Alec Baldwin shooting: Lawyer suggests potential sabotage on ‘Rust’ set.

[KellenVancouver]

Conviction is unlikely. Plausible defenses.

Yup. Likely true. Especially when the main defense is, "I am on the Hollywood A list."

 

[amirm]

Been watching the trial on and off in the last 10 days. Today the trial finished for the armorer and in just 3 hours, the jury found her guilty! She is facing up to 18 months in jail (the took her into custody already).

Alec Baldwin's trial is in June/July. I suspect he is going to be found guilty as well.

 

[BlackTalon]

From WaPo a few minutes ago:

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the “Rust” armorer accused of failing to ensure gun safety on the set of the low-budget western movie in 2021, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and not guilty of evidence tampering in Santa Fe, N.M., on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. It was the first trial verdict related to the fatal shooting.

“We will appeal,” said Jason Bowles, Gutierrez-Reed’s lawyer, in an email Wednesday night.
The film’s producer and star, Alec Baldwin, was rehearsing with a revolver on the set of the film in October 2021 when the gun went off with live ammunition, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza. Baldwin, who claims he never pulled the trigger, is scheduled to face trial this summer on a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Prosecutors Jason Lewis and Kari Morrissey said Gutierrez-Reed’s “unprofessional and sloppy” conduct led to her bringing live ammunition on set and ultimately contributing to Hutchins’s death.

The prosecution alleged in court filings that the armorer was possibly hung over while loading the gun, and tampered with evidence by handing drugs to someone else. Rebecca Smith, a food services crew member, said in court Monday that Gutierrez-Reed asked her to hold a baggie with a white substance on the evening of the shooting. Smith threw out the bag of powder, which she assumed was cocaine.
Bowles rejected the claims, saying that the production and the state were using the armorer as a “scapegoat” when the set was chaotic and rife with safety issues.

“They’re trying to blame it all on Hannah, a 24-year-old,” Bowles said. “Because why? Because she’s an easy target. She’s the least powerful person on that set.”
The defense attorney said Gutierrez-Reed was rushed to do two jobs and wasn’t given enough resources to properly oversee the weapons. He also denied that the armorer brought the live rounds on set, and said that Baldwin’s failure to handle the gun safely was to blame for the fatal shooting.
Sharp. Witty. Thoughtful. Sign up for the Style Memo newsletter.
Seth Kenney, the production’s firearms and ammunition supplier, denied providing live rounds in his testimony Monday, explaining that he personally cleaned and repackaged the dummy rounds. He did have live ammunition at his business, he said, but it was labeled as such and stored for a different production.

Witnesses revealed more details of how the 2021 shooting unfolded during the two-week trial. Ross Addiego, the movie’s dolly grip operator, testified about two accidental weapons discharges on set before the day of the shooting. He said nothing was done after he expressed safety concerns to production supervisors, including David Halls, the film’s first assistant director who agreed to a plea deal for negligent use of a deadly weapon.
Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare
Halls broke down in tears during his testimony last Thursday when he said that Gutierrez-Reed handed the revolver to Baldwin. The assistant director acknowledged that he saw only some of the rounds in the weapon during the safety check. He was about three feet away from Hutchins when she was fatally shot.
“She said, ‘I can’t feel my legs,’” he recalled on the stand.

Souza testified in court Friday that he heard a deafening bang and was struck by the same bullet that passed through Hutchins. It “felt like somebody had taken a baseball bat to my shoulder,” he said. He added that after the gun fired, he could see blood on Hutchins’s back, and that Gutierrez-Reed looked distraught before she was yelled at and ushered away. At the hospital, the director couldn’t believe he had been shot with a live bullet on a movie set.
“I kept insisting, it’s just not possible it’s a live round,” Souza said. “It just can’t.”
The armorer faces up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine after the involuntary-manslaughter conviction, according to the AP.

The case provided a glimpse of what’s to come when Baldwin goes to court July 9 to face his trial in connection with the shooting. New Mexico prosecutors initially filed involuntary manslaughter charges against the actor last year, but they were dropped a few months later as prosecutors said they needed more time to investigate. He was charged again by a grand jury in January.

Baldwin has said that he pulled the gun’s hammer, but not the trigger. A forensics expert who examined the gun for prosecutors last year, however, concluded that the gun couldn’t have gone off without someone pulling or putting pressure on the trigger. The Emmy-winning actor faces up to 18 months in prison if convicted.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't see any way the armorer could escape blame for this, unless someone ordered her not to do her job. I rather think that Baldwin might well be found not guilty. He was relying on the armorer and director to create a safe situation. They both failed. While he pulled the trigger he had been told it was safe and the people who were supposed to be checking didn't do their job. Plus the armorer not only didn't do her job checking, she allowed a loaded a live round on set which should not ever have happened. Checking for it being live was a two second procedure of shaking it which she did not do.

 

[voodooless]

I don't see any way the armorer could escape blame for this, unless someone ordered her not to do her job. I rather think that Baldwin might well be found not guilty. He was relying on the armorer and director to create a safe situation. They both failed. While he pulled the trigger he had been told it was safe and the people who were supposed to be checking didn't do their job. Plus the armorer not only didn't do her job checking, she allowed a loaded a live round on set which should not ever have happened. Checking for it being live was a two second procedure of shaking it which she did not do.

It will probably all hinge on if he is found responsible as a producer. There is some contradicting info on this, so the trial will show. And secondly, the question is what procedures there are for handling a fire weapon on set. If it is mandated that everyone handling the thing needs to check if it's loaded (and with what), he can still be found responsible for not doing that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It will probably all hinge on if he is found responsible as a producer. There is some contradicting info on this, so the trial will show. And secondly, the question is what procedures there are for handling a fire weapon on set. If it is mandated that everyone handling the thing needs to check if it's loaded (and with what), he can still be found responsible for not doing that.

I thought that handling issue was fairly well established. The armorer checks and declares safe, then the director, and the actor usually does not.

Of course he may be held responsible as a producer. Even then he might get out of that saying he had a qualified armorer who didn't perform the job properly. Given there was an accidental discharge on one of her earlier jobs I don't know if he knew that when he hired her.

 

[Mnyb]

Why the Hell does anyone mixes movie guns with live amo they should never be near each other never in the same building or storage room or side of town ?

Humans is going to err no matter what , that's our nature mistakes eventually happens in every situation, it's just a matter of time. To create a safe situations is to make our errors harmless and remove the possibility that our wrong doing is harming anyone .

In this case if no live amo was ever present the hungover tired armorer could just grab a couple of rounds from the bag and noting serious would have happen .

Btw with todays cgi why amo at all ?

If I where a movie armorer i would be very paranoid and possible don't even own real amo while supervising a project ( it could slip into my pocket ) .

Yea if you wait long enough boxes of blanks and real amo would sit beside each other in storage and if you wait some more the content of the boxes could end up mixed too ?

 

[amirm]

Why the Hell does anyone mixes movie guns with live amo they should never be near each other never in the same building or storage room or side of town ?

Nobody has been able to conclusively figure out where they came from. They used bullets I think from two outside people. And then armorer brought her own. The state blamed the armorer as pictures showed the bullets from other sources had different look/patina.

There were some really strange things going on. There were two other guns on the set. The prop lady grabbed those two, came out and immediately dumped their bullets in trash! And her first idea was to call/text the company owner who had sent in the bullets! She made a deal and got no jail/immunity.

It took the state a month to go and examine the facility of one of the companies that supplied the bullets. The place was a disaster with stuff thrown everywhere. No inventory management either.

I think all in all 7 live bullets were found and who knows how many were in the ones thrown away.

 

[amirm]

Btw with todays cgi why amo at all ?

One of the experts testified that they can indeed faithfully create the effect in post. Likely costs more though so they opted for the "real" deal.

 

[spigot]

The prosecution's expert armorer witness said that the actor checking the gun served no purpose and was just an annoyance since that just meant that he then had to re-check the gun, Baldwin's defence should just call him. I can't imagine that in all the gangster and war films with machine guns, with drums of bullets, that production pauses for a 30 minute break before every scene so that the actors can check a few hundred blanks, and then have them re-checked. They can't argue that guns aren't pointed at cameras or other actors because there are examples of just that in multiple films. He might be culpable as a producer, but the prosecution here argued against that in focussing on the armorer. It will be interesting to see the arguments against Baldwin, they seem to have sabotaged themselves here.

 

[MRC01]

The verdict makes sense to me. The armorer on a movie set is responsible for weapons. If somebody gets shot, the armorer is either wholly or partly responsible, depending on the circumstances.

However, as I read the story, Baldwin pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger, not under the direction of the armorer, director, etc. [emphasis italicized]. If that is true (is it? I'm not sure) then he shares responsibility.

 

[Soniclife]

The prosecution's expert armorer witness said that the actor checking the gun served no purpose and was just an annoyance since that just meant that he then had to re-check the gun

That's how I'd assume it was meant to work, putting any responsibility onto the actor to check seems odd to me, their expertise is in playing dress up, not health and safety. And sometimes the actor is a minor, what then.

When the actor is also the director or producer then they can be liable in that role, and everything seems to have been a mess on this production.

 

[dasdoing]

I don't see a reason to find Baldwin guilty unless there is a law that everybody with no exception should check a gun when handling it

 

[Doodski]

I don't see a reason to find Baldwin guilty unless there is a law that everybody with no exception should check a gun when handling it

The rule of firearm handling and operation is anytime a firearm is handed to one they are supposed to check it for safety and security. Myself I don't care what anybody advises me or tells me about a firearm when handed to me I check the bore and such immediately.

 

[jkasch]

You don’t point a gun at someone unless you believe you might have to kill them. (Let alone pull the trigger.) Always assume it’s loaded with a live round. The desired cinematic effect can be achieved with camera angles and editing.

 

[BDWoody]

The rule of firearm handling and operation is anytime a firearm is handed to one they are supposed to check it for safety and security. Myself I don't care what anybody advises me or tells me about a firearm when handed to me I check the bore and such immediately.

Every time. No exceptions.

First rule I learned way back as a yute...

Treat every gun as if it is loaded and ready to shoot.

 

[MRC01]

I don't see a reason to find Baldwin guilty unless there is a law that everybody with no exception should check a gun when handling it

If Baldwin pointed the gun at her during filming or rehearsal, fine, that was his job as an actor. But otherwise, it was unnecessary and negligent fooling around and he shares liability.

 

[Doodski]

Every time. No exceptions.

First rule I learned way back as a yute...

Treat every gun as if it is loaded and ready to shoot.

I feel reallly bad and have never been able to get my oldest brother to forgive me for something that happened some decades ago regarding the safe operation and handling of a long rifle. I was about 12 and had free and unlimited access to what seemed to be either a sporsterized 303 British ex military rifle with a big scope or maybe it was a actual later version in the sniper format as they where used I read up until the 70s, 30-30 Winchester, 12 gauge shotgun and a very very accurate and cool and very thick barrel 22 long rifle with a very sweet scope on it. I used them all extensively and the deal was that I bought my own ammo which I could afford because I worked in a lounge serving liquor as that was legal at the time with the laws in place requiring the supervision of an adult. I would purchase several bricks at a time of 22 long hollow point bullets and had a great time shooting spent shells off the fence railing both in the daytime and at night with a flashlight/lantern illuminating the spent shells. What happened is that on one of my Sunday 22 caliber shooting days plinking stuff off the fence rail about 60 yards from the kitchen patio deck picnic table for several hours as I reallly enjoyed a lot my mother was having a bad day as she often had and she was very frustrated and ordered me to do something. I was trained extensively when in the cadets to march and take orders and I was trained and taught by my parents that when they nicely asked or ordered me to do something that it was non-negotiable, a matter of urgency, no debates, no complaining and no ifs or buts and it was a matter of hopping to their request and be civil about it or there would be repercussions which usually meant physical punishment that hurt a lot. So I took the orders and reacted immediately and went about satisfying my mother's orders. My oldest brother came and took the rifle and then when he went to use it there was what appeared to be a misfire. It was actually a situation where when my mother ordered me to do something that I unknowingly had a jammed bullet in the barrel of the rifle and my brother was the one that could have had a exploded breech or barrel. So he fired off some bullets and finally realized something was seriously amiss and he checked the barrel and found it to be plugged. Upon the gunsmith servicing the firearm he found some old lead in the barrel, cleaned and scraped the barrel out and returned the rifle as considered safe for further use. I wish I could go back and do it again but it cannot be undone and so I live with that and realize that not only should a firearm be inspected before shooting but equally important is to check it after for a clear barrel.

 

[Spkrdctr]

In the USA every time you pick up a weapon, you are responsible for it. You have to check to see if it is loaded. You have to only point it at something AFTER you have checked to see it is not loaded. I don't know what is going to happen to Baldwin, but he was careless when he was asked by the person who gave it to him "do you want to check the gun" and he said no. That is not going to play well if it is a jury trial. I would hate to be in his shoes.......

 

[MRC01]

... I unknowingly had a jammed bullet in the barrel of the rifle and my brother was the one that could have had a exploded breech or barrel. So he fired off some bullets and finally realized something was seriously amiss and he checked the barrel and found it to be plugged. ...

A similar situation is what killed Brandon Lee. During filming, a primer-only load was used in one of the scenes. The primer alone was enough pressure to push the bullet out of the brass into the barrel where it remained. Later, they used the same gun in a scene that required firing blanks. The armorer loaded it with blanks but did not check the barrel was clear. The pressure from blank cartridge fired the bullet remaining in the barrel and killed him.

At least 2 negligent mistakes:
1. The armorer should have checked the rounds removed from the revolver and noticed one was missing its bullet.
2. The armorer should have checked the barrel was clear while preparing the revolver for further filming.