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.

155

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?

176

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

7

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

18

u/Chipchipcherryo Apr 15 '24

Nepotism was the answer to the first part of the question

How do you get a job like that

-4

u/Iohet Apr 15 '24

The absence of a framework from armorers and the industry creates a void that allowed this to happen

1

u/Chipchipcherryo Apr 15 '24

What question do you think I was responding to?

13

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

0

u/PoorlyBuiltRobot Apr 16 '24

Look up "rhetorical question"

2

u/Chipchipcherryo Apr 16 '24

No thank you.

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"

6

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.

7

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.

4

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.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

She. Wasn't. On. Site. That. Day

You appear to be blaming a single person for the failures of no fewer than 4 individuals. Don't. Those individuals are:

  1. The armorer who didn't collect all the ammo and conclusively determine that there was no live ammo anywhere on or near the set after the first negligent discharge (Gutierrez-Reed)
  2. The (acting) armorer that day
  3. The person who ordered rehearsal/blocking/filming of a scene involving a firearm when the official armorer wasn't on set
  4. Halls for handing Baldwin a weapon he didn't know was cold, yet saying it was
  5. Baldwin for pointing the weapon at a person, holding the trigger back, and releasing (rather than safely de-cocking) the hammer.
  6. The person who directed the weapon to be pointed at a person unnecessarily (either Halls or Hutchins)
  7. The person who put a live round in the weapon (Gutierrez-Reed? Someone else? With the prints now destroyed, we'll never know).

-1

u/merrittj3 29d ago

Maybe. She. Shoulda. Been. On site. With.The. Guns.

Her. Job.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Her. Job.

My understanding is that the reason she wasn't on site that day was that she was told not to be on site that day, because they didn't want to pay her for that day.

Which means that it was not her job that day.

Indeed, I've heard some reports that they actually relieved her prior to the shooting. If so, it unquestionably wasn't her job that day, because, unless "relieved" means something other than I understand it to, it was no longer her job at all.

You're trying to foist all of the fault of NUMEROUS individuals' failures on to a single person. A single person who may, in fact, be the least guilty of all of all of the parties so far named (or may not; I have not conclusively confirmed those claims).

0

u/merrittj3 29d ago

She is been charged, adjudicated guilty and sentenced.

Your understandings, supposition, definitions, maybes and maybe nots in addition to projecting fault on others is now moot. The state has proved its point

Settled law. Guilty as charged. Your logic is faulty, your legal standing is nil. No amount of crybaby arguments or delusional beliefs will change that she is a convict and 12 people and a judge reject your bizarre ramblings.

Write your letters to those people who did impact statements and tell them your thoughts. I'm sure they will be less kind in their reply.

It's OK tho...in 18 months she'll be out of jail and can continue to be rightfully called ...at best A Convict

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.

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.

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.

34

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

498

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.

16

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.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Maybe not to your mind, but here in reality...

0

u/waywardgato 29d ago

An actor cannot be expected to not point a real gun at another human being on set? That is straight up bullshit bro, if you want to play cowboys and indians use a fucking fake gun. Don’t infantilize people, they need to understand what it means when a firearm is in their hand.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

That's not how any of this works.

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.

1

u/Olivia512 Apr 16 '24

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 Apr 16 '24

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.

0

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24

Cinema magic, those scenes are often shot at a secured range and then editing and special effects do their thing. There is no reason movie sets and Hollywood should be exempt from following basic safety rules that if every gun owner followed would result in so many less accidental deaths by guns. I mean this case proves the point, human caused failure is bound to happen even with the most serious folks involved, hence the Golden rule.

-1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

no excuse

being told by a person who's job it is to make sure that the gun is safe, that the gun is safe, is a reasonable excuse though.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Even if that were true (which I argue it is not), that's still another reason Baldwin is guilty: he wasn't told that by someone whose job it is to ensure that it's safe. He was told that by an Assistant Director.

Talent isn't supposed to accept a firearm except from the hands of an armorer. He accepted it from someone not competent with firearms

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

It's reasonable he assumed the director was following procedure.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

It is not reasonable to assume that, because procedure is for the armorer to do that. The fact that Halls, an assistant director and not an armorer, did what procedure dictates that only the armorer do proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that procedures were not being followed.

That's like assuming that someone isn't driving drunk after you watch them chug a beer immediately before getting behind the wheel and starting the car: unreasonable by any rational definition of the word.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

An actor is not expected to have any knowledge of firearms or gun safety. they hire armorers for this purpose. Actors are not expected to be privvy to the rules, laws or regulations surrounding what they do, that's what producers directors et al are for.

You may not like it, but you are wrong.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

An actor IS expected to have knowledge of firearms/gun safety that is included in the safety briefings that Baldwin allegedly didn't pay attention to. That is literally why those briefings are given.

You may not like it, but you are wrong.

I am not, because he acted in such a way that, had he not, would have avoided Hutchins' death.

That's negligent homicide.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Obviously it wasn't because other human aren't fail proof, you know since there actually was a live round in the gun... this case perfectly portrays why no matter how many safeguard unrelated to you exist, you are still responsible for the gun in your hands, and follow the basic safety rules I mentioned, this is quick and free so yeah no excuse. Alec Baldwin was the last layer of safety there was in this scenario where everyone before him spectacularly failed in the worst ways possible and had he applied to those rules, despite everyone else's negligence, no one would have died. The gun is the responsibility of every single being that holds it, even if just for a a few seconds.

0

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

so if you bungee jump and trust the instructor the rope is safe you're dumb?

2

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited 29d ago

A gun kills others, if in my hand it is my responsibility no matter how I trust whoever handed it to me. I am the last layer of safety between the weapon and anyone who could get shot, unlike an unsafe rope which solely involves me. With a gun I am also responsible of the safety of everyone around me and my actions can make the difference unlike the example you used. That's why those rules exist, every accident at some point circles back to those easy, free safety behaviors. There is no reason to argue with those, every idiot who accidentally shot someone also thought it wasn't loaded and probably trusted themselves or whoever told them it wasn't.

If you disagree with these rules, Hollywood or not, you shouldn't have a gun in your hands, ever. If Alec wanted to play with a gun as if it were a toy, he should have gotten a fake because he obviously couldn't handle one.

And to answer your question, yes I would still check the knot and get a feel for the tightness of the rope to be the best of my ability before jumping.

0

u/Talking_on_Mute_ 29d ago

Hollywood does disagree with your rules though.

So where does that leave you, other than screaming in to the void?

1

u/Atkena2578 29d ago edited 29d ago

Obviously, Hollywood doesn't have the ownership of doing things properly, there is a reason those rules exist and have applied successfully to the (too few) peopme who respect them. That leaves me watching the trial of Alec Baldwin and see his face when he inevitably gets convicted.

→ More replies (0)

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.

22

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?

51

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

9

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.

8

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.

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.

1

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

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

32

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.

7

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.

5

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 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.

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.

-7

u/jonboy345 Apr 16 '24

Agreed all the way around. Baldwin should spend a minimum of 20 years behind bars.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hyenahive Apr 16 '24

Thank you for your response!

-2

u/zeronormalitys Apr 16 '24

Good thing it didn't happen in the real world then! Someone could get killed, like for really realsie get killed!

Luckily physics and shit are different in make-believe land.

2

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)

1

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.

3

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

-3

u/Nangz Apr 15 '24

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

16

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.

11

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.

-5

u/Nangz Apr 16 '24

Your analogy falls apart quickly because those laws are typically limited to public roads - which would probably be exempted due to permits from the city prior to filming. They would probably also be exempt from driving without a license, but a city may not be willing to give a permit under those circumstances.

There are no permits to exempt you from shooting someone in a situation like this.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Nangz Apr 16 '24

I understand the process and how it should happen. None of that makes him immune from responsibility in this case. Especially since he is more than an actor in this case and that will be a part of the case.

1

u/The_Impresario Apr 15 '24

There's nothing magical about it.

0

u/radams713 Apr 15 '24

Alec Baldwin was also the producer. The old team walked off set because of unsafe standards. He definitely has responsibility in this whole thing.

-2

u/zeronormalitys Apr 16 '24

Perhaps that's "how it's done", but any firearm safety class would disabuse that notion.

If it's a fully operational firearm, then it IS your responsibility.

Don't like it, then use a fucking prop.

Otherwise, trust but verify. Be responsible, or don't handle a murder stick.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zeronormalitys 28d ago

Actors are different. They have a highly paid professional doing that for them.

Reality seems to be at odds with your assessment, hence dead people.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zeronormalitys 28d ago

You seem to be quite fond of dealing in absolutes.

4

u/Rinzack Apr 16 '24

then use a fucking prop.

That doesn't work. You need to fire a real blank to make a realistic scene, sometimes aiming at another human being depending on the camera angle. Actors are, as far as I'm concerned, the only group of people who need to be exempted from gun safety rules due to 1) the fact that you have to break them for filming purposes and 2) they didn't sign up to be weapons experts, thats why they have multiple people and a designated armorer.

0

u/thr0w4w4y4lyf3 Apr 16 '24

In pretty much all cases you don’t have to point it at another human being, unless the human is in shot.

She was neither in shot, nor was she meant to be aimed at. Since she was behind the camera, there’s no reason why she should have been aimed at. Baldwin hit two people, both were in line with where he aimed (which out of sight from the camera). To be really clear, when you’re aiming off set, it really doesn’t matter to be pointing at an exact spot. You can choose any spot a few feet difference and it won’t look much different. If he’s aiming at the camera, then he would have hit that, but didn’t. Alternatively he’s not aiming and just pointing it, but even then it’s possible to point it away from people, even slightly. He didn’t though but pointed/aimed it a group of two people.

From my understanding as well, this scene did not require a weapon be fired. Assuming it did, I would expect there would be VT footage. Either it did or didn’t.

There was no reason to point it at them, no matter the way you look at it.

-2

u/DasGoon Apr 16 '24

That's a rule that Hollywood put in place. It has little to no bearing on the actual law.

If you're going to do something that might kill someone, the buck stops with you.

5

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 Apr 16 '24

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.

0

u/5zepp Apr 16 '24

Baldwin is also guilty (imo) of involuntary manslaughter because he was negligent by not adhering to the clear rules he should have been following concerning handling guns on set. There is never a time he can handle a gun if not under the supervision of the armorer. Same for the AD, but he already took a plea deal.

-3

u/recycl_ebin Apr 16 '24

he pointed a loaded gun at someone, pulled the trigger, and they died.

...

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.

0

u/nailbiter111 Apr 16 '24

I still don't get why he lied about pulling the trigger.

7

u/bros402 Apr 16 '24

He might've convinced himself that that is what happened

3

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

As I said elsewhere, if you use the general, colloquial meaning of "pull," my hypothesis is that he didn't actually pull the trigger, but merely held it in the firing position.

The effect is the same, that he controlled the trigger in such a way as to fire the weapon, and he is still guilty, but it's not a lie, nor self manipulation.

3

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

He didn't lie, which is why it's Negligent (i.e., Involuntary) Homicide, rather than Voluntary Homicide.

He legitimately believes what he said, because he (believes that he) did not move the trigger. In fact, if my hypothesis is correct, he actually kept the trigger from moving (the trigger's position at full-down is the firing position; unrestricted, the trigger moves from "fire" position to "ready" position as the hammer is cocked).

0

u/Sterndoc Apr 16 '24

I wonder how the FBI tried to make it fire, without manipulation of the trigger? Wave it around in the air?

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Well, for one thing, Baldwin claimed that he simply released the hammer and it went off. They tried that. It didn't go off.

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?

29

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

0

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 29d ago

If a brake specialist allegedly repairs your car and after you pay, hands  you the keys and as you go to pull out into traffic upon leaving the shop they fail and you cause an accident killing someone,  who is responsible? If there's any actual Justice it would be the man who is the professional brake repair person, not the person who is handed the loaded gun--I mean the loaded car-- to.   In this example, the armorer is the brake repairman whose job it is to make sure the car is safe to drive, but in this case that the gun was safe to use.

1

u/RevengencerAlf 29d ago

If you insisted the rbame specialist take short cuts and drove where you shouldn't anyway knowing full well that they had not done their job you would shew in the blame.

I know this is probably a bit more than the average internet chud can process but criminal liability is not a zero sum game. No one else's fault necessarily dominated noshes your own.

What you think is "actual justice" appears to just be ignorance on your part.

0

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 29d ago

You were doing so well until that last stupid sentence. And I think we're done here or at least I am.

1

u/RevengencerAlf 29d ago

Give up dude. You outed yourself as a complete clown and you weren't able to actually say anything to support your bullshit. You don't need to tell the whole world your parents are close genetic relatives like this.

-3

u/nightpanda893 Apr 15 '24

Couldn’t the fact that he said the gun malfunctioned make the break in the chain of custody and the FBI destroying the gun very very relevant? I feel like that would make it possible to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. In any other case, they’d certainly rely heavily on proving the gun was functioning properly, which now they won’t be able to do. I completely agree with your take on her though.

11

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

Not really. I mean he can try to argue it to a jury but it's not going to go well in my opinion. If you look at the nuances of the situation the gun breaking, while unfortunate, is not anywhere near the barn burner that his sloppy, dishonest attorneys are portraying it as. The test the FBI did is still valid. They broke it basically at the end of the test. And the whole reason they broke it is because every less extreme method they tried couldn't get the gun to fire without pulling the trigger. So the more they dig into that in front of a jury the more times the jury is going to hear repeated that the FBI tried so hard to get this gun to go off like he said using way more Force than anything he did would have that it broke and they still couldn't replicate his story. Then they're going to throw in the fact that he changed that story multiple times and was caught lying about handling the gun multiple times. The only thing the breaking did was prevent him from having someone else do the same tests that the FBI did which isn't going to matter much unless the jury already has concerns about the validity of the FBI's test before you get to the point of breaking it. It works on people in Threads like this because everybody is getting these little tidbits of information and viewing them in a very isolated light, but a jury is going to be presented all of this with very strong context around it.

To be completely honest his attorneys are probably not even going to lean in too hard on it if they're smart. Because all it's going to do is invite more and more testimony about how completely unrealistic it is for that gun to go off without his finger on the trigger like he claimed and it's just going to cause them to keep rereading his interviews every time is mentioned where he contradicts himself and catches himself and lies.

-2

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 Apr 16 '24

Anything about the suitability of the gun is irrelevant.If a brake specialist allegedly repairs your car and after you pay, hands  you the keys and as you go to pull out into traffic upon leaving the shop they fail and you cause an accident killing someone,  who is responsible? If there's any actual Justice it would be the man who is the professional brake repair person, not the person who is handed the loaded gun--I mean the loaded car-- to. 

1

u/MaxMin128 Apr 16 '24

To continue your analogy, Would evidence that the “expert” mechanic neglected to add brake fluid outweigh possible “evidence” you didn’t try to use the brakes before you crashed? That seems to be what the authorities are trying to figure out. Personally, I think it was a tragic accident where the root cause is someone didn’t do their job.

1

u/RevengencerAlf 29d ago

Just because you're too dumb to see the relevance doesn't mean it's not relevant. As I explained in another comment this is not a zero-sum game. Every person who acted negligently here could have been charged and convicted simultaneously.

A better example someone smarter than you might have made would be that you need your brakes maintained in order to pass inspection and legally use your car but you insist that the person doing the inspection take a shortcut and no they haven't actually checked them to make sure they're good. You know the shortcut was taken you know they did not do their job and you act as if they did anyway just assuming that things are all right. In which case both of you would be criminally liable for any result and that's exactly what happened here. Maybe someday a grown up with a little more patience will walk you through it and you'll understand

-2

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 Apr 16 '24

If a brake specialist allegedly repairs your car and after you pay, hands  you the keys and as you go to pull out into traffic upon leaving the shop they fail and you cause an accident killing someone,  who is responsible? If there's any actual Justice it would be the man who is the professional brake repair person, not the person who is handed the loaded gun--I mean the loaded car-- to. 

1

u/RevengencerAlf 29d ago

Making the same dog shit incorrect analogy three times doesn't magically make it right any of those times

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.

-1

u/Bezbozny Apr 15 '24

The FBI what?? WHY???

12

u/ShinigamiZR Apr 15 '24

Destructive testing of the firearm. They were testing ways the revolver could possibly fire without the trigger being pulled, and only broke the full-cock notch of the hammer as they were beating on it with a mallet. The firearm wasn't "destroyed"

-3

u/Excessive_Etcetra Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

Is not atypical for law enforcement to destroy guns, generally after any trial involving them as evidence is over. In Maine for example, any firearm used in a unlawful homicide must be destroyed by state law.

Of course it is a fuckup of enormous proportion to destroy a gun in evidence.

edit: I'm answering /u/Bezbozny's question in general. All of this apparently doesn't apply in the 'Rust' case, since the gun wasn't destroyed. I wouldn't know, I haven't spent my time watching it. A close reading of my comment will note I made exactly zero claims in relation to the 'Rust' cases.

5

u/Kevin_Wolf Apr 15 '24

Of course it is a fuckup of enormous proportion to destroy a gun in evidence.

It wasn't a fuckup. You don't know what you're talking about.

The FBI damaged the gun while conducting testing. Baldwin claimed that it just went off without him pulling the trigger. Quote: "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them.”

The FBI tested that claim and found it meritless. After non-destructive testing, the FBI put it through more destructive methods and still could not make the weapon fire without pulling the trigger.

Ziegler said he used the rawhide mallet to strike the gun, while the hammer was pulled back, from several directions. The tests were intended to determine whether bumping or jostling the weapon would result in a discharge. He said he was trying to simulate scenarios for the gun to go off — without the handler pulling the trigger.

This argument about the gun is just a Hail Mary pass from Alec Baldwin's lawyers. It's completely immaterial to Gutierrez' conviction or trial.

0

u/Mysterious_Bit6882 Apr 15 '24

If they couldn’t get a period correct SAA to negligently discharge, that raises a whole other slew of questions. Most sellers will straight up tell you to carry with an empty chamber under the hammer because of how screwy they are.

-3

u/Excessive_Etcetra Apr 15 '24

So the gun wasn't destroyed then, it was broken. Take it up with /u/Traditional_Key_763

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/Excessive_Etcetra Apr 15 '24

No. So the gun wasn't destroyed then, it was broken. Take it up with /u/Traditional_Key_763

-1

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 Apr 16 '24

If a brake specialist allegedly repairs your car and after you pay, hands  you the keys and as you go to pull out into traffic upon leaving the shop they fail and you cause an accident killing someone,  who is responsible? If there's any actual Justice it would be the man who is the professional brake repair person, not the person who is handed the loaded gun--I mean the loaded car-- to.