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

[shotgun09]

Alec Baldwin is formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in the 'Rust' shooting

New Mexico prosecutors said Baldwin should be held criminally responsible for the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

www.nbcnews.com

"Prosecutors have evidence showing Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming," special investigator Robert Shilling wrote in a probable cause statement. "

 

[Cool Cats]

Are you saying it was definitely firearm safety training that AB failed to attend?

Is there verification of this?

Just HGR wanting to say some things, meeting with her.

She is incompetent and got a person injured and a person killed. Throw the book at her.

2 Cents.

 

[Cool Cats]

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Allege Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Brought Live Ammunition Onto Set

The criminal trial for “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is scheduled to begin next month after being delayed from December 2023. The rookie armorer is facing two counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. She has also been...

www.yahoo.com

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, prosecutors Kari T. Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis are asking a judge to exclude evidence and testimony related to the findings of the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB).

“After the fatal shooting on the set of Rust, OSHB conducted an investigation and determined that Rust Management failed to ensure proper safety procedures on the set as they pertain to firearms,” the filing states, noting that the “Rust” production company was fined $100,000.00.

They cite Rule 11-403, which states that “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

The state is concerned that she will try to “use the findings by OSHB to try to minimize her culpability and argue that she is not responsible for the shooting and that Rust Management is responsible for safety violations.”

 

[Marantz4250b]

I work in entertainment (theatre, tv, film) and I think it's a little insane to say that he KNEW he had a potentially lethal firearm in his hand.

The armorer hands off prop weapons and it is solely their responsibility to show the actor what is inside the barrel (even if its empty) and to confirm with them what they're able to do with this. Any firearm that had the capability of firing real ammunition should not have been allowed to handled by an actor (again, the armorer's responsibility).

The armorer should be the only individual at fault for this accident. If this were anyone but Alec Baldwin (ie, a big name), this case would have already been settled.

I disagree here. It is perfectly sane to think that he knew he had a lethal firearm in his hand. Firearms are lethal by their very design and definition. Indeed, as an example, under the UK Firearms Act the definition of a firearm starts with A lethal barrelled weapon...... Everyone, everywhere knows that firearms are lethal.

I get what you are saying about what the procedure should be for handing over firearms but what goes against him in this circumstance is that that is not what happened in this case; the armourer did not hand the gun to AB or show him that what it's condition was. It was given to someone else (apparently Dave Halls but the actual chain of possession seems to be unclear at this point) who then allegedly "checked" it and handed it to AB. So, not only did AB not take it directly from the armourer after her showing its condition to him, he took it directly from Dave Halls (after it having passed through the possession of who knows who else) and took his word as to it being safe.

Alec Baldwin did not personally satisfy himself of the condition of the gun when he took it. The armourer demonstrating its condition to him would have sufficed as his own personal check that it was safe - or not, as the case may be. He did not do this though, he took the word of an unqualified individual and made no check himself. That, IMO, is the very definition of Having total disregard for the safety of others or however the law is worded.

You say that real firearms should not be handled by an actor; there are good reasons these days why they shouldn't but equally good reasons why they are. The obvious one being cost. Real ones are cheaper. There is no particular safety concern in using real firearms if the proper rules are followed. In this case they weren't.

In the case of Hannah Reed, yes she was the armourer but she was not allowed in the church when that scene was being rehearsed (which I think was insane) so whether she shoulders some blame he cannot be held solely responsible because other people were involved as well.

I will repeat what I've said many times on here; if you aren't prepared to take the responsibility of the consequences of someone getting accidentally shot then do not handle firearms, especially in a professional sense. The gun was in AB's hand when it discharged. It was his responsibility to make sure that that did not/could not happen.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm new on this thread but have been more or less following the case since it happened.

I think a compelling argument any actor (including AB) could make is that they had total faith and confidence in the props and armourer teams and set management and it never even crossed their mind the gun could be loaded.

In AB's case he could say he's been in the industry 'x' decades and has never once so much heard of a person being harmed in a firearms accident on set etc.

His best bet would have been to claim shock and trauma and say he'll never get over this blight on his entire career, that he'll never get over the trauma of having shot and killed someone, that he's needed to go in treatment and psychiatry for this. Then gone viciously for the armourer, whoever hired her, and the production company. People want to be on his side and that story would be 100% believable.

I feel sorry for the man but him saying he didn't shoot her or didn't pull the trigger etc... well c'mon, now you're making yourself look guilty out of thin air.

Why not just say hey this is the 180th movie where I've been waving guns in people's faces and never in the history of time has a weapon fired off a live round.

JMO MOO

I don't think that that is a reasonable or responsible attitude to take where firearms are concerned. There is literally no other industry where firearms are used where you take the word of another that its safe. None. It's a real firearm he was using so it could always be loaded. It's your responsibility to make sure its safe.

As a simple analogy; if you are driving a truck commercially and your transport manager says the truck is fine to drive but it's actually got bald tyres which you didn't check and those tyres result in an accident in which someone dies then the accident, and their death, is on you. Legally you caused it. Whether it's on your TM as well is a separate issue but it's you who were driving and the law is very clear on that. The same is true of firearms - if you don't check it and someone gets shot then it's on you.

He could indeed say that but he can't claim not to know that firearms accidents happen on movie sets and people have died because of them. He's been working in the industry for "X" years so will have heard of Brandon Lee (everyone in Hollywood has heard of Brandon Lee) or John Hexum. Both of those people died because of cost cutting and/or not checking things properly.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I am so baffled how that armourer wasn't arrested, charged, and detained on the spot. Background prior history, training and qualifications checked and also drug and alcohol tested etc.

To my mind it speaks to the power and influence of the industry and also the gaps in knowledge of local LE and the fact this was an unusual incident that this has gone on in such a strange manner.

Someone is dead. A mother, a wife. This is hardly a non criminal issue for people's attorneys and the movie industry to theoretically argue out.

JMO MOO

You can't just arrest someone without gathering all the facts. She was answering questions the same day and seemed to give a reasonably good account of herself and what she knows to have gone on.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If actors started taking 'personal responsibility' for every action, where would it start and stop?

Why on earth would an actor imagine there's live rounds present on a movie set using prop guns (albeit 'real' guns)?

If they were going to start that, where would this checking ever end? Oh can I just check this platform is correctly assembled before I stand on it? Can I just check this fake prop food I'm eating is safe to chew? Can I just check the hair and make up team aren't using toxic products, can I check the lighting isn't set too high and damaging my eyes, can I check the electrics are complying and nobody's going to get a shock. Or... do they trust their team to be professional in their trades?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I am guessing this is the end of the use of real firearms in movies, at least in New Mexico. I really don't see a reason to use real guns anymore anyway.

There are legitimate reasons to use real firearms. The obvious one is if you need to do very close up shots, especially if that involves parts that cannot be easily replicated by fake guns; shots such as the brief shot in "Nobody" where the house invaders have an unloaded revolver as you could see through the chambers, or the scene on Lethal Weapon where Riggs is loading a round into his Beretta. Much easier to do with real guns - the latter basically requiring a real gun.

There is also cost as unless you have a big budget for special effects fake guns just don't look convincing.

I don't see a problem in using real firearms as long as the rules are adhered to.

As a passing comment; it's noteworthy to me that all three (that I know of) fatal accidents on movie sets since John Hexum in 1984 have involved revolvers rather than auto's. Revolvers are generally used on movies unmodified as they don't need their bores restricted in order to operate whereas auto's do. Also, as a point of curiosity, all three happened with the larger calibres of revolver; JH and Brandon Lee were both killed with .44 Magnums and HH with a .45 Colt.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If actors started taking 'personal responsibility' for every action, where would it start and stop?

Why on earth would an actor imagine there's live rounds present on a movie set using prop guns (albeit 'real' guns)?

If they were going to start that, where would this checking ever end? Oh can I just check this platform is correctly assembled before I stand on it? Can I just check this fake prop food I'm eating is safe to chew? Can I just check the hair and make up team aren't using toxic products, can I check the lighting isn't set too high and damaging my eyes, can I check the electrics are complying and nobody's going to get a shock. Or... do they trust their team to be professional in their trades?

You take personal responsibility for everything you do in life, though. Yes, there are certain things which you need to take advice from other people on where your knowledge is not sufficient but that's only advice. You use that advice, expertise, call it what you will in informing your decision. There are very, very few potentially dangerous situations - ones which present a danger of serious injury or death - where you are entitled to take the sole word of another person.

Yes, you have to accept the word of the electrician that the electrical rig is safe and the word of the catering company that the food won't kill you. These are not things that you can reasonably check, life being what it is.

Guns, however, are very simple mechanical devices which have a unique ability to cause grave injury and death. They are designed to do that. Guns are one of those things which Americans and others around the world see as one of the central defining points of the USA. They are everywhere, they are in the news every day and no one is under any illusion as to what they can do. If you are not prepared to bear the responsibility of someone getting shot by a gun you are using then don't use them. If you are not prepared how to learn to use them safely (and they are very easy to learn how to use safely - we teach 10 year old how to) then don't use them. It's just that simple.

AB chose to use guns in his profession. He also chose to, allegedly, refuse safety training and refused to check the safety of the gun he was using. Both are extremely easy things to do. As I say, the instructors we have teach kids to do this. It's not rocket science.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Where is it verified that AB refused to participate in gun safety training please?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I just don't get how she was in such a high profile and responsible job albeit the set conditions and work conditions were allegedly pretty much completely unprofessional aside from her being there. I also do think the 'keys' situation relates as it shows mindlessness, disregard for safety, and failure to join the dots between 'action' and 'consequence', which can also be a trait of people with substance addiction. Well anyway, I hope she's got into recovery because she's going to need some tools

JMO MOO

Because the film was cheap and she was new hence, cheap.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Her daddy helped her get into the armorer job.

jmo

I'm not sure how true that is as regards this particular role. Yes, it seems to be that she was hired because she had a well known dad but I've not seen anything that he pulled strings to get her this job.

Reading between the lines of the little we know about her life, I get a slight impression that maybe she didn't see a lot of her dad - perhaps there had bee a falling out there and they haven't talked in a while. In one of her later police interviews she mentions that "...this situation had brought the family together.." or words to that effect and that she's discovered that she had a half sibling she never knew about! That seems to suggest that they may not have talked for some time.

All guesswork on my part, however.

 

[Marantz4250b]

In real life, I agree with you.
On set, I would argue the opposite. Hired actors KNOW they are not responsible for firearm safety, because the armorer is. Actors know that anything an armorer hands them has already been checked for safety. Actors are expected to trust, listen and respect the armorer. Actors are not expected to be firearm safety experts.
We never trust actors to do anything except act and look pretty. It's our job to keep them safe.

That isn't how it's supposed to work, though, and AB knows it. Many other actors who have been in the business for many years like AB - such a George Clooney and Jeffrey Wright - have said that actors don't just take the word of the armourer that a gun is safe. They physically check it with them along with anyone else present and that anyone can ask at any time for a firearms safety check.

The statement about actors not needing to be "firearms safety experts" I strongly disagree with. No one needs to be a "firearms safety expert" because there is no expertise needed to be safe with firearms. It's an easy thing to master - we teach 10 year-olds to do it. Saying that it's an "expert" job serves only to muddy the waters and remove responsibility from people who should be taking that responsibility. If a person cannot be taught how to safely use a very basic firearm like a Colt SAA then they certainly don't have the competence to, say, drive a motor vehicle.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Interestingly, it was apparently the owner of the prop house who got her the job. (He also recommended Sarah Zachary, the props master.)

The owner may have done thinking it was a favor for HGR's father. But in general, Thell Reed doesn't seem that involved in Hannah's life before this incident. He never trained her or took her on set as an apprentice.

I think people just assumed she had been trained by her famous armorer father.

Perhaps not in a strictly professional sense but he certainly did as she said in an interview prior to all this that he did. 310 To Yuma was one and I think others too.

 

[Marantz4250b]

No surprises there then. Her daddy is perhaps as reckless as she is, if he didn't ponder health and safety and just get her a job pointing the right lights on people or loading the clapper or something a bit less deadly?

ETA: Sounds more like she used his name and rode of his coat tails than he opened doors for her then

Her father is a long time and very well respected movie armourer and firearms expert and I think general kinda stunt person/coordinator.

I don't get the impression that she was trading on his name too much, tbh. They hired her for this because she was inexperienced and, hence, cheap. I think her name was a bonus to the production should all have gone well.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I could have sworn I saw an old article where she said she mostly picked it up on the fly. But you're probably right that she did get some training from her dad. (And also some help getting that job.)

If she spent any amount of time with her dad as a kid then she would have picked up lots of stuff. That's the best way to learn stuff like this. We know he took her to movie sets and she was probably around guns at home most of the time.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sounds like she was taught 'watch and learn' by her father. Not sure that's a credible way to be qualified in a job really.

My father was a highly skilled carpenter and cabinet maker - sure I would have learned lots of things watching him fit kitchens and bathrooms but it didn't mean I was qualified to do the same!

These are all perfectly reasonable statements and I agree with them.

Which is why the producers - imo - are negligent in employing someone so inexperienced to deal with so many firearms under a lot of pressure. We know that the far more experienced armourer they initially contacted said he'd need two assistants. That should have told them that hiring a relatively inexperienced 21 year-old to do the job of a highly experienced armourer and two assistants was probably a pretty negligent thing to do.

Maybe she has some culpability here but a lot lands with the production company for hiring her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That’s exactly what happened. They hired her because of who her father is not because she was qualified.

It’s a case of assumption, based on her being around her father and assuming she had learned from him. Poor judgment, haste is waste and in this case a life was lost.

She is claiming that it’s the fault of the supplier who gave her the real bullets. Why didn’t she inspect the round’s herself? Is it part of her job to determine that, or the AD? Ultimately they were hired by AB.

I followed the case earlier on and just came back to it so this most likely has been hashed out multiple times.

I disagree. They hired her because she was cheap. Her name was a bonus.

If they hired her because of her dad then why didn't they contact her first? The first person they contacted wanted more money and two assistants. Then they contacted Hannah.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I still think that we have not heard the full story. I wonder if someone had been shooting real bullets with the gun, target practice or something. And a bullet was left in the gun.

We definitely haven't heard the full story!

The idea that the rounds came from the dummy round supplier probably isn't correct as the components they were made from were not found at the address of the supplying company. No comparable components or ammo were.

It's anyone's guess where those rounds came from but, as of now, I have not seen any evidence that HR brought them onto the set, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[Marantz4250b]

At the beginning I remember hearing that some on the crew were doing target practice with real bullets in the evenings. I doubt I can find the link now. I’ll post it if I do.

That was definitely mentioned but I think it was decided that it didn't actually happen. If the police thought that was the case they would have asked her. All of her interviews are on YouTube, I think, and I don't think she was every asked that question. Tends to suggest that the police don't think it's relevant or know that it didn't happen.