Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[Marantz4250b]

IIRC there were several producers on the movie, each with different responsibilities.

It's unlikely prosecution can prove Alec was directly responsible for the mistakes made by an employee from the prop department.He was focused on acting in a leading role as well as helping the director and other actors.

But don't take my word for it. It will all come out in the trial.

They categorically won't as that is not he is charged with.

 

[Cool Cats]

I get where you're coming from but, when it all comes down to it, it should make no difference.

The internal bits and pieces of firearms are very simple mechanical things. The characteristics of a particular firearm do not fundamentally change because you install some new bits. Me and my guys did literally this just today as someone was desperate to buy a revolver which had a faulty part or two so we swapped some bits from another one - not many places in the UK where you can get a revolver built at high-noon on a Sunday, I can tell you!

It also comes down to what rational conclusions a normal person would come to given the evidence - what the "man on the Clapham omnibus might think", as a famous UK legal precedent describes it. In short, even though the FBI broke bits of it in testing (which, tbh, I think went well beyond what they were tasked with doing), to any rational observer, it makes no difference. They stated quite clearly that that gun could not be discharged (before they broke the parts) without the trigger having being depressed. The fact that the actual original parts cannot be tested is a cynical smoke-screen, quite honestly.

Yeah, I get it that the defence can't test it with the original parts but are we going to call out the FBI report as being mistaken or, Lord forbid, an outright fabrication? What possible motivation would they have for this? Changing those parts would be akin to changing the spark plugs in a vehicle crime investigation. It makes absolutely zero difference.

But there will likely be jurors who know zero about guns and the lack of 100% original gun could raise reasonable doubt with them.

This is the prosecution's problem, they have to win beyond a reasonable doubt and there just is too much doubt.

I do not think they can convince 12 people that Alec deliberately pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt. Waste of time and money.

Just what I think. I understand I need to see what the GJ is seeing - but GJ's do not have the reasonable doubt standard in NM. They only have to have probable cause.

2021 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-10 - Requirement for indictment; number of jurors concurring.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Probable = Alec pulled trigger = YES

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt = Alec pulled trigger = NO

I predict Alec will win at trial. If not, I'll fix y'all a ham sandwich. (A GJ would indict a ham sandwich)

2 Cents

 

[Marantz4250b]

Thanks for your insight! I had no idea about the high rate of negligent homicide in NM. Also, very interesting link about drunk driving. I've never understood why people drive drunk, especially now that ridesharing is so prevalent.

I don't see AB taking a plea deal now but that might change after his attorneys see the evidence that will be presented at the armorer's trial next month. I thought he sounded sincere when he said he never pulled the trigger.

JMO

It's drifting somewhat, so perhaps a discussion for another time, but something which has always struck me as a significant cultural difference between the UK and the USA is the attitude to driving and alcohol.

We see references to DUI, DWI and suchlike in US TV shows, movies etc. Some of it is presented as slightly comical, and is often used in comedy ie; Family Guy, Simpson's. You literally could not do that in UK media/TV/Movies because it's so divorced from reality. Drink driving is seen as extremely anti-social here, I mean bordering on serious criminality and that's been the case for many, many years.

Anyway, not meant to be a dig, just an observation.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Worse to let a judge decide it.

1 VS 12

2 Cents

I disagree. If I had the choice (which we don't here), if I were guilty I'd choose a jury as they could maybe be blindsided into acquitting. If I were innocent I think I'd be choosing a bench trial - for the reasons given previousy being applied in reverse.

 

[Lilibet]

I do not think they can convince 12 people that Alec deliberately pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt. Waste of time and money.

I don’t know if it is part of the case that Alec recklessly pointed the gun at Halyna without personally making sure it wasn’t loaded. That alone would convince me that he was guilty, even if the gun went off by itself (which I don’t believe). Does it have to be deliberate (I don’t believe he deliberately shot Halyna.)?
JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I disagree. If I had the choice (which we don't here), if I were guilty I'd choose a jury as they could maybe be blindsided into acquitting. If I were innocent I think I'd be choosing a bench trial - for the reasons given previousy being applied in reverse.

If Alec's attorneys think he would have substantially better odds with just the one judge deciding then they would counsel him about it but I wouldn't trust a judge in that NM County to decide my case after the outrageous self promoting conduct of the former prosecutors.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But there will likely be jurors who know zero about guns and the lack of 100% original gun could raise reasonable doubt with them.

This is the prosecution's problem, they have to win beyond a reasonable doubt and there just is too much doubt.

I do not think they can convince 12 people that Alec deliberately pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt. Waste of time and money.

Just what I think. I understand I need to see what the GJ is seeing - but GJ's do not have the reasonable doubt standard in NM. They only have to have probable cause.

2021 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-10 - Requirement for indictment; number of jurors concurring.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Probable = Alec pulled trigger = YES

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt = Alec pulled trigger = NO

I predict Alec will win at trial. If not, I'll fix y'all a ham sandwich. (A GJ would indict a ham sandwich)

2 Cents

The fact that people on the jury may be clueless about firearms is no big deal, imo. The job of a lawyer is to present the evidence to the jury in the most basic and understandable way so that they understand the evidence. The lockwork of a Colt Single-Action Army revolver is ridiculously simple. Forget that it's even a firearm that we're are talking about, in its most simple terms it's the interaction of two pieces of very solid and strong pieces of metal. It need not be a firearm, just anything.

I don't see how there is much doubt from what is in the public domain thus far; both reports demonstrate that the gun absolutely could not have discharged without the trigger having being depressed. If the defence argues otherwise - which they have not, as far as I am aware - then I'm all ears.

I see very little doubt from what we know as of today, to he honest. The one single thing which is absolutely beyond any doubt whatsoever is that Alec Baldwin was pointing that gun at Halyna Hutchens when it discharged. We can debate whether he pulled to trigger or not until the cows come home but it is absolutely 100% beyond question that that is a fact. He shouldn't have been. If he didn't she would be alive now.

You pick up a firearm - any firearm under any circumstances - and someone gets shot with that firearm when under your control then it's on you! No excuses, no get-out clauses. If you don't want that responsibility then don't use firearms. It really is that simple.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don’t know if it is part of the case that Alec recklessly pointed the gun at Halyna without personally making sure it wasn’t loaded. That alone would convince me that he was guilty, even if the gun went off by itself (which I don’t believe). Does it have to be deliberate (I don’t believe he deliberately shot Halyna.)?
JMO

And that is the crux of this case! Personal responsibility is everything when you are engaging in something which has a potentially tragic outcome. If you are not prepared to shoulder that responsibility then you have no business engaging in potentially dangerous activities.

As I have said before, and in defence of AB on this issue; I do believe that he had the trigger pulled when the hammer dropped. There is simply no other explanation which does not require a re-writing of the laws of physics. I am, however, open to his explanation that he did not think that he had pulled the trigger. Whether that explanation is actually true or not only he knows but it is at least a plausible explanation.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don’t know if it is part of the case that Alec recklessly pointed the gun at Halyna without personally making sure it wasn’t loaded. That alone would convince me that he was guilty, even if the gun went off by itself (which I don’t believe). Does it have to be deliberate (I don’t believe he deliberately shot Halyna.)?
JMO

This is how it looks to me from what I see is going on:

Alec is smart. He knew immediately that he had no business pointing and firing a gun directly at a person in a rehearsal.

So he immediately put out the word that he didn't pull the trigger, that it wasn't his fault he was given a faulty old renovated gun that shoots out bullets just from cocking the hammer.

That's what all this gun business is about. The FBI says the trigger had to be pulled but this is the prosecution's testing results, the FBI tested it per the prosecution's request.

Ok, now the defense has the right to have the gun sent to their own testing lab. This is normal.

Wait, what?

The FBI tester smashed the gun, ruined it? Really?
Ok then. Now the defense can't get the original gun - 100% intact - with all it's original parts for testing.

I have never heard of this....this creates reasonable doubt that Alec pulled the trigger.

Let me put it this way:

Your arrested for hitting and breaking someone's arm with a paperweight. You were holding the paperweight. The police lab does forensic tests on it and conclude that this paperweight could have caused enough force to break this person's arm.

You deny hitting this person and deny that the paperweight was big enough or heavy enough to break this person's arm bone. Your defense asks for the paperweight so they can get their chosen lab to prove this.

However, the police lab smashed the paperweight and so the lab puts the paperweight back together using different parts they obtained from who knows where.

Ok, now your defense team can test the paperweight in Lab X. Lab X says there is no way this paperweight could break an arm.

This whole situation creates reasonable doubt for the jury.

2 Cents

 

[Lilibet]

This is how it looks to me from what I see is going on:

Alec is smart. He knew immediately that he had no business pointing and firing a gun directly at a person in a rehearsal.

So he immediately put out the word that he didn't pull the trigger, that it wasn't his fault he was given a faulty old renovated gun that shoots out bullets just from cocking the hammer.

That's what all this gun business is about. The FBI says the trigger had to be pulled but this is the prosecution's testing results, the FBI tested it per the prosecution's request.

Ok, now the defense has the right to have the gun sent to their own testing lab. This is normal.

Wait, what?

The FBI tester smashed the gun, ruined it? Really?
Ok then. Now the defense can't get the original gun - 100% intact - with all it's original parts for testing.

I have never heard of this....this creates reasonable doubt that Alec pulled the trigger.

Let me put it this way:

Your arrested for hitting and breaking someone's arm with a paperweight. You were holding the paperweight. The police lab does forensic tests on it and conclude that this paperweight could have caused enough force to break this person's arm.

You deny hitting this person and deny that the paperweight was big enough or heavy enough to break this person's arm bone. Your defense asks for the paperweight so they can get their chosen lab to prove this.

However, the police lab smashed the paperweight and so the lab puts the paperweight back together using different parts they obtained from who knows where.

Ok, now your defense team can test the paperweight in Lab X. Lab X says there is no way this paperweight could break an arm.

This whole situation creates reasonable doubt for the jury.

2 Cents

I hear you, but to me it doesn‘t matter whether Alec pulled the trigger or even cocked the gun. I don’t think the condition of the gun before or after the FBI tested it is relevant. Alec pointed the gun at Halyna without checking for himself to see if it was loaded. It went off, for whatever reason. He should never have pointed it at her to begin with. You just don’t do that. But he did and Halyna was killed. That’s how I’d see it if I were on the jury, unless I received instructions otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

I hear you, but to me it doesn‘t matter whether Alec pulled the trigger or even cocked the gun. I don’t think the condition of the gun before or after the FBI tested it is relevant. Alec pointed the gun at Halyna without checking for himself to see if it was loaded. It went off, for whatever reason. He should never have pointed it at her to begin with. You just don’t do that. But he did and Halyna was killed. That’s how I’d see it if I were on the jury, unless I received instructions otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

JMO

Agree, totally.

You do an activity = you take the consequences of same.

If using firearms were some ridiculously obscure activity that was almost unheard of, and which meant that a person could be under some false sense of security, then the story might be different. But, you know......just look at the news!

No one can be under any illusions as to what firearms misuse is capable of. When you add to that the fact that the person using this gun when it discharged and killed someone is someone who has been very vocal as to the "dangers" of firearms, and claims he's an expert in their use, then it's not a good look, quite honestly.

Don't get me wrong - on an overall basis, and speaking as someone who deals with them on a daily basis - firearms are really not unreasonably dangerous (from the point of view of accidents) but "when the wheel does come off", as it's referred to here, then the consequences can be utterly awful! This is the real issue.

 

[Cool Cats]

I hear you, but to me it doesn‘t matter whether Alec pulled the trigger or even cocked the gun. I don’t think the condition of the gun before or after the FBI tested it is relevant. Alec pointed the gun at Halyna without checking for himself to see if it was loaded. It went off, for whatever reason. He should never have pointed it at her to begin with. You just don’t do that. But he did and Halyna was killed. That’s how I’d see it if I were on the jury, unless I received instructions otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

JMO

It will be interesting to hear the jury instructions.

But actors don't check their guns, they are not qualified. The armorer does and should do this with the actor.....2 Cents

Pulling the trigger or not pulling the trigger is central to this case.

The Legal Question at the Center of the Alec Baldwin Criminal Case

The actor was told the gun he was rehearsing with on the “Rust” set, which fired and killed the cinematographer, held no live ammunition. Can he be found guilty of manslaughter?

www.nytimes.com

The challenge Mr. Baldwin’s defense team faces will be to explain why the gun fired. Mr. Baldwin has maintained all along that he did not pull the trigger that day as he rehearsed a scene in which he draws a revolver, saying that the gun discharged after he pulled the hammer back and released it.

A forensic report commissioned by the prosecution determined that he must have pulled the trigger for the gun to go off, a finding that contributed to its decision to revive the criminal case against Mr. Baldwin.

 

[al66pine]

....
He knew immediately that he had no business pointing and firing a gun directly at a person in a rehearsal....

Your arrested for hitting and breaking someone's arm with a paperweight. You were holding the paperweight....

snipped for focus @Cool Cats I see your paperweight analogy but disagree that it's comparable to firearm handling.

The first sentence in your post is the legal issue imo.

He KNEW immediately he had NO BUSINESS POINTING and firing a gun DIRECTLY at a person (w my caps added).

The basic commandments of firearm handling have been posted repeatedly, so I'll not belabor the obvious, but the first couple (w some variation in phrasing) are:
-Treat every gun as loaded until you determine it is not.
-Do not point your gun at anything unless you want to destroy it.

Or google "rules of firearm safety." Not jmo.

ETA: Alec violated both of those basic rules.

 

[Cool Cats]

snipped for focus @Cool Cats I see your paperweight analogy but disagree that it's comparable to firearm handling.

The first sentence in your post is the legal issue imo.

He KNEW immediately he had NO BUSINESS POINTING and firing a gun DIRECTLY at a person (w my caps added).

The basic commandments of firearm handling have been posted repeatedly, so I'll not belabor the obvious, but the first couple (w some variation in phrasing) are:
-Treat every gun as loaded until you determine it is not.
-Do not point your gun at anything unless you want to destroy it.

Or google "rules of firearm safety." Not jmo.

It wasn't about the paperweight but about a weapon in evidence being altered. A big no no.

Your gun analogy is good but real guns are pointed and shot at people all the time on TV and movie sets. It is ok to do this.

It is not OK to have live bullets in the guns. Not OK for the armorer to not do their job. This includes the armorer giving the gun to the actor after checking the bullets in the chamber with the actor watching and test firing the gun.

2 Cents

 

[al66pine]

....
But actors don't check their guns, they are not qualified. The armorer does and should do this with the actor.....2 Cents

snipped for focus @Cool Cats
Okay, if for the sake of discussion, we agree that Alex as an actor is not PERSONALLY qualified to determine that the gun is not loaded, he can still ask for the armorer to determine that in his PRESENCE.

As you posted, the armorer should check gun w the actor, I believe in actor's presence. That did not happen.

If it had happened, then imo HH would still be alive.

 

[al66pine]

....Your gun analogy is good....

I did not make a gun analogy.
Your previous post made a paperweight analogy.

I think we're on some common ground, but time for me to get off this merry go round and leave the playground for now.

 

[10ofRods]

But there will likely be jurors who know zero about guns and the lack of 100% original gun could raise reasonable doubt with them.

This is the prosecution's problem, they have to win beyond a reasonable doubt and there just is too much doubt.

I do not think they can convince 12 people that Alec deliberately pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt. Waste of time and money.

Just what I think. I understand I need to see what the GJ is seeing - but GJ's do not have the reasonable doubt standard in NM. They only have to have probable cause.

2021 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-10 - Requirement for indictment; number of jurors concurring.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Probable = Alec pulled trigger = YES

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt = Alec pulled trigger = NO

I predict Alec will win at trial. If not, I'll fix y'all a ham sandwich. (A GJ would indict a ham sandwich)

2 Cents

You're on!

I will say that a gun-ignorant group in NM jury selection is not on the table. Further, Santa Fe is a gun-knowledgeable place (with only 150,000 people - counting the very elderly and the very young!) The jurors who do get seated will be mostly middle aged and quite knowledge about NM, guns and its gun laws. My prediction is that they won't be persuaded by Baldwin's celebrity-ness at all.

NM law has many provisions for how involuntary manslaughter suits this crime - yes, beyond a reasonable doubt. They're actually very progressive in that way. They've had to be.

I think most NM juries will consider whether he AIMED the gun at her (because the first rule of gun safety is....well, you know!)

This is why negligence, and not just in NM, is "pointing a gun at someone" (whether you thought it was operable, loaded or whatnot) is still negligent. And that's where they will pin him.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

snipped for focus @Cool Cats
Okay, if for the sake of discussion, we agree that Alex as an actor is not PERSONALLY qualified to determine that the gun is not loaded, he can still ask for the armorer to determine that in his PRESENCE.

As you posted, the armorer should check gun w the actor, I believe in actor's presence. That did not happen.

If it had happened, then imo HH would still be alive.

I agree with you - although I believe these finer points are not part of NM law (case law or written law). Juries are asked to decide what is "negligent" handling of a gun (for most NMexicans - and most US gun owners - it begins with pointing a gun at someone you don't intend to kill).

Note that this is supposed to reveal the fact that guns, on occasion, do "go off" (apparently) without anyone pulling the trigger. STILL negligence, if one points it at some living human being who is not an immediate threat.

THat's how I understand juries in NM, anyway.

IMO.

 

[Luna20]

I hear you, but to me it doesn‘t matter whether Alec pulled the trigger or even cocked the gun. I don’t think the condition of the gun before or after the FBI tested it is relevant. Alec pointed the gun at Halyna without checking for himself to see if it was loaded. It went off, for whatever reason. He should never have pointed it at her to begin with. You just don’t do that. But he did and Halyna was killed. That’s how I’d see it if I were on the jury, unless I received instructions otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

JMO

Agree and to your point he had no reason to think HG was an experienced and seasoned armorer. She wasn’t and he knew this was her first time and was hired because of her father.

Whether or not he did the vetting and hiring it was his responsibility to speak to her and approve her for the job. She claims he didn’t meet with her in advance but that should be determined in court.

He left the change of command dangling. He cut corners for the sake of a low budget film. All the more reason he should have checked the gun before using it.

 

[Cool Cats]

snipped for focus @Cool Cats
Okay, if for the sake of discussion, we agree that Alex as an actor is not PERSONALLY qualified to determine that the gun is not loaded, he can still ask for the armorer to determine that in his PRESENCE.

As you posted, the armorer should check gun w the actor, I believe in actor's presence. That did not happen.

If it had happened, then imo HH would still be alive.

Even if Gutierrez-Reed had checked the gun with Alec and handed it to him she was too incompetent to know she loaded a real bullet and too arrogant and careless to even keep live rounds off the set.
Not Alec's fault he had a live bullet in the chamber. This is on GR.

Why would Alec be guilty if the gun accidently fired?

He pointed it in the direction of the camera - as HH asked - which is normal on sets and cocked it but didn't fire it, it just went off because it is a defective gun.

According to him.

Prosecution says he did deliberately fire it, gun wasn't defective. This is what this case comes down to.
Defective gun? Or criminally reckless behavior because he fired it?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-did-live-rounds-get-onto-set-alec-baldwins-rust-2023-03-27/

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed loaded a live round into a long Colt .45 revolver Baldwin was rehearsing with, believing it to be a dummy round. Five other live rounds were later found on the set by investigators. Live rounds are not allowed on movie sets.

Alex Baldwin fired the bullet as Hutchins directed him to point the weapon towards the camera.

Gutierrez-Reed said she loaded the live bullet that killed Hutchins from one of the two white cardboard boxes of dummy rounds she had brought onto the set.