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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
imho, because the prosecutors charged HGR with the crime and the lengthy report indicates that others are to blame for the death.

The report lists safety violations created by HGR's employers.

Not by HGR, but by the producers & directors of the film.

Including AD Dave Hall, who already plead guilty.

JMHO ymmv lrr

I agree, AD Dave Hall bore quite a bit of responsibility for the accident. However, it was the prosecutor who chose to cut a plea deal with him. IANAL, but they can't have it both ways. I can't imagine any scenario in a trial where an expert report as significant as the OSHA one isn't included in the evidence. Scientific analysis, law and expert regulations are a key part of this investigation. Is the prosecution trying to pick and choose which laws they think apply here? JMO, its confusing.
 
I agree, AD Dave Hall bore quite a bit of responsibility for the accident. However, it was the prosecutor who chose to cut a plea deal with him. IANAL, but they can't have it both ways. I can't imagine any scenario in a trial where an expert report as significant as the OSHA one isn't included in the evidence. Scientific analysis, law and expert regulations are a key part of this investigation. Is the prosecution trying to pick and choose which laws they think apply here? JMO, its confusing.
What strikes me as being significant in all this is this - why was Dave Halls even there?

I believe that the number of people allowed in the building was restricted due to Covid regulations. However, if you're using real firearms, then one of the people who definitely should have been allocated a place there was Hannah.

As far as I can see, Dave Halls was superfluous to requirements. If AB needed to be handed a gun then surely it should have been the armourer doing that? That in itself is a gross dereliction of duty on part of the production, IMO. I mean, you cannot sensibly claim that the armourer is the most important safety person on the production and then not let her attend, for whatever spurious reason you might want to justify it with, and then claim that its her fault when people get shot! You cannot have it both ways.

I have my own thoughts as to why she wasn't allowed in but I'll not share them here.
 
Last edited:
What strikes me as being significant in all this is this - why was Dave Halls even there?
He was the First AD, why wouldn't he be there? His job is basically to keep the film shoot running.

From a Wash Post article on the responsibility of ADs:
Assistant directors act as a “liaison between the director and the crew,” said Douglas Schulze, a filmmaker and co-founder of the Motion Picture Institute in Michigan who has never worked with Halls. “There’s a reputation of fearing the AD a bit in the crew world, because the AD is the taskmaster. They’re responsible for keeping the shoot organized, running and on time.”


But I agree that only the armorer should have handed Baldwin the firearm. (And Baldwin should have insisted on it as well.)
 
He was the First AD, why wouldn't he be there? His job is basically to keep the film shoot running.

From a Wash Post article on the responsibility of ADs:
Assistant directors act as a “liaison between the director and the crew,” said Douglas Schulze, a filmmaker and co-founder of the Motion Picture Institute in Michigan who has never worked with Halls. “There’s a reputation of fearing the AD a bit in the crew world, because the AD is the taskmaster. They’re responsible for keeping the shoot organized, running and on time.”


But I agree that only the armorer should have handed Baldwin the firearm. (And Baldwin should have insisted on it as well.)
The actual director was there; a producer (Baldwin) was there; Halyna Hutchins was there - someone who is said to have been highly professional.

This was a rehearsal so wasn't something they needed to get "in the can" at that time. How many people, people who are capable of keeping the shoot running and, at least in AB's case, have a vested financial interest in keeping it running are needed to be there over and above the person who is employed with the specific job description of making sure that people don't get shot?

Yes, I agree with you that Hannah should have been there. Most certainly she should. And that, again, falls to people like Baldwin and Halls. Indeed, Dave Halls should have insisted that she was there. I'm really at a loss as to why she was prevented from being in the church when all this went down, quite honestly.
 
I can think of a few reasons why they didn't want HG there.




The actual director was there; a producer (Baldwin) was there; Halyna Hutchins was there - someone who is said to have been highly professional.

This was a rehearsal so wasn't something they needed to get "in the can" at that time. How many people, people who are capable of keeping the shoot running and, at least in AB's case, have a vested financial interest in keeping it running are needed to be there over and above the person who is employed with the specific job description of making sure that people don't get shot?

Yes, I agree with you that Hannah should have been there. Most certainly she should. And that, again, falls to people like Baldwin and Halls. Indeed, Dave Halls should have insisted that she was there. I'm really at a loss as to why she was prevented from being in the church when all this went down, quite honestly.

1. She would have insisted on him using a prop gun (rubber), since this wasn't an official shoot. It was only a rehearsal, for view options for AB and the cinematographer. AB didn't want to use a prop gun...he wanted the real one. ( IMO )

2. HG would have also, more than likely given critique to AB's practicing of the maneuver used...the 'cross-draw'. He had reportedly failed to show up, or to participate in practicing the cross draw maneuver in safety requirements. Or so it has been reported.

MOO
 
You said; BBM. I think the Union will win this one, not the elected prosecutor or the NM governor.

What evidence do you have that you can link to, please, which supports the statement;



We actually have very little evidence at all as to what she did or did not do that I can see. The gun passed through the possession of at least one other person (and who knows how many others and over what period of time) before it got to AB. Hannah Reed had no influence over it once it left her possession.
My opinion is my opinion, and it was in regard to the Union's public statements in support of AB.

The armorer's trial will determine what she did and did not do and the jury will decide.

JMO
 
I can think of a few reasons why they didn't want HG there.






1. She would have insisted on him using a prop gun (rubber), since this wasn't an official shoot. It was only a rehearsal, for view options for AB and the cinematographer. AB didn't want to use a prop gun...he wanted the real one. ( IMO )

2. HG would have also, more than likely given critique to AB's practicing of the maneuver used...the 'cross-draw'. He had reportedly failed to show up, or to participate in practicing the cross draw maneuver in safety requirements. Or so it has been reported.

MOO
iirc, they were there because HH was determining camera angles and that is why the gun was used.

JMO
 
imho, because the prosecutors charged HGR with the crime and the lengthy report indicates that others are to blame for the death.

The report lists safety violations created by HGR's employers.

Not by HGR, but by the producers & directors of the film.

Including AD Dave Hall, who already plead guilty.

JMHO ymmv lrr
The bottom line is who put the live ammo in the gun?

JMO
 
Not the bottom line for me. The rules of gun safety assume that one never knows whether a gun is loaded - or who loaded it, as do the rules of SAG.
I disagree. If AB violated the rules of SAG-AFTRA, I doubt they would have issued a public statement in support of him. He was told the gun was "safe" and he had no reason not to believe the AP.

SAG has made it very clear an actor is not required to inspect the firearm.
JMO

"To the extent that the charges filed on January 19 are based on an accusation of negligent use of a firearm predicated on this or any actor having a duty to inspect a firearm as part of its use, that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set," it said.

It added, "An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Firearms are provided for use on set under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm."
 
I disagree. If AB violated the rules of SAG-AFTRA, I doubt they would have issued a public statement in support of him. He was told the gun was "safe" and he had no reason not to believe the AP.

SAG has made it very clear an actor is not required to inspect the firearm.
JMO

hy
"To the extent that the charges filed on January 19 are based on an accusation of negligent use of a firearm predicated on this or any actor having a duty to inspect a firearm as part of its use, that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set," it said.

It added, "An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Firearms are provided for use on set under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm."

Wiggly words - and I understand why his union produced them. Unions issue public statements of support for all kinds of reasons.

Actors are supposed to have a demonstration (not an inspection). If you think I was talking about inspections, I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning that.

There's a three step process of hand-off that is supposed to be observed by someone (usually on the cinematagraphy crew, which is why it's relevant that most of that crew was absent that day).

Of course the actors'' union will support actors - but I do not think they get to override what is said in the very length LE report.

IMO
 
imho, re-phrased:

EVERY firearm is loaded, until YOU determine that the firearm is not.

JMHOY ymmv lrr

Yes! The key is YOU! I don’t care who hands me a gun I’m going to check because things can happen.

This may not be a good comparison but it’s the same principle. When you are driving and the passenger says ‘it’s clear’ to cross over, I have to SEE that’s it’s clear. No matter what the passenger says I am the driver. I’m not going to leave it up to a passenger’s line of sight and discretion.

I like this analogy: we are looking at the same 25c coin but on one side there is a face, the other side is a building. Same, but different.

Director-Amorer
Driver-Passenger
 
Yes! The key is YOU! I don’t care who hands me a gun I’m going to check because things can happen.

This may not be a good comparison but it’s the same principle. When you are driving and the passenger says ‘it’s clear’ to cross over, I have to SEE that’s it’s clear. No matter what the passenger says I am the driver. I’m not going to leave it up to a passenger’s line of sight and discretion.

I like this analogy: we are looking at the same 25c coin but on one side there is a face, the other side is a building. Same, but different.

Director-Amorer
Driver-Passenger

Yes!

I taught my kids to NEVER assume the roadway is clear to make a turn just because a driver tries to wave you through. You MUST see it for yourself!

This is how I got into a scary car accident.

Heavy traffic - 2 lanes going south.
The right lane is next to the sidewalk and I am in the left lane. The right lane is all backed up with cars stopped. A guy is in a store parking lot and trying to turn left.

A person who was stopped in the right lane waved at this guy to go ahead and make his left turn. The guy could not see oncoming traffic.

My 8 yr old son and I were the oncoming traffic. Guy pulled right in front of me, I had zero time to react. Spun my car over the left turn lane and across the 2 lanes of traffic heading north.

Lucky nobody hit us in the North Bound lanes.

My son's stomach was bruised from his safety belt and my right knee was injured.

Car was totalled. Not fixable.

I had an attorney and got his insurance company to pay me some money in damages.
 
Yes!

I taught my kids to NEVER assume the roadway is clear to make a turn just because a driver tries to wave you through. You MUST see it for yourself!

This is how I got into a scary car accident.

Heavy traffic - 2 lanes going south.
The right lane is next to the sidewalk and I am in the left lane. The right lane is all backed up with cars stopped. A guy is in a store parking lot and trying to turn left.

A person who was stopped in the right lane waved at this guy to go ahead and make his left turn. The guy could not see oncoming traffic.

My 8 yr old son and I were the oncoming traffic. Guy pulled right in front of me, I had zero time to react. Spun my car over the left turn lane and across the 2 lanes of traffic heading north.

Lucky nobody hit us in the North Bound lanes.

My son's stomach was bruised from his safety belt. I had some leg problems, my right leg has never been the same since.

Car was totalled. Not fixable.

I had an attorney and got his insurance company to pay me some money in damages.

Wow, I can imagine how scary that was! A firsthand experience for your son. Never assume anything unless it’s dark chocolate that you want;)
 
Wiggly words - and I understand why his union produced them. Unions issue public statements of support for all kinds of reasons.

Actors are supposed to have a demonstration (not an inspection). If you think I was talking about inspections, I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning that.

There's a three step process of hand-off that is supposed to be observed by someone (usually on the cinematagraphy crew, which is why it's relevant that most of that crew was absent that day).

Of course the actors'' union will support actors - but I do not think they get to override what is said in the very length LE report.

IMO
SAG refuses to support any actor who commits an act of violence on a set. They made that very clear re: Will Smith's slap at the Oscars.

It's my understanding that the purpose that day was to determine camera angles and that is why so few were there. AB still insists he did NOT fire the gun that day. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

JMO


March 28, 2022
“As the union representing presenters and other performers working on the Oscars, SAG-AFTRA is focused on ensuring our members always work in a safe environment. Violence or physical abuse in the workplace is never appropriate and the union condemns any such conduct. The incident involving Will Smith and Chris Rock at last night's Academy Awards was unacceptable. We have been in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and ABC about this incident, and will work to ensure this behavior is appropriately addressed. SAG-AFTRA does not comment on any pending member disciplinary process.”
 
The bottom line is who put the live ammo in the gun?

JMO
yn(p

No, its not. Not at Ll
The bottom line is who put the live ammo in the gun?

JMO

I disagree. If AB violated the rules of SAG-AFTRA, I doubt they would have issued a public statement in support of him. He was told the gun was "safe" and he had no reason not to believe the AP.

SAG has made it very clear an actor is not required to inspect the firearm.
JMO

"To the extent that the charges filed on January 19 are based on an accusation of negligent use of a firearm predicated on this or any actor having a duty to inspect a firearm as part of its use, that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set," it said.

It added, "An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Firearms are provided for use on set under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm."
He did. His description of the entire event is a litany of his violating the SAG rules!

As to their public statement; they say that you need to be an "expert" in order to determine whether a gun is safe. If a level of expertise is required then why did AB barely attend the safety talks and paid scant attention when he did attend? Allegedly, obviously.

Why was the "expert" not allowed to attend and why did he take the word of an certified non-expert as to the condition of something which is designed to kill people?

As others (and myself) have pointed out - how the ammo came to be in the gun is almost an irrelevance in determining AB's level of negligence. The rules of gun handling are founded on the fact that live (or blank) ammunition is present which is why you check it.
 
The key here is everyone is forgetting this is not a home and normal rules. At home, yes, you always treat a gun as if it is loaded. On the movie set, they are treating the gun as if it is a fake gun. Because there should never be live ammunition in the gun. So they do not consider it a loaded gun in the same sense that we would consider it a loaded gun. They do put safety glass in front of the camera and in front of the people that are filming. They did not have that since they were blocking and not filming. I am certain that the sweet lady that passed away knew that the gun had something in it; but nobody knew it was live ammo! This is a movie set - yes there are rules on set, but The rules are different, and the roles are different. Yes, AD Hall should and would be there during shooting and/or blocking. Absolutely the armor should have been there, even though they were only blocking and not actually filming.

Yes, the armor is at fault because it was her job to secure the guns and ammo on site. Yes she is majorly at fault for allowing live ammo on site! I cannot stress this enough! She is the one that would’ve inspected the ammo, and would have the knowledge to know that that was live ammo on site!
 
yn(p

No, its not. Not at Ll



He did. His description of the entire event is a litany of his violating the SAG rules!

As to their public statement; they say that you need to be an "expert" in order to determine whether a gun is safe. If a level of expertise is required then why did AB barely attend the safety talks and paid scant attention when he did attend? Allegedly, obviously.

Why was the "expert" not allowed to attend and why did he take the word of an certified non-expert as to the condition of something which is designed to kill people?

As others (and myself) have pointed out - how the ammo came to be in the gun is almost an irrelevance in determining AB's level of negligence. The rules of gun handling are founded on the fact that live (or blank) ammunition is present which is why you check it.

You keep saying that HG was not allowed inside. Everything I have read is that she was not called in when they started. She was not refused entrance or told she was not allowed inside, they just neglected to call her in when the rehearsal started. That likely would be on Dave Hall!
 
Yep. That seems to be the goal - at least for NM, which has a lot of independent film production. This is how things change (as they should - no one should die because a real gun is on set, much less real ammo; the alternatives are too many and no one cares about authentic antique guns in Westerns).

Yes, each person (not just actors) who handle firearms in the course of their work should be trained. That includes police, prison guards, security guards and whoever else is handling firearms in the course of their employment. And if they are not, the employer should be held responsible (just as we hold oil companies responsible for their workers when they go to do various dangerous things).

It's already oozed over to other things. It's not okay for an American corporation (say, Enron) to not oversee its operations and its training well enough that...huge oil spills take place. Or explosions (in other industries). This has been going on, as far as I can tell, since the late 19th century (stricter controls on business risking people's lives). Triangle Shirt Factory, etc.

In our day and age, people expect corporations (especially ones that do not perform any central function - such as coal mining - which is highly regulated) to protect their workers.

What do you think the NM Governor's view is on firearms? Were they elected on that platform? I really don't know - and I used to live there. It may entail (notice I didn't say "a plan") removing "real" firearms from sets. Is that a bad thing? If only one life is saved, I think it's a good thing. Real firearms (and blanks) are both unnecessary in modern film making (and so, Rust was itself at the bottom of the barrel - and still is - in terms of potential earnings and distribution).

Shoot em ups are different now. We don't need functional firearms on movie sets in order to be entertained.

IMO. And this has nothing to do with general "gun rights." It has to do with guns in the workplace.
I'll agree that from now on, any actor that is going to handle a fire on in a movie needs to be fully trained and qualified with that weapon. Many, many, many in Hollywood are very anti firearm, so we will see how that goes. There was a reason why actors weren't supposed to mess with guns to "check them." That is all muddied now in the State of Mexico.

But I disagree vehemently with your comments:

Shoot em ups are different now. We don't need functional firearms on movie sets in order to be entertained.

IMO. And this has nothing to do with general "gun rights." It has to do with guns in
Why do we still want "shootem ups" at all? Hollywood pushes gun violence while at the same time almost all of those same people advocate against firearms. In light of that, how can you say this case isn't about "gun rights?" But maybe not in the traditional way that you think. Maybe we should take gun out of movies period!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,155
Total visitors
2,214

Forum statistics

Threads
602,244
Messages
18,137,413
Members
231,281
Latest member
omnia
Back
Top