Halyna Hutchins' Death by a Prop Gun

[Kracker]

Alec Baldwin indicted on involuntary manslaughter by grand jury

[Toland's Mitchell]

Indicted based on new evidence, from 7 minutes of footage in 5 behind-the-scenes videos. From what I've seen, only small snippets of these clips are public, and they don't appear to be conclusive on the involuntary manslaughter charges. We'll see what happens.

As for the other ongoing criminal charge, Hannah Gutierrez Reed's trial is set to begin Feb 21st.

[Kracker]

'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

[Cash Flagg]

Gutierrez-Reed faces up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine for the charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Boy, that hefty fine is the REAL kicker!

[Toland's Mitchell]

The penalties are what they are. The verdict is what matters. There is too much of a maverick attitude in the film-making world. People do unsafe things on set more frequently than you'd think. We all know about the director of Midnight Rider who led his crew onto a railroad over a bridge without permission from the railway company, nor the knowledge of the train schedules, which led to the death of Sarah Jones. Just 6 weeks ago, a condor tipped over during a film shoot in the heart of Hollywood at the intersection of Sunset and Kingsley. It was loaded over its weight capacity, plus the arm was extended perpendicular to the chassis. This didn't make the news cause no one was killed or injured (though at least 5 figures worth of property damage). Still, nobody on the crew ever stepped in to say 'This looks risky.' Someone has to be made an example of in regards to safety on set, or this kind of crap will continue. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was a nepo baby, and ill-qualified for the job of armorer. And despite multiple accidental gun discharges and the presence of live ammo on set, the producers didn't fire her, and she didn't stop to consider that maybe she wasn't right for the job. She's accountable and shouldn't get away with it. However, I also agree with Reed's defense lawyers who argued the producers of Rust made her job much more difficult by giving her a dual role of both armorer and props assistant. Saving money by forcing the armorer to do other things...that's quite disturbing too. I believe the production team is also partially accountable for Halyna's death. Speaking of which, Baldwin's trial is scheduled for July.

[Lemmy Caution]

I don't think enough people understand just how much companies will skimp, cut corners, and plain neglect safety and environmental protection to increase profit if there weren't govt regulations and laws in place to prevent such harm. Hence the existence and need for the modern regulatory state, which many on the right decry.

The trial testimony seems to say Hannah Gutierrez-Reed handed an empty gun to Baldwin. Then loaded the gun (with 5 blanks and 1 live round), and left it with 1st AD Halls, who handed it to Baldwin. Unclear how much time transpired between HGR giving the unloaded gun to Baldwin and Halls handing the improperly loaded gun to Baldwin -- likely after some practice takes, maybe lighting or other set up issues. Or why HGR was called away when she was aware there was a loaded gun rehearsal about to take place. But that sequence of events is more understandable for both Halls & Baldwin, as the armorer had just been there, loaded the gun and left it in the care of the AD.

It seems that the jury focused on HGR loading the gun with one live round, probably believing she was the source of the half dozen scattered live rounds on set, and likely unimpressed by tales/testimony of her taking drugs and firing guns off duty. My presumption is that HGR didn't testify because of the evidence tampering charge which involved allegedly hiding a bag of drugs. Meaning she'd be subjected to a lot of questions about her drug usage during the production, which would only serve to prejudice the jury against her, negatively impacting the main involuntary manslaughter charge.

Not sure it's fair to disparage HGR. Being nepo can mean getting a position above your qualifications, but can also mean that you have knowledge and understanding of an area from a young age and beyond your years. It does sound like she should have been more professional, but playing hard is probably ingrained in the production culture, at least among the young set and the more daring crew jobs. It's still unclear where/how the live rounds entered the set. HGR initially claimed there was intentional sabotage, while reporting says at trial her team blamed the supplier of ammunition.

The production itself cheaped out on safety, both by hiring a young low-cost armorer and then only allowing her limited hours at that position/pay rate,while adding duties in a second role. There was a slack safety culture in general on set, with a couple misfires and then crew walking off. And there should have been extra safety measures in place at the time of the shooting, such as bulletproof shields and simply aiming slightly wide of the target. But generally companies and producers don't get charged criminally, and the production was fined heavily for its negligence.

[Kracker]

Sentenced to 18 months

Btw the fact that this is such a rare occurrence, so much so that this is an on-going national story, shows that sets are actually vey much safer and this isn't some kind of a rampant issue. And its regulations and consequences, penalties like this that keep it that way. Even bigwig Baldwin is facing the upmost accountability, that's unheard of in the business world. Meanwhile, the accident on the Rust set happens daily at homes across America and aren't treated like a thing at all.

[hearthesilence]

It's pretty asinine to see some people argue that Baldwin should go to jail because he violated a principle that isn't remotely applicable in this context. Yes, I get that it's a basic rule that you don't ever point a gun at someone and you should treat it as if it's loaded regardless. But how many actors do you see following that principle when you watch a war film or a crime film? Or really any movie that involves a character shooting a gun at someone? It's a stretch to say it's still applicable when they weren't actually filming a scene - he was working at that moment as an actor ready to film in the role he's in. Even if it's his own personal rehearsal, he's all dressed up in character and getting ready to film. It just seems ridiculous - it should be obvious that it's inherent in staging any kind of fiction that you're asking people - the actors - to convincingly simulate things that include actions they shouldn't do in real life. That's why you're supposed to have crew members that take on the responsibility of ensuring no one gets hurt when an actor does these things.

[beamish14]

It’s so transparent that the New Mexico D.A.’s office has deliberately turned this into a spectacle designed to curry voter interest in an election year. It’s pathetic, and scapegoating Baldwin is unbelievably dumb

[Lemmy Caution]

There are a number of problems with Baldwins actions on set:
1) he indeed aimed a gun directly at unprotected people instead of slightly away as the Guild safety rules require
2) he didnt check the gun himself, even while receiving it from not the right person
3) he allegedly didnt participate well/fully in gun safety training on set and rushed production
4) he was a producer and presumably signed off on hiring an inexperienced armorer and limiting her amoring time.

If all or most of that is true, then he made decisions and took actions that were arguably negligent and were the proximate cause of the death. Safety guidelines and best practices exist for very good reason, and following them generally insulates one from liability when things go wrong.

Edit: Part of the context for the accidental shooting was safety issues on set, so bad that a number of crew walked off the job the previous morning. The usual standard for negligence is that one knew or should have known of a danger and failed to remedy it. How that ties into the rehearsal in which the shooting occurred will likely be dealt with at trial. But it gets to issues of knowledge of danger, a pattern of non safe activity on set, arguably requiring a heightened duty of care, etc

The armorer and 1st AD both were convicted and sentenced for their roles in the tragedy. So I don't see how this prosecution is scapegoating Baldwin or why Baldwin shouldn't be tried as well -- given his central role in the shooting, dual role as executive, and alleged failures -- if they feel the case is strong enough.

Admittedly, I don't think the DA has acted terribly professionally and has gotten into unnecessary petty squabbles with Baldwin and his representation. But that shouldn't impact whether the case is tried or not.

[Peacock]

Heartthesilence - no one is upset with war films etc where actors point guns at people because one would assume those actors have been shown that the chamber is empty before being handed the weapon. I’ve never been on a set where this doesn’t happen every time a gun is handed back to an actor. If the armourer were to forget then the actor is supposed to then ask them to show them it’s empty.

Numerous people are at fault here, and as Lemmy says, Baldwin is one of them.

[hearthesilence]

I can't speak to legal liability as it pertains to guild or union rules, but I was referring to what appeared to be gun users popping up on my social media feed who weren't in film business making arguments on how Baldwin broke the rules of basic gun handling. Their points I reiterated in my previous post.

[Lemmy Caution]

Guns should always be treated as the deadly weapons they are. I quoted some industry guidelines last year (↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:36 pm) which emphasize that.

Otherwise, I'm surprised movie productions use actual guns capable of firing deadly projectiles. You'd think replicas would work fine. Or guns modified so bullets don't fit the chambers. Or these days, CGI guns added later. Real functional guns just seem like such an unnecessary danger/risk.

[hearthesilence]

Guns should always be treated as the deadly weapons they are. I quoted some industry guidelines last year (↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:36 pm) which emphasize that.

Otherwise, I'm surprised movie productions use actual guns capable of firing deadly projectiles. You'd think replicas would work fine. Or guns modified so bullets don't fit the chambers. Or these days, CGI guns added later. Real functional guns just seem like such an unnecessary danger/risk.

I wouldn't play with them, but I feel like there's a LOT of things I wouldn't do that they regularly do for action films. (Even with safety precautions, I wouldn't ask anyone, even a stunt person, to jump out of a plane or get in a vehicle that's moving at 100+ mph.) I can probably guess why some would risk using real guns for props, or at least something that can fire like a real gun - at least to me, holding the real thing feels different than a fake that you know can't fire at least a blank. With that in mind, are there real-looking guns that can fire off blanks but not actual projectiles? If possible that would seem like the best solution. The tragedy with The Crow shows why even freak accidents can happen with blanks as long as they're used in a regular gun.

[Peacock]

It comes down to budget I guess. If you need 50 1920s guns which can fire blanks why not just source 50 real guns from the period? Otherwise you’re spending a lot more making them from scratch. And if I understand correctly you can easily adapt a blank firing gun to fire actual projectiles.

But yes blanks are still deadly and shouldn’t be fired directly at someone within a certain distance.

Normally on set we use a lot of flash in the pan / smoking gun effects which are harmless when fired at close range, I guess they are just gunpowder without a projectile.

But yes going back to the real guns thing, something like Rust probably didn’t have the budget to create all those antique guns from scratch when they could just rent the real deal and know they are safely under the control of a good armourer…

[captveg]

"...New Mexico judge has determined Monday that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on the troubled indie Western cannot be entered as evidence into the July 9 starting trial."

[beamish14]

"...New Mexico judge has determined Monday that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on the troubled indie Western cannot be entered as evidence into the July 9 starting trial."

Pretty huge, and this effectively destroys the foundation of the DA’s case.

[Lemmy Caution]

Thats rather exaggerated. It simply means they need to show negligence with the actual handling of the gun (not checking, aiming at people, whether the trigger was pulled) and Baldwin's disregard of safety (not paying attention during safety training, hurrying the armorer, etc).

It apparently takes off the table any extra responsibility for hiring an inexperienced armorer and overextending her, general lack of safety on set, etc. Certainly a win for Baldwin's team. I'm not sure why the judge would just pretend Baldwin was only an actor on set, and completely ignore any duty of care which a producer/executive may be culpable.

I'd think the more appropriate course would be to allow some argumentation of a producer responsibility and an unsafe overall set, but circumscribe it so it remains a side) additional argument. But I don't know the arguments presented or the exclusion rational. The general standard of admissibility is whether the probation value outweighs the prejudicial effect. Possibly the burden of proving producer negligence is too high a bar to clear, but would likely taint the jury into believing the whole production was unsafe, unfairly/overly coloring their view of the important actions at issue. The prosecution response would be that it contextualises the incident and indeed an actor/producer has a greater duty of care than a mere actor.

Two other decisions favored the prosecution:

The prosecution managed other wins Monday. They successfully argued for the exclusion of summary findings from a state workplace safety investigation that placed much of the blame on the film’s assistant director, shifting fault away from Baldwin.

And the judge ruled that they could show graphic images from Hutchins’ autopsy, and from police lapel cameras during the treatment of her injuries.

Not really enough info to know why the judge arrived at these rulings.
But I'm not sure how gruesome photos aid any understanding of the case, as all the facts of the shooting such as distance, gun used, fatal wound are not in dispute. While seeing the dead and dying woman is sure to elicit an emotional response and sympathy, without adding anything beyond verbal or written testimony.

Not sure why findings which directed blame elsewhere isn't allowed. Even if contradicted or different than other findings, even such discrepancy and contradiction seems to be useful information.

Again without knowing much detail, I'd be inclined to decide all 3 issues the opposite of the judge. These preliminary rulings certainly give Baldwin avenues for appeal.

[captveg]

Alec Baldwin‘s attorneys filed a motion Friday morning to have his involuntary manslaughter case dismissed based on what they say is evidence prosecutors withheld from them that may answer that central question...

...during Spiro’s cross-examination of Santa Fe County crime scene technician Marissa Poppell, the defense attorney said that new ballistics evidence had emerged after Gutierrez’s trial ended, and that investigators had not shared it with Baldwin’s defense team, nor with Gutierrez’s team, who could potentially use it on appeal. Spiro said that in recent months, an individual had walked into the Santa Fe sheriff’s department and turned in ammunition that came from the same source as the bullet that killed Hutchins.

Spiro referred to the person who came forward merely as a “good Samaritan,” but Morrissey later revealed him to be retired Arizona police officer Troy Teske, a friend of Gutierrez’s father, veteran Hollywood armorer Thell Reed...

...“He told you it had to do with the Rust shooting, is that correct?” Spiro asked Poppell, of the ammunition Teske brought to the sheriff. She agreed. “He told you you had been duped by Seth Kenney, didn’t he?” Morrissey objected before Poppell could answer that question. Kenney, the owner of the prop firearms supplier for Rust, has previously denied any wrongdoing in the incident. Spiro asked Poppell if investigators had turned that newly provided ammunition over to the FBI, as it had the other Rust evidence, and Poppell said they had not. “Isn’t it the case that law enforcement likely has the matching rounds to the ammunition that killed Ms. Hutchins?” Spiro asked.

On her redirect of Poppell, Morrissey sought to wipe away the dramatic picture Spiro had painted of this “good Samaritan.” “Are you aware that Troy Teske is a close friend of Hannah’s father?” she asked. “Are you aware that Troy Teske had his own motivations for wanting to help Ms Gutierrez?”...

...Spiro’s introduction of the issue did seem to bolster the point he made in his opening argument, that the state, in its casual treatment of potentially important evidence, had seemed more focused on getting Baldwin than in getting to the bottom of the tragic case.


I doubt this gets the case dismissed, but a prosecution should know to simply hand over everything that could be even perceived as withholding evidence.

[captveg]

In regards to the two charges in the case, I thought this article summarized them well, with a solid explanation of how one is far more plausible to get a conviction than the other.

To land a conviction, prosecutors will need to convince a jury to side with them on either of their two theories of the case. The first holds the actor responsible for Hutchins’ death by way of negligent use of a firearm, while the other accuses him of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety of others.”

The two theories sound similar but ask the jury different questions in the same vein as one another. The negligence count faults Baldwin for killing Hutchins in the commission of a crime, in this case the negligent use of a firearm, which is typically a misdemeanor in New Mexico. It’ll take into account his manner of handling the gun and whether he should’ve cocked it even when the scene didn’t call for him to do so, among other things...

...The alternative charge holds that Baldwin acted recklessly under circumstances in which an “ordinary person would anticipate that death might occur.” This theory directs jurors to consider whether the actor should’ve confirmed that the gun didn’t have live ammunition before he pointed it at Hutchins and knew about the danger associated with his actions.

To be convicted, Baldwin must be found beyond a reasonable doubt to have “consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that “harm [would] result from his conduct,” and that Hutchins’ death was a “foreseeable result” of his willful disregard of that risk. It won’t be enough to show that the actor was careless or negligent. Prosecutors must prove that he was aware of the danger, meaning that he considered the possibility the gun was loaded but pointed it toward the cinematographer and pulled the trigger anyway.

Legal experts stress that the standard is much higher than proving that Baldwin was merely careless in the events that led up to Hutchins’ death and that the prosecution’s theory betrays common sense.

“There’s scene after scene of him firing the gun and every time, it’s a blank to the surprise of no one,” says Joshua Ritter, a criminal defense attorney and former L.A. prosecutor. “And then in this one instance, it happens to have a live round, and they’re saying he should’ve quadrupled checked? The jury’s going to ask how in the world he was supposed to know.”

The article also goes on to clarify Baldwin's role as producer, which was merely financial:

Under his deal with Rust Movie Productions, the entity producing the Western, the actor was a producer in name only and had no responsibilities on set, including the duty to manage crew, or decision-making authority, according to court filings.

Knowing this it's not hard to see why the judge ruled the prosecution could not bring up Baldwin's role as producer.

[Kracker]

Charges dismissed.

So goes a big waste of everyone's time.

[domino harvey]

Wow, with prejudice, which means he can’t be charged again. This nonsense is finally over

[captveg]

What a royal screw up by the prosecution. If there's ever any question of needing to inform the defense team it should be done. Makes one wonder how many lower profile defendants had similar information withheld from them but didn't have the legal team to discover it.

There may still be civil cases, as I believe some of the settlements have had some post-agreement hiccups.

[Lemmy Caution]

Interesting. Baldwin's lawyers consistently ran circles around the prosecution, who were fairly disorganized and unprofessional throughout. I guess this is another (unexpected) benefit of filming in a smaller cheaper state.

I'm not too clear on where this small mixed cache of bullets came from, or when they were handed over by an ex-police friend of Gutierrez-Reed's father, or their significance. But withholding evidence, even weird evidence, is a no-no.

Always good to have and be able to afford a large high-priced legal team. Weirdly, I'm interested to see the now finished film Rust.

[captveg]

Weirdly, I'm interested to see the now finished film Rust.

I suspect it's not too gonna be too good, as they finished it in order to try and recoup some revenue to help pay the settlements and I doubt it had the atmosphere needed for good filmmaking at that point.