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

[Cool Cats]

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.

HH asked him to aim at the camera (link above) this means the person operating the camera gets a gun pointed at them. This is normal on sets although there are safer ways to do this.

So they can't pin that line of reasoning on him.

What a juror knows about guns they need to erase from their minds because it is prejudicial. They have to just stick to the evidence about Alec's gun. long Colt .45 revolver. Dummy rounds.....2 Cents

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/prop-guns-movie-sets-1.6221637

Why would the gun have been pointing at the cinematographer?​

We don't know what happened on the set of Rust, but it is fairly common to have a gun pointed at the camera, and by extension the cinematographer, to get a certain angle.

"We've all seen the very famous shots in films where you get that dramatic effect of a gun being pointed at you, the audience, and of course, it's being pointed toward the camera," explained Steven Hall, a veteran second unit director and cinematographer who has worked on films like Fury and Thor: The Dark World.

"To minimize that, one would put a remote camera in that place, or at least, if someone does have to operate the camera, I'm normally protected by safety goggles, a safety visor and often a PERSPEX screen that withstands pretty much anything. Obviously, it wouldn't withstand a real shot from a gun, but it would certainly withstand a blank."

 

[mickey2942]

I have studied dynamics of juries, and if even one person on the jury, can sound authoritative, and knowledgeable about guns, and gives a convincing explanation of how the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being deliberately pulled, meaning that the hammer has to be cocked/primed, prior to the trigger being pulled, so that is actually a 2 step process, it is not "accidental", then AB may have a problem.

It is interesting how juries are combined of 12 random people, and in general, the defense does not have a dossier on the background of every juror...contrary to the movies we have seen...and often, people on the jury do have subject matter experience..while it is not considered evidence per se, it is inevitable that people will bring in their own opinion based on their experience. This often can sway a jury.

 

[Cool Cats]

I have studied dynamics of juries, and if even one person on the jury, can sound authoritative, and knowledgeable about guns, and gives a convincing explanation of how the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being deliberately pulled, meaning that the hammer has to be cocked/primed, prior to the trigger being pulled, so that is actually a 2 step process, it is not "accidental", then AB may have a problem.

It is interesting how juries are combined of 12 random people, and in general, the defense does not have a dossier on the background of every juror...contrary to the movies we have seen...and often, people on the jury do have subject matter experience..while it is not considered evidence per se, it is inevitable that people will bring in their own opinion based on their experience. This often can sway a jury.

Jury can only consider the ballistic evidence presented at trial by the expert witnesses. Some pushy person who is a " know it all" about guns would not sway my big toe.

Unless they were being actually helpful. This means helping others to understand the ballistic evidence presented in court.

2 Cents

 

[Marantz4250b]

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 (Published 2024)

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.

Yes, whether he pulled the trigger or not is an important point but, as another poster has pointed out, regardless of whether he did or not (and I think it's obvious that he did) he should not have been pointing it her in the first place.

 

[10ofRods]

HH asked him to aim at the camera (link above) this means the person operating the camera gets a gun pointed at them. This is normal on sets although there are safer ways to do this.

So they can't pin that line of reasoning on him.

What a juror knows about guns they need to erase from their minds because it is prejudicial. They have to just stick to the evidence about Alec's gun. long Colt .45 revolver. Dummy rounds.....2 Cents

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/prop-guns-movie-sets-1.6221637

Why would the gun have been pointing at the cinematographer?​

We don't know what happened on the set of Rust, but it is fairly common to have a gun pointed at the camera, and by extension the cinematographer, to get a certain angle.

"We've all seen the very famous shots in films where you get that dramatic effect of a gun being pointed at you, the audience, and of course, it's being pointed toward the camera," explained Steven Hall, a veteran second unit director and cinematographer who has worked on films like Fury and Thor: The Dark World.

"To minimize that, one would put a remote camera in that place, or at least, if someone does have to operate the camera, I'm normally protected by safety goggles, a safety visor and often a PERSPEX screen that withstands pretty much anything. Obviously, it wouldn't withstand a real shot from a gun, but it would certainly withstand a blank."

If she asked him to aim at the camera, then she didn't ask him to aim at her. Other witnesses say that Alec was practicing his draw, not aiming at the camera. Halyna isn't alive to say what she thought was happening. But she and JS were doing something close together, as the bullet went through her and into him.

The information at that link is general information about use of a camera on set. Stephen Hall even explains that the gun is never pointed at a person for this shot. And yes, a remote camera would be used (and usually plexiglass because cameras are expensive and even blanks can do damage.

Where is your link for HH telling him to point at her? And have you read the entire packet of police materials? There are about 10-11 witnesses to what happened. Halyna is dead. Alec tells LE that Halls handed it to him. So why does he say that? Which of the witnesses then told Alec he was mistaken?

No one has to be a a "know-it-all" about guns in order to know the basic rules of gun safety, which was my point. I'm sure that the trial will introduce those rules in any case, so if they didn't know beforehand, they will at trial. However, people raised with those rules since toddlerhood are going to already know them.

That was my point. Many women in NM do not handle or shoot guns (although the Bonanza Ranch is a venue for shooting parties and not just filmed ones and I assume both sexes are in attendance), but they still know the basic rules of gun safety. My point is that since NM has so much death by firearm, it is also a frequent topic of conversation and never far from the news (in the two bigger cities anyway, of which Santa Fe is one).

Negligence is up to the trier of fact (the jury) to decide. They don't need to talk extensively about guns. They need to apply common sense and common rules about what would constitute negligent gun handling. That's what they will be asked to do, IMO.

I don't know why anyone would assume the jurors would be at all incompetent or that one of them would be even remotely pushy. I'm also not sure how much the post-shooting gun expert will contribute in terms of deciding the fact pattern of negligence. It will be interesting to hear, if it ever goes to trial. Negligent gun usage is the base of that one charge. Nothing the gun experts have to say about the gun itself will establish whether the users of if (in this case, one user) were negligent.

ALL JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/20/1225789130/grand-jury-indictment-against-alec-baldwin-opens-two-paths-for-prosecutors

Baldwin has said he pulled back the gun's hammer, but not the trigger, and the weapon fired. But a recent analysis of the gun used by Baldwin from Lucien and Michael Haag of Forensic Science Services in Arizona concluded that "the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver." Michael Haag testified to the grand jury this week as a witness, according to the new indictment.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Jury can only consider the ballistic evidence presented at trial by the expert witnesses. Some pushy person who is a " know it all" about guns would not sway my big toe.

Unless they were being actually helpful. This means helping others to understand the ballistic evidence presented in court.

2 Cents

The jury can, indeed is required to consider, all of the evidence presented to it. That will, I am sure, involve AB's team saying something along the lines of you can't convict our client as the gun was broken in testing so we couldn't test it.. That will invite a response from the prosecution who will point out that two reports have shown that the gun was in proper working order when it discharged.

It will be up to the jury to consider those differing view points. They are perfectly entitled to conclude that the reports about the nature of the gun were indeed correct. As I think I may have mentioned before - AB's team have not produced anyone who has examined the gun who says that it could have gone off by itself or that it was not working properly at the time of the incident. Yes, I know that the defence has no obligation to prove innocence but if it's so easy for this gun to have gone off then why are we not seeing that? I'd hazard a guess it's because they can't find anyone.

Juries are made of random people, at least in part, so that a wide cross-section of society can come together and contribute their collective knowledge. If one side is proposing something that is clearly incorrect given their experiences of life then they are entitled to allow that to factor into their ultimate decision.

 

[Cool Cats]

The jury can, indeed is required to consider, all of the evidence presented to it. That will, I am sure, involve AB's team saying something along the lines of you can't convict our client as the gun was broken in testing so we couldn't test it.. That will invite a response from the prosecution who will point out that two reports have shown that the gun was in proper working order when it discharged.

It will be up to the jury to consider those differing view points. They are perfectly entitled to conclude that the reports about the nature of the gun were indeed correct. As I think I may have mentioned before - AB's team have not produced anyone who has examined the gun who says that it could have gone off by itself or that it was not working properly at the time of the incident. Yes, I know that the defence has no obligation to prove innocence but if it's so easy for this gun to have gone off then why are we not seeing that? I'd hazard a guess it's because they can't find anyone.

Juries are made of random people, at least in part, so that a wide cross-section of society can come together and contribute their collective knowledge. If one side is proposing something that is clearly incorrect given their experiences of life then they are entitled to allow that to factor into their ultimate decision.

I believe he pulled the trigger, I never did buy into his "accidental discharge" defense.

But the indictment says his crime is at the same level as a person knowing that their behavior could cause death. Actors shooting guns on set don't believe they might kill someone.

 

[Marantz4250b]

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/20/1225789130/grand-jury-indictment-against-alec-baldwin-opens-two-paths-for-prosecutors

Baldwin has said he pulled back the gun's hammer, but not the trigger, and the weapon fired. But a recent analysis of the gun used by Baldwin from Lucien and Michael Haag of Forensic Science Services in Arizona concluded that "the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver." Michael Haag testified to the grand jury this week as a witness, according to the new indictment.

To be totally honest, I think Baldwin managed to talk himself into a corner here right from the outset. All the reports say that the gun was working properly at the time that it discharged; the reports and literally every single firearms expert out there and all the talking-heads on YouTube and the rest of the internet agree that the trigger had to have been pulled/depressed, whatever you want to call it. Not one single person has proposed any suggestion as to how the gun could have discharged without pressure on the trigger. Neither of the reports gave any suggestion as to how this type of firearm might have managed to discharge itself either.

If he'd just come out and said look, guys, I wasn't aware I did it but I must have had my finger on the trigger when it went off - it was me who fired it even though I never intended to, then it would have closed down all this discussion which is undoubtedly damaging his case and reputation. He's not doing himself any favours in continuing a version of the events which, in reality, no one believes happened because it's basically a physical impossibility.

Alec Baldwin a reasonably well off so why hasn't he produced anyone to offer an alternative set of events in which the gun went off without his intervention on the trigger? My guess is because no one will do so because it can't happen.

As I mentioned earlier, it's a perfectly plausible explanation that he maybe genuinely didn't recall doing it and honestly believed he didn't but the evidence is pretty clear that there is no other way it could have happened.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I believe he pulled the trigger, I never did buy into his "accidental discharge" defense.

But the indictment says his crime is at the same level as a person knowing that their behavior could cause death. Actors shooting guns on set don't believe they might kill someone.

Actors on movie sets know that firearms are potentially lethal. He absolutely knew 100% that he was handling a real, live and fully functioning firearm.

He pointed it at someone. Moreover, he pointed it at someone in the full knowledge that he had not personally checked it. On top of all that he took it from someone who got it from someone else so he had zero idea when it was last checked. We can also throw in the fact that given the activity he was undertaking it was completely unnecessary to have anything at all in the chambers.

He did not know for sure that it was only loaded with dummy rounds.

It's been said before on this thread and I will repeat it; if the requirement was for him to place the muzzle against his own head and snap the hammer six times do we think he would have checked it himself or take the word of other people? I think we know the answer to that. If he would have checked it himself under those circumstances then it is a derogation of duty not to do it for someone else you are going to be pointing it at. That, to me, sounds like the perfect definition of negligence and not caring whether someone get killed.

 

[PrairieWind]

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.

Santa Fe county is fairly young, progressive, more women then men. Not really a firearm mecca. But I believe the prosecutors will try to use THAT to their advantage.

 

[zucchinibread]

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.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Actors on movie sets know that firearms are potentially lethal. He absolutely knew 100% that he was handling a real, live and fully functioning firearm.

He pointed it at someone. Moreover, he pointed it at someone in the full knowledge that he had not personally checked it. On top of all that he took it from someone who got it from someone else so he had zero idea when it was last checked. We can also throw in the fact that given the activity he was undertaking it was completely unnecessary to have anything at all in the chambers.

He did not know for sure that it was only loaded with dummy rounds.

It's been said before on this thread and I will repeat it; if the requirement was for him to place the muzzle against his own head and snap the hammer six times do we think he would have checked it himself or take the word of other people? I think we know the answer to that. If he would have checked it himself under those circumstances then it is a derogation of duty not to do it for someone else you are going to be pointing it at. That, to me, sounds like the perfect definition of negligence and not caring whether someone get killed.

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

 

[clearskies1]

BBM:

I believe he pulled the trigger, I never did buy into his "accidental discharge" defense.

But the indictment says his crime is at the same level as a person knowing that their behavior could cause death. Actors shooting guns on set don't believe they might kill someone.

"Actors shooting guns on set don't believe they might kill someone". This makes no sense to me. Anyone that handles or shoots a gun should know they might kill someone. This is basic. JMO.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

BBM:

"Actors shooting guns on set don't believe they might kill someone". This makes no sense to me. Anyone that handles or shoots a gun should know they might kill someone. This is basic. JMO.

But you do know they're using props and not shooting guns right?

I know someone who was decapitated in a stage play because the set staff forgot to set the guillotine correctly. You think he 'knew' he could have been killed any minute or that he trusted his colleagues?

Also someone suggests the point that AB wouldn't have put the gun to his own head without checking, well we don't know that. I would counter argue that he may well have accidentally shot himself were it a different type of scene and it's only arbitrary that he didn't - he trusted his team.

JMO MOO

 

[housewife]

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 agree, having worked this job.
I was the armorer for a stage opera, and it was MY SOLE responsibility to secure, check, distribute, collect, and lock the weapons back up IMMEDIATELY after the actors left the stage, every show. And they were unloaded the entire run of the show.
Basically, the job of armorer exists because actors DO NOT have any knowledge of firearms and should be treated as such. Good actors will learn to listen to the armorer/prop handler and learn how to check their own stage weapons, but this is not a requirement. Even if an actor says they have experience with firearms, they are not allowed to handle the props without the armorer present.
This accident is SOLELY the fault of the armorer. That was their entire job, and she blew it.

An accident of this degree would be a huge psychological blow to the actor, as well. AB is also a victim of the armorer's errors. I am surprised this case keeps going...

 

[steeltowngirl]

Where is your link for HH telling him to point at her?

Hi 10. You won’t be surprised by who said it.

Baldwin said in a clip from the interview released a day earlier that “I didn’t pull the trigger. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

He said it was Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off.
Baldwin said at Hutchins’ direction he pulled the hammer back.
“I let go of the hammer and ‘bang’ the gun goes off,” he said.

When Stephanopoulos told Baldwin that many say you should never point a gun directly at someone on a set, he responded, “unless the person is the cinematographer who was directing me where to point the gun for her camera angle.”

Baldwin: 'Someone is responsible' for shooting, but 'not me'

Alec Baldwin said it was Halyna Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off.

www.thv11.com

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree, having worked this job.
I was the armorer for a stage opera, and it was MY SOLE responsibility to secure, check, distribute, collect, and lock the weapons back up IMMEDIATELY after the actors left the stage, every show. And they were unloaded the entire run of the show.
Basically, the job of armorer exists because actors DO NOT have any knowledge of firearms and should be treated as such. Good actors will learn to listen to the armorer/prop handler and learn how to check their own stage weapons, but this is not a requirement. Even if an actor says they have experience with firearms, they are not allowed to handle the props without the armorer present.
This accident is SOLELY the fault of the armorer. That was their entire job, and she blew it.

An accident of this degree would be a huge psychological blow to the actor, as well. AB is also a victim of the armorer's errors. I am surprised this case keeps going...

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

 

[PrairieWind]

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.

 

[10ofRods]

Hi 10. You won’t be surprised by who said it.

Baldwin said in a clip from the interview released a day earlier that “I didn’t pull the trigger. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

He said it was Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off.
Baldwin said at Hutchins’ direction he pulled the hammer back.
“I let go of the hammer and ‘bang’ the gun goes off,” he said.

When Stephanopoulos told Baldwin that many say you should never point a gun directly at someone on a set, he responded, “unless the person is the cinematographer who was directing me where to point the gun for her camera angle.”

Baldwin: 'Someone is responsible' for shooting, but 'not me'

Alec Baldwin said it was Halyna Hutchins herself who asked him to point the gun just off camera and toward her armpit before it went off.

www.thv11.com

Not surprised. But none of the other witnesses back him up. And I believe other witness accounts (the police documents are a long slog, but there are 10 or so pretty detailed statements from the others who were there) do not corroborate that Halyna was directing him to point at her armpit and pull the trigger. He continues to insist he didn't pull the trigger (LE has concluded otherwise). I think he may have used his thumb on the hammer (stlil a pullng motion) but I believe he's evading the fact that he did in fact pull the hammer back (and then let it fall). That all results in a bullet flying out of the barrel.

Interesting part about that hammer, though. I do believe that at least two other (still living) people saw something else in that church (Alec rehearsing by himself, not at Halyna's direction). Apparently Alec did not understand that releasing the hammer would fire the gun.

Interestingly, union rules require that the actor, the AD and the firearms expert all be present for these actions and that the actor shall have ongoing firearm training (including the director going over direction with the actor while a gun is in use). They do not require that the cinematographer to get firearm training.

That's why the other (not hired, more expensive) firearms expert said he would need two assistants in such a gun-heavy production.

IMO. When I get time, I'll try and go through the 300-400 pages of police reports again.