Wow...kinda surprised for some reason

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baldwin-rust-shooting-charges-decision/index.html

But, go check any comments section - Kyle Rittenhouse supporters are calling for the death penalty for Alec Baldwin.

Seems very politically motivated given the circumstances.

Watch the space below for people to call for maximum sentence, and then check their posts on Brittney Griner too.

Extreme cognitive dissonance.

I know Baldwin has a target on his back because he's a lib'rul

but charging him for an accidental shooting on set?

Is the victim's family Republican?

Hate to ask but since a tragic death is being politicized anyway, might as well get the political affiliation of the victim, her family, and this absolute c*nt of a judge

on rust once filming continues.

https://www.distractify.com/p/alec-baldwin-political-views

>Watch the space below for people to call for maximum sentence, and then >check their posts on Brittney Griner too.




Did these people call for the maximum sentence when Griner was
arrested ?

>Did these people call for the maximum sentence when Griner was
>
>arrested ?

Many did in the thread posted HERE.

It's not about him firing the gun. It's about his responsibility to the people that he employed. People shouldn't die at work. When they do because of the boss' negligence, the boss should be charged. He's not the only one responsible for this facing charges either.

>It's not about him firing the gun. It's about his
>responsibility to the people that he employed. People
>shouldn't die at work. When they do because of the boss'
>negligence, the boss should be charged. He's not the only one
>responsible for this facing charges either.

A slippery slope that prevents dangerously unsafe working conditions sounds tremendous. Do you think the people who ran the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory shouldn't have been charged? How about collapsed mines?

He's not being charged as an actor who fired a prop gun. He's being charged as a producer that failed to create an environment where regular, working people are safe.

your line of thinking

>A slippery slope that prevents dangerously unsafe working
>conditions sounds tremendous. Do you think the people who ran
>the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory shouldn't have been charged?
>How about collapsed mines?
>
>He's not being charged as an actor who fired a prop gun. He's
>being charged as a producer that failed to create an
>environment where regular, working people are safe.

This is a blessedly nuance-free situation. If you are a boss and workers die working for you due to unsafe conditions, you have committed a crime.

There are a bunch of producers on the movie. They aren't being charged for creating unsafe conditions.

The only people charged are those directly involved in the shooting

that he shouldnt have checked the gun.

>There are a bunch of producers on the movie. They aren't
>being charged for creating unsafe conditions.
>
>The only people charged are those directly involved in the
>shooting

Ms. Carmack-Altwies is the DA. I don't agree with her view about his role as an actor, but luckily it doesn't matter. As a producer, he's responsible for the safety of his employees and he failed at that so badly that somebody died. If other producers aren't charged, they should have been. Doesn't mean Baldwin shouldn't be.

"“He’s being charged as both. He was the actor that pulled the trigger, so certainly he’s charged as an actor, but also as a producer he also had a duty to make sure that the set was safe,” said Carmack-Altwies, noting that people on set had complained about the lax safety and there had been accidental misfires prior to this fatal incident."

accountable for sure

"Under the basic involuntary manslaughter charge, prosecutors would need to show that underlying negligence played a role in the shooting death."

The person pulling the trigger on a gun should be ultimately responsible for what happens. It was his responsibility to verify that the gun was safe to shot before he did it. He was negligent.

I don't know why they use real guns on sets in the first place.

>"Under the basic involuntary manslaughter charge, prosecutors
>would need to show that underlying negligence played a role in
>the shooting death."
>
>The person pulling the trigger on a gun should be ultimately
>responsible for what happens. It was his responsibility to
>verify that the gun was safe to shot before he did it. He was
>negligent.
>
>I don't know why they use real guns on sets in the first
>place.

>The person pulling the trigger on a gun should be ultimately >responsible for what happens. It was his responsibility to verify that >the gun was safe to shot before he did it. He was negligent.

Handing someone a gun on a movie set places the responsibility of the person HANDING HIM THE GUN.

He is told "This gun is safe for you to point it and pull the trigger."

What do you want him to do? Go outside and pull the trigger 92 times just to be sure? And if on the 93rd pull it shot, would that be his responsibility to know it takes 93 pulls??

If he was handed the gun and they said "Remember this is a real gun with real ammo and you shouldn't point it at anyone and for god's sake don't pull the trigger!" then yes he'd be responsible.

Handing a fully loaded gun to a toddler wouldn't make the toddler responsible if he shot someone either.

If someone left their gun on a table and you walked by and bumped the table and the gun went off and shot someone - you wouldn't be responsible either.


This case goes like this:
Actor on a set is handed a gun he's told can be used in a scene where you point it at someone.

It wasn't safe to point at someone.

How in any REASONABLE scenario would it be his fault???

Now, you say this again:
The person pulling the trigger on a gun should be ultimately responsible for what happens. It was his responsibility to verify that the gun was safe to shot before he did it. He was negligent.

When can an actor on a set who is handed a gun be "negligent?"

Dictionary.com defines negligence: Failing to take proper care in doing something.

So what is an actor on a set's duty when handed a gun from a crew member's whose job it is to ensure safety?

I think folks are assuming that when the gun transfers then so does the duty.

In what we've heard about this case I think the duty does not transfer.

This is what the case will be about, not that he was holding a gun when it went off.

Prosecutors will lose if the judge/jury agrees.

But if people can be convinced that the duty transferred then I think actors should refuse to handle ANY weapon in any case.

Probably on set explosives and squibs too.

For something like a deadly weapon, you would be negligent if you didn't verify yourself that it won't harm someone.
This is my belief. I'm not going to possibly shoot and kill someone just based on someone's words.

The prosecutor is going to try to make the case that it is industry standard procedure that the actors go through gun training, that they are the last line of verification, and that Baldwin was negligent in these aspects.

I don't know how the industry works and what the standard is. But in my opinion, the holder of the gun should be ultimately responsible for what happens with it.

>For something like a deadly weapon, you would be negligent if you didn't verify yourself that it won't harm someone.

Does the ACTOR have a duty to do that? And then: How would he do that?

>The prosecutor is going to try to make the case that it is industry standard procedure that the actors go through gun training, that they are the last line of verification, and that Baldwin was negligent in these aspects.

What is the "last line of verification" standard? Is there an itemized list of steps one must take? This is the question at the heart of this case.


>I don't know how the industry works and what the standard is. But in my opinion, the holder of the gun should be ultimately responsible for what happens with it.

We have to determine if that's the law, I don't think it is. I think the actor has almost no duty to prove the gun is safe in the circumstances that have been reported.

Oh, and FUCK GUNS.

The law specifies negligence. But the debate will be on who was the negligent one: the shooter or the provider.

And I think he'll get off if it goes to trial because the jury would probably have debates just like this

>The law specifies negligence. But the debate will be on who was the negligent one: the shooter or the provider.

No, that's not the issue. Negligence has to be proven for each of them.

The *could* both be negligent - or just one or neither.

The article here explains some of the "thinking" that the prosecution is asserting: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/arts/rust-shooting-charges-alec-baldwin.html

>The prosecutors said they had determined it was part of film industry standards for actors to ensure that the guns they use on set were safe for them to handle, saying they had interviewed several actors who spoke to the importance of those protocols. Mr. Baldwin has pushed back on that idea, saying that in his experience on film sets it was not the practice for actors to check their own guns.

>Andrea Reeb, a special prosecutor on the case, said Ms. Gutierrez-Reed was also responsible for ensuring that the guns on the set did not contain live rounds, saying that she should have taken each round out of the gun and shaken them in front of the actor — a practice that helps confirm the rounds are dummies, inert cartridges used to resemble real bullets in a film.

The prosecution is asserting that there was a legal duty and a specified procedure that must be followed and if you didn't then you are negligent.

If there's not an industry standard organization akin to and ISO then I think the prosecution is just making shit up.

I've never worked on a movie, maybe there's a list of procedures you *must* follow and they just didn't. I doubt it. What the prosecutor is saying *sounds like a good idea to me* but is it reasonable to think that it is a standard??? And if they didn't do it are the negligent???

We'll find out at trial, but it seems EXTRA thin.

BTW:I'd support making an whatever series of steps you have to do to prove you aren't negligent as a law - who's with me?? Shake the gun. Submerge it in water. Fire it 137 times into the air. Dig ore form the grounds, smelt it on the set and form fake bullets and require everyone watching to sign a statement AND slow motion record the whole thing. I'd support ALL of it as a LAW. I'm not bullshitting.

>Prosecutors said they would charge Mr. Baldwin with two counts of
>involuntary manslaughter, saying that he had a duty to ensure the gun
>and the ammunition were properly checked and that he should never have
>pointed it at anyone. “You should not point a gun at someone that
>you’re not willing to shoot,” the district attorney for Santa Fe
>County, Mary Carmack-Altwies, said in an interview. “That goes to basic
>safety standards.”

This is where the prosecutor's case is: Any gun pointed at anyone is loaded at all times.

>In a statement on Thursday, a lawyer for Mr. Baldwin, Luke Nikas, said:
>“This decision distorts Halyna Hutchins’s tragic death and represents a
>terrible miscarriage of justice. Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe
>there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He
>relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the
>gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”

Baldwin's attorney statement makes more sense to *me*.

Now we wait for trial.

i don't understand this.

unless there's some way under the law to work this in because he's one of the producers.

but, him pulling the trigger? i don't see it.

like all actors, when handed a gun on set, they are reliant on the trained gun safety specialists that are required to be on set. they don't shoot the gun a few times to test it to make sure it's not gonna kill anyone before they yell "roll tape." that's all supposed to be done by the safety people before they hand over the gun and the actor relies on their expertise.

will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I don't think it requires an arcane legal maneuver to prosecute him. And if it does, then I'm extremely pleased that the state of New Mexico is trying it.

People shouldn't get killed by their job. That's crazy. I don't want to be overly critical here because I know you're smart and moreover normal, but what you're saying here strikes me as morally incoherent. Workers deserve to have a safe place to labor and then to go home at the end of the day to a family who loved them. Securing this human right by law seems like the literal least that the United States can offer, and if we pretend that it's somehow extreme or an abuse of the law then there's really no point in having labor law at all. Let bosses hire children. Pay them whatever they want. Expose you to fire, electrocution, whatever.

(from the facts as i understand them)

which was my point.

i can't see him being held liable as the direct party at fault.

if there's some legal hoop jumping that holds him accountable as a producer? sure, maybe.

but, the true liable party was the prop master/gun coordinator/whatever the correct title is.

It doesn't seem like there's any amount of recklessness and corner-cutting that will get people here to concede this was an unsafe workplace and this death was the result of profit-maximizing negligence. It was well-reported at the time, but perhaps people didn't notice it then.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

BY MEG JAMES, AMY KAUFMAN
OCT. 22, 2021 UPDATED 4:38 PM PT

Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.

The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.

Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.

Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.

“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”

A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires that he sent a text message to the unit production manager. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe,” according to a copy of the message reviewed by The Times.

“The safety of our cast and crew is the top priority of Rust Productions and everyone associated with the company, “ Rust Movie Productions said in a statement. “Though we were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set, we will be conducting an internal review of our procedures while production is shut down. We will continue to cooperate with the Santa Fe authorities in their investigation and offer mental health services to the cast and crew during this tragic time.”

The tragedy occurred Thursday afternoon during filming of a gunfight that began in a church that is part of the old Western town at the ranch. Baldwin’s character was supposed to back out of the church, according to production notes obtained by The Times. It was the 12th day of a 21-day shoot.

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was huddled around a monitor lining up her next camera shot when she was accidentally killed by the prop gun fired by Baldwin.

The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator’s shoulder, as was the movie’s director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza. Hutchins immediately fell to the ground as crew members applied pressure to her wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding.

Late Friday, the Associated Press reported that Baldwin was handed a loaded weapon by an assistant director who indicated it was safe to use in the moments before the actor fired it, according to court records. The assistant director did not know the prop gun was loaded with live rounds, according to a search warrant filed in a Santa Fe County court.

The person in charge of overseeing the gun props, known as the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, could not be reached for comment. The 24-year-old is the daughter of veteran armorer Thell Reed and had recently completed her first film as the head armorer for the movie “The Old Way,” with Clint Howard and Nicolas Cage.

Earlier in the day, the camera crew arrived as expected at 6:30 a.m. and began gathering their gear and personal belongings to leave, one knowledgeable crew member told The Times.

Labor trouble had been brewing for days on the dusty set at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe.

Shooting began on Oct. 6 and members of the low-budget film said they had been promised the production would pay for their hotel rooms in Santa Fe.

But after filming began, the crews were told they instead would be required to make the 50-mile drive from Albuquerque each day, rather than stay overnight in nearby Santa Fe. That rankled crew members who worried that they might have an accident after spending 12 to 13 hours on the set.

Hutchins had been advocating for safer conditions for her team and was tearful when the camera crew left, said one crew member who was on the set.

“She said, ‘I feel like I’m losing my best friends,’” recalled one of the workers.

As the camera crew — members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — spent about an hour assembling their gear at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, several nonunion crew members showed up to replace them, two of the knowledgeable people said.

One of the producers ordered the union members to leave the set and threatened to call security to remove them if they didn’t leave voluntarily.

“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.

The shooting occurred about six hours after the union camera crew left.

The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office said deputies were dispatched to the Bonanza Creek Ranch movie set after calls to 911 at 1:50 p.m. Thursday. Baldwin was starring in the movie and was serving as one of the producers.

No charges have been filed, but the Sheriff’s Office said that “witnesses continue to be interviewed by detectives.”

Baldwin said Friday that he was “fully cooperating with the police investigation” into the incident.

“There are no words to convey my shock and sadness regarding the tragic accident that took the life of Halyna Hutchins, a wife, mother and deeply admired colleague of ours,” Baldwin wrote Friday in a series of tweets.

Production has been halted on the movie.

In an email to its members, Local 44 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, a union that represents prop masters, said the shot that killed Hutchins and injured Souza on Thursday was “a live single round.”

FILE - In this Sept. 21, 2015 file photo, actor Alec Baldwin attends a news conference at United Nations headquarters. A prop firearm discharged by veteran actor Alec Baldwin, who is starring and producing a Western movie, killed his director of photography and injured the director Thursday, Oct. 21, 2021 at the movie set outside Santa Fe, N.M., the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office said. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

“As many of us have already heard, there was an accidental weapons discharge on a production titled Rust being filmed in New Mexico,” said the North Hollywood-based local. “A live single round was accidentally fired on set by the principal actor, hitting both the Director of Photography, Local 600 member Halyna Hutchins, and Director Joel Souza. Both were rushed to the hospital,” the email said. The New Mexico-based crew was represented by a different local.

A source close to the union said Local 44 does not know what projectile was in the gun and clarified that “live” is an industry term that refers to a gun loaded with some material such as a blank ready for filming.

Bonanza Creek Ranch has been a popular filming location for more than 60 years. The first movie to film there was “The Man From Laramie,” starring Jimmy Stewart. It also was the set for “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” and the popular TV show “Longmire.”

One of the financiers for “Rust” is Santa Monica-based lender BondIt Media Capital, founded in 2013 by Matthew Helderman and Luke Taylor. According to its website, BondIt finances movies through instruments including gap loans, bridge loans and tax credit financing.

The company has primarily financed low-budget movies including the Bruce Willis action flick “Hard Kill,” the Charlotte Kirk horror flick “The Reckoning” and the upcoming Robert De Niro film “Wash Me in the River,” directed by Randall Emmett.

BondIt was particularly active during the COVID-19 pandemic, stepping in to fill financing gaps as independent producers struggled to find backing for films during the public health crisis.

Again, this was pretty thoroughly reported at the time. I guess maybe, in the interest of making this an actual discussion: what obligation do you think an employer has to keep their workplace safe? Because I've posted now a pretty high-profile actor screaming at her on a different set for being careless, and a bunch of people willing to literally walk off their job because it was getting unsafe. You've qualified this a couple times now that you don't have all the facts - so I've provided some more. People in her prior job knew she was shitty, and the Rust producers hired her anyhow. People on the Rust set complained that the set was unsafe, and shooting and unsafe gun-handling persisted. At what point do people actually blame the folks who put up the money and hired the folks who made it unsafe?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134763/Rust-armorer-subject-numerous-complaints-previous-film-infuriated-star-Nicolas-Cage.html

'You just blew my f**king eardrums out!' Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed 'discharged weapons without warning and infuriated star Nicolas Cage' on her previous film

Rookie armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who loaded the gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins while being handled by Alec Baldwin, was the subject of numerous complaints on her last movie.

Gutierrez-Reed, 24, upset crew members and star Nicolas Cage with her 'dangerous' gun handling on the set of The Old Way, just two months before Rust.

Stu Brumbaugh, the key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that the young armorer failed to abide by basic gun safety protocols.

He said that after Gutierrez-Reed discharged a weapon for the second time in three days without warning, Cage yelled: 'Make an announcement, you just blew my f**king eardrums out!' before reportedly storming off set.

Brumbaugh said he told the assistant director on the Montana set that Gutierrez-Reed needed to be fired: 'After the second round I was pissed off. We were moving too fast. She's a rookie.'

Rookie armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who loaded the gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins while being handled by Alec Baldwin, was the subject of numerous complaints on her last movie.

Gutierrez-Reed, 24, upset crew members and star Nicolas Cage with her 'dangerous' gun handling on the set of The Old Way, just two months before Rust.

Stu Brumbaugh, the key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that the young armorer failed to abide by basic gun safety protocols.

He said that after Gutierrez-Reed discharged a weapon for the second time in three days without warning, Cage yelled: 'Make an announcement, you just blew my f**king eardrums out!' before reportedly storming off set.

Brumbaugh said he told the assistant director on the Montana set that Gutierrez-Reed needed to be fired: 'After the second round I was pissed off. We were moving too fast. She's a rookie.'

The key grip points to low budgets as to why someone so inexperienced was put in such an important role. 'The tragedy is it boils down to the producers,' he said.

'Been happening more and more. As producers refuse to bring more experienced people because their rates are higher, they demand we take our time and (producers) don't want to pay it. So they hire a newbie who is energetic and wants the job and will do it with less people.'

He continued: 'The problem is she didn't have help. I would have had minimum two more people. She was doing everything by herself in that movie and on the other movie. If there was one more person in the other movie the tragedy wouldn't have happened. Second person would have inspected to make sure barrels were clear.'

Brumbaugh explained that he understood how mistakes could be made: 'You have an AD screaming at you...You’re 24 and energetic and don’t want to be yelled at. So you rush in and start arming people.'

Sources also told The Daily Beast of Gutierrez-Reed's 'unsafe' mistakes on The Old Way set saying she had handed a gun to 11-year-old actress Ryan Kiera Armstrong.

The source said: 'She was a bit careless with the guns, waving it around every now and again. There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.'

The insider added that they had seen her loading a gun on pebble strewn ground, which has the potential to be dangerous, before handing off the gun to Armstrong.

'She was reloading the gun on the ground, where there were pebbles and stuff,' the source said. 'We didn't see her check it, we didn't know if something got in the barrel or not.'

Gutierrez-Reed herself admitted that she wasn't sure she was ready for the job in an interview after filming for The Old Way wrapped.

'It was also my first time being head armorer as well. You know, I was really nervous about it at first, and I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly.'

She continued: 'The best part about my job is just showing people who are normally kind of freaked out by guns how safe they can be and how they're not really problematic unless put in the wrong hands.'

She also admitted in the podcast interview that she found loading blanks into a gun to be 'the scariest' thing because she did not know how to do it and had sought help from her father, legendary gunsmith Thell Reed, to get over the fear.

According to her LinkedIn page, she worked as a videographer at Synth Fire, a California-based news and media company, and as a documentary filmmaker for the City of Flagstaff in Arizona.

She worked as an armorer for Yellowstone film ranch between March and June 2021, but according to the page stopped working there three months before filming for Rust started in October.

Gutierrez-Reed had only recently left Northern Arizona university, where she studied creative media and film between 2017 and 2020.

She was spotted for the first time since the deadly incident outside her home in Bullhead City, Arizona.

On October 21, a female cinematographer was killed and the director was injured when assistant director Dave Halls handed Baldwin a prop gun that Gutierrez-Reed loaded with live ammunition.

A Santa Fe County Sheriff Department spokesman said: 'The investigation remains active and open. Witnesses continue to be interviewed and evidence collected.'

In addition to the criminal probe, New Mexico's Occupational Health and Safety Bureau is investigating Hutchins' death, and could impose civil penalties even if no charges are brought in the case.

'Our state OSHA program is investigating this,' Rebecca Roose, deputy cabinet secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department,' told Deadline.

'The state takes all workplace safety issues very seriously and will work diligently through our investigation of this tragic fatality.'

They're untrustworthy at best. If something's been widely reported, you don't need/shouldn't use it as a source.

I thought it was the DailyMail, but this piece was straightforwardly reported so I figured I was wrong. For what it's worth, I went with this one because - against character - it was actually less tabloid-y than other reports of the same incident. Every other one I found really focused almost exclusively on the "Nicolas Cage got mad" part and less on the implications of that.

Anyhow, good call.

To be clear, they scolded her for not doing two jobs at once. In my view, the question isn't "why is Baldwin being charged?" but rather "why isn't everybody who acted in a supervisory capacity on this film being charged?"

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-01-28/rust-emails-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed

In email exchange before shooting, ‘Rust’ armorer said she needed to focus on weapons, not props

BY MEG JAMESSTAFF WRITER
JAN. 28, 2022 9:23 PM PT

A week before Alec Baldwin fatally shot the cinematographer of “Rust,” the film’s 24-year-old armorer was reprimanded for leaving guns unattended on set and for failing to sufficiently juggle two important roles, emails show.

The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, had been hired to perform two jobs on the low-budget western: the armorer in charge of guns and gun safety, and also an assistant to the prop master, who was in charge of the props used to simulate 1880s Kansas on the movie set south of Santa Fe, N.M.

On Oct. 14, the film’s line producer, Gabrielle Pickle, scolded Gutierrez Reed in an email reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, saying the production office had received complaints that two shotguns had been left unattended on the set. Pickle also took Gutierrez Reed to task for allegedly not doing enough to support the film’s prop master, Sarah Zachry.

“We hired you as both Armor and Key Assistant Props,” Pickle wrote in the Oct. 14 email, according to a copy shared with The Times. “It has been brought to my attention that you are focusing far more on Armor and not supporting props as needed.”

Gutierrez Reed protested the demand that she devote more time to her props role, saying she needed to pay attention to gun safety.

“Since we’ve started, I’ve had a lot of days where my job should only be to focus on the guns and everyone’s safety,” Gutierrez Reed wrote, noting that on gun-heavy days during the filming, the assistant props role “has to take a back seat. Live fire arms on set is absolutely my priority.”

“When I’m forced to do both , that’s when mistakes get made,” Gutierrez Reed wrote.

Other emails viewed by The Times also showed producers tried to ensure that safety protocols were followed when a child actor was using guns during the filming.

A spokesman for Third Shift Media, Pickle’s employer, declined to provide a comment Friday night. A spokesperson for Rust Movie Productions also declined to comment. Pickle could not be reached for comment.

The email exchanges shed more light on the tensions and safety concerns on the Bonanza Creek Ranch set in the days before Oct. 21, when Baldwin accidentally shot the film’s cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who died later that afternoon, and director Joel Souza, who survived.

The fatal shooting has become a rallying cry in the film industry for safer sets.

According to law enforcement documents, during a rehearsal the film’s assistant director, Dave Halls, had handed Baldwin a replica of a vintage Colt .45 pistol, pronouncing it “cold,” meaning there was no ammunition inside. But the gun contained dummy rounds, and at least one lead bullet.

Gutierrez Reed, according to affidavits filed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, had loaded the weapons that day, but she told sheriff’s detectives that she didn’t realize that actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that day.

Gutierrez Reed told sheriff’s detectives that although she checked Baldwin’s gun that day before the unscheduled rehearsal, she “didn’t really check it too much,” because the weapon had been locked in a safe during a lunch break.

She also complained to deputies that she was stretched too thin performing her props role and was unaware that a rehearsal was taking place.

Santa Fe County authorities have not said where the live bullets came from. Law enforcement officials previously have said their investigation is focusing on the actions of Gutierrez Reed, Halls and Baldwin.

The Oct. 14 exchange with Pickle, who was the producers’ point person in charge of the day-to-day production, underscores how the young women in the props department, with limited experience, were struggling to keep up with the pace of the film’s production.

Other emails shared with The Times showed a second email conversation on Oct. 14.

In this exchange, second assistant director Tim Barrera asked Gutierrez Reed to explain what ammunition was being used. He wanted to know the decibel level of the shots so that the team could determine whether one of the child actors would need to wear ear protection during practice and shooting scenes. The assistant director also asked if Gutierrez Reed was present when the child actor was using his gun and whether any misfires had occurred.

“Do you check the barrel?” Barrera asked.

“Yeah as Armorer, it’s my job is to be present when all actors fire,” Gutierrez Reed wrote in the Oct. 14 message. “Misfires haven’t happened on any of my sets. I always check barrels, rip Brandon lee.”

Barrera declined to comment.

Brandon Lee, son of the late kung fu star Bruce Lee, died on the set of the movie “The Crow” in 1993, after a prop gun discharged an actual bullet.

The morning of the fatal shooting, several members of the camera crew walked off the set, in protest of a lack of housing accommodations in Santa Fe, a rushed film schedule and two accidental discharges the weekend before the tragedy. Most of the camera crew members live in Albuquerque, about 50 miles away from the ranch, which has long served as a popular movie location.

The email exchange between Pickle and Gutierrez Reed was first mentioned in a podcast, “America’s Untold Stories.”

Several crew members, including the gaffer Serge Svetnoy, complained about lax gun safety in the days before the fatal accident, when Baldwin aimed the gun at Hutchins during a rehearsal for a scene in an old wooden church. Hutchins was setting up a scene, in which the camera lens would stare down the barrel of the gun.

“The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger,” Baldwin said during an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them.”

One veteran prop master previously told The Times that he declined offers to join the film’s crew, in part, because he was concerned about producers’ insistence to combine two important jobs — armorer and props assistant — saying “this is an accident waiting to happen.”

i've already conceded that i could see Baldwin being held liable as a PRODUCER.

i don't see him being held liable like someone who was playing w/ a gun in their house and shot their friend aka the direct party (it probably doesn't matter in the eyes of the law if i'm guessing).

also, these links make me think it should be this Line Producer, Pickle, who should be charged here, not Baldwin.

if she was making her do jobs that took her attention away from the job that actually had deadly consequences if not done correctly, that seems more negligent than anything Baldwin did.

The link in the original post doesn't mention the fact that Baldwin and the armorer will be charged.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/entertainment/rust-movie-shooting-alec-baldwin-charges-decision/index.html

"Actor Alec Baldwin, who fatally shot a cinematographer on the set of the Western movie “Rust” in 2021, and the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors said Thursday."

I'm not gonna pretend to know the ins & outs of the movie industry regarding weapons. But I think the meat of this case will be the responsibilities and processes that an armorer in the industry is supposed to follow.

Do they test the gun before handing it to the actor? Is there a double checking process? What instructions are given to the actor when they're handed a weapon?

They're charging Baldwin as a producer, because maybe they think "He hired the armorer and the armorer was negligent so therefore as the armorer's boss he was negligent."

But they have to prove he hired someone unqualified or there he received reports/incidents/evidence the armorer was proven or highly suspected of being negligent before this happened and he had a responsibility to correct him or to fire him. We don't even know if Alec Baldwin hired or was responsible for the hiring of the armorer.

This seems like a SUPEER THIN SHIT SHOW right now, but maybe there's some compelling evidence they haven't shared with the public that will show these things they are asserting.

If not it sounds like the theory from the processors (and here) of "the transitive property of negligence." And that property goes up and down and EVERYONE in the chain is responsible - except for the other producers somehow.

of work that indicated they knew what the hell they were doing?

not sure how that translates to holding Baldwin accountable even as a producer.

but, we'll see i guess.

I’m not sure if AB should be charged, but even in a vanity “producer” credit - producers are 1000% responsible for the safety on set. This set CLEARLY cut corners. Someone has to be responsible.

>even in a vanity
>“producer” credit - producers are 1000% responsible for
>the safety on set.

I have no idea if he is (or should be) criminally liable. I absolutely think every producer on this movie can and should be held liable in a court - but does that mean being charged with involuntary MANSLAUGHTER? I dont know - I'm not a lawyer.

That makes sense to me. Being morally certain than legally certain strikes me as more important anyhow. I just wish those things were congruent more often. Generally, not with you - obviously.

happen. It seems to me like it only takes ONE thing to go wrong for this to happen, that is, the gun person handing an actor a gun with a live round when the gun is supposed to only have dummy bullets.

I think maybe Alec Baldwin as a producer could have hired someone who wasn't qualified for the job. I am not sure that's the case.

I guess if Alec Baldwin as an actor was handed a gun with a live round and ignored the armorer who said be careful with that, yeah that would be another thing.

Maybe there are some details like that will come out of it.

I think of it like this, if a production flew actors to a location and the plane crashed, would the producers be criminally responsible?

I say maybe if the producers hired an airline or pilot they knew or should have known to be substandard.

Or if the airline said they had too much weight to fly and the producers insisted they fly anyway and the plane crash a la Alliyah.

But if the producers put the actors on a regular delta flight? I don't see it.

Again, I could be missing something.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

In a post-Brandon Lee world, gun safety on set is paramount. And while live rounds could have gotten in the gun for any reason - as others have said in this post, you don’t fire blanks at someone directly. The gun handler/armorer doesn’t decide what the director/DP want to do - but nobody should be firing at a manned camera. It’s a pretty hardline rule.

So then you’ve got 2 pretty obvious problems with safety on your set. Bad shit happens on sets all the time - not criminally bad or something that causes death, but accidents that can really hurt someone. That always comes back onto the top line producers. When someone breaks their foot on set due to unsafe working conditions, it falls on the production and producers.

Everything I’ve read about this set, including not putting crew up in hotels, speaks to an incredibly poorly run set. It was a TON of errors that were all preventable.

instance is hire a gun wrangler (or whatever you call it) who isn't qualified for the job.

I mean, I guess another scenario would be if he were on set and the safety people were like, we need more time to setup the shot for safety precautions, and he was like, "Fuzz that I am AB. We have to shoot this scene now or your fired!"

Yeah I can see that as well. But short of that or hiring someone that had no business being in charge of guns, I have a hard time seeing how you hold someone criminally liable for an accident like this.

The producers should definitely be held civilly liable, but jail? IDK.

John Landis shot a movie that was crazy dangerous and cut off 3 people's heads including kids and he directly gave a direction (for the helicopter to fly lower) and he escaped criminal conviction. To this day I think its insanely wild they still released the Twilight Zone movie . That's callous AF.


Kind of interesting when you look at manslaughter in the New Mexico Code it includes "the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

I don't know how that plays out in court, but that's a crazy broad definition that sounds pretty close to any negligent death being grounds for manslaughter charges.

Compare that to VA where Involuntary Manslaughter is defined to include "the conduct of the defendant was so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life". Like that's a much higher and tougher standard to prove.


IDK. We know AB can be a tyrant so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out he was rampaging and pushing the shot to get done even if the safety precautions weren't in place.

But I also wouldn't be surprised if this case was going forward because Alex Baldwin is known for being a loudmouth liberal in conservative New Mexico.










**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

not sure why this isnt practiced on movies sets. meaning, no one should be behind the camera while a gun is pointed at it.

Because in a movie context the point is you are aiming guns at people and pulling the trigger, which you would never do in real life unless you mean to shoot someone.

Like if you want to get an image of a person aiming their gun at the camera and shooting, you would have an actor aim at the camera (and camera man) for the shot.



>not sure why this isnt practiced on movies sets. meaning, no
>one should be behind the camera while a gun is pointed at it.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

of course if its in the script for a gun to be pointed at an ACTOR, there is no way around it.

ANYONE ELSE on set has no business in the line of fire. camera man included.

like, i'm sure to get certain shots, the cameraman/woman is in the line of fire.

unless there's some industry standard where if they need a certain shot/angle, they have to use some sort of automated camera.

I agree with the first manslaughter charge, which is a fourth degree
felony. That charge must prove that a death occurred due to
negligent and reckless behavior. If convicted, up to 18 months of
jail time and up to a 5000.00 fine can be sentenced. I believe it can
be proven that the persons who were charged were negligent
in their actions….

But the second involuntary manslaughter charge?

No way. That charge is way more serious and extreme than the first one. That
charge must prove that more than just simple negligence led to a death. There
is also an enhancement charge added because a firearm was involved
in the crime. A mandatory sentencing of 5 years in prison comes with
the enhancement charge if found guilty.

That charge insinuates that there were other motivating factors involved, and it just
appears to me that the prosecutor is pushing some underlying agenda with that charge.
The gun wasn’t used unlawfully. It was used in a legal situation, because permits
are required to use a gun on a film set. It’s just that negligence occurred with the use
of the gun, which led to a death.

I wouldn’t even attach recklessness to it, because it wasn’t as if the defendants were
wildly playing around with the gun, or using the gun in an unlawful manner. It’s a
situation where the gun wasn’t properly and throughly checked for live rounds.

It was an accident that could have been avoided….but nonetheless it was an accident.

However, the question I still have is how did the live rounds get on set?

The attorney for the armorer thinks the set could have been sabotaged
by a crew worker who was not pleased with the working conditions, and
replaced the blank ammunition with live ammunition.

I understand that he is being charged in the alternative, meaning its up to the jury to decide which of the two charges he is guilty of, but its all involuntary manslaughter and it really doesn't have anything to do with intent.

I just don't understand the difference between (a) a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or (b) a lawful act which might produce death without due caution and circumspection.


Reading more it sounds like the case against AB as an actor is based on the idea that he was also responsible for checking the gun to see whether it had a live round and not just rely on the armorer.

I think AB lawyers bring in 50 expert witnesses that say most actors never do that and don't know ish about guns.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

evidence and information that was collected. They threw the book at both defendants.

Even though the armorer sounds incompetent and seems like a careless person,
I still think the prosecutor is going to have a hard time getting a guilty verdict.

Again, how did live rounds get on the set when the armorer and actor thought they
we’re working with dummy and blank rounds?

Were they intentionally planted? Did the manufacturer of the fake rounds accidentally
include them while packing them?

The defendants attorneys are going to push that loudly and constantly during the court
case.

John Landis faced something similar, where a death occurred on his movie set due
to negligence, but he was acquitted on all charges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD_YNnuKUSQ&t=841s&ab_channel=CrimeCircus

She really comes off as completely incompetent and waaaay too casual to have such a critical job.

yikes.

That’s the armorer??

Forgive my judgmental action, but she looks like a high schooler. I
was expecting to see someone with a more mature presence, especially given her
name. Her body language and expressions are just too relaxed for me.

Armorers are supposed to be highly trained weapon handlers and masters. She doesn’t
come off as being such a person.

It definitely gives more perspective to the situation. Fuck. I take back everything I
posted.

Who in the fock hired her and continued to work with her?

>Armorers are supposed to be highly trained weapon handlers and
>masters. She doesn’t
>come off as being such a person.

Probably doesn't shoot, doesn't like guns and only has the job because her dad has connections, a great collection of firearms and whatever permits are needed to rent them out for movies.

She talks like one of those people that call magazines "clips" and then get all mad when you try to correct them.

more like

#White
#Woman
#WhiteWoman

L.A. is not California, fam. LOL

Which kind of explains how someone so not up to snuff got such a job.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and i know very little about guns/ammo, but it seemed like she knew very little too.

unless she was just annoyed of having to explain herself, it seemed like she wasn't very knowledgeable about how to tell dummy rounds from live rounds, etc.

not a good look at all.

Like the body language and how she is talking is terrible but also seems very typical for her generation.

Like a white guy who sat up, dressed better and said "yes mam" would read as more professional and having more expertise for all superficial reasons.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

For all we know she took a bottle of tranquilizers right before the interview, just to get through it.

I can't be arsed to sit through it all so she might incriminate herself in some other way, but the reactions to the video (not just here) seem very kneejerk.

lol

based on an hour long video.

Haven't heard anyone discuss what she actually said. The commentary has been on her demeanor and look.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

from what i saw, it seems like she wasn't confident about her knowledge of her job. just my amateur opinion.

what she says over an hour is not how she presents.

but also what she says is pretty suspect too.