Prosecutors accuse Rust producers of obstructing investigation into Halyna Hutchins’ death
An early hearing in the trial of Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed led to accusations of obstruction or interference against Alec Baldwin and other producers
Aux News Halyna Hutchins
Prosecutors may have officially moved on from efforts to convict actor and producer Alec Baldwin of any criminal culpability in the 2021 death of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, but that doesn’t mean they’re done lobbing accusations at the low-budget Western’s producers. In a hearing today, attached to the trial of Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed—the only person currently facing charges in Hutchins’ death, after charges against Baldwin were dropped in April—the prosecutors laid in to the Rust producers, saying that they have “either intervened, interfered, or obstructed the criminal investigation in this case,” with special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey stating that “This entire tragedy occurred because Rust Productions cut corners every chance they could, and they hired inexperienced and ill-equipped crew members.”
Per Deadline, the hearing in question, which was livestreamed to the public earlier today, put at least some of the focus back on Baldwin, as prosecutors attempted to suss out what role he had as a producer on the movie, and, presumably, whether he was involved in the alleged corner-cutting that might have contributed to Hutchins’ death. Prosecutors are seeking documents about the behind-the-scenes workings of the film, which producers have rejected on the grounds that the request is “burdensome.”
For Baldwin’s part, he has long contended that he never pulled the trigger on the revolver that went off in his hand during a rehearsal on October 21, 2021, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza, with the actor instead putting his ire and focus on the question of why a live bullet was on the movie’s set in the first place. (A question that has faced a lot of attention over the last two years, and is likely to be a major element of Gutierrez-Reed’s trial.) Charges against the actor were dropped at least in part because of ongoing confusion surrounding the forensic examination of the weapon, which was reportedly damaged during some of the initial tests.
Gutierrez-Reed is currently facing charges of involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering. Her trial proper is set to begin in February of 2024.
35 Comments
Here’s some gun safety tips for Baldwin and any other human being: if you MUST touch a gun first confirm that there are no bullets of any kind in the gun. If you see a bullet of any kind, put the gun down and don’t touch the gun again. Thank you.
When you rent a car, and you sign a contract with a company whose entire job it is to provide cars to people, do you get under the body and verify for yourself that the breaks work?
What Baldwin did was the equivalent of steering that rental car toward someone and slamming the gas pedal to the floor for funsies. Then when that person died, he shouted “There was’t supposed to be gas in the car!”You don’t need to give a car a full inspection to know goofing around like that is reckless behavior.
How is acting in a movie “goofing around like that”? Personally, I think my favorite goof is Ian McKellen.
The shooting didn’t happen during filming. Baldwin was just messing around on set when the gun was fired.
Everything I’ve read says they were rehearsing a draw, which is why the cinematographer and other crew were there. It’s not like the only time he’s working is when the camera’s on.If it’s come out that that wasn’t the case, cool, could you point me to that info? I agree that if he was just pointing it and going “pew pew” between takes, that’s a different scenario. Otherwise, I think it’s disingenuous to refer to this as “messing around.”
It is the least surprising thing in the world that you believe a completely fabricated story posted on the internet the day of the incident despite the thousands of articles after reporting facts that completely disprove it, simply because you get such a chub for anything you can theoretically own a lib with.
Brakes. Are cars a tool designed to kill people? There was no mechanical defect in the real gun that was used to kill a person being used in a movie that glorifies the use of guns to kill people, even if it may demonize those who use guns – which would be ironic. He was not handed a gun by the armorer; why did he accept it?
So, it sounds like you understood my metaphor, but you’re drawing a distinction between the intended usage of cars and guns. I think they’re both pieces of machinery that can kill people if they’re misused..or correctly used, in the case of a gun! But clearly that wasn’t the intended function of that gun on this movie set. I think your point has more bearing on whether guns should be used to film movies (I don’t think they should.)I don’t know the particulars of the chain of custody, or whatever, for guns on movie sets. I have read variously that he was supposed to get it from the AD or from the armorer. Regardless, my subjective opinion as a professional non-lawyer is that an actor believing the word of an AD or an armorer as to a gun being unloaded does not rise to the level of criminal negligence.
Holy balls — I’m in my thirties and did not realize it’s brakes vs breaks. I don’t think I’ve ever read or written it before. I need to read more books about cars, I suppose.
A car is not a gun. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of a gun is violent, rapid death. Baldwin’s union contract and basic bleeping sense required him to check the gun. George Clooney has said publicly that he always checks the gun. If Baldwin had checked the gun his “friend” would not be dead. He should have checked the gun. It takes thirty seconds to check the gun if you are inexperienced, as I and (I assume) Balwin are.
I think it’s clear that I was arguing Baldwin doesn’t shoulder the ultimate responsibility here since (in this very particular setting and nowhere else) actors are supposed to depend on others to tell them that a gun is empty, loaded with blanks, etc. I don’t agree that “common sense required him to check it” if the field uses a different set of conventions. (Incredibly, this is my opinion even in the face of George Clooney doing something else.)
If you think that’s a poorly designed system, hey, that’s fine. I think movies probably shouldn’t film with guns period. But please spare me the sanctimonious “a car is not a gun” spiel as though you don’t understand how metaphors work.
It is a bad analogy (it’s not a metaphor at all). Many people, including Baldwin, bare the ultimate responsibility for this killing as many people, including Baldwin, did not do their jobs. The movie industry norm is that multiple people are supposed to check the gun to reduce the chances that no one checks it properly. In this case, everyone failed. Here’s another analogy: a loaded gun is (also) NOT a girl that you should not sexually harass. The game is NOT to see how close you can come to doing the wrong thing without actually doing the wrong thing. If a seventeen-year-old girl was a loaded gun, then you cannot even look at her or say hello or ask her name. Once you know she’s 17, then you cannot interact in any way. So you look at her Birth Certificate and then pretend she does not exist. Because this is life and death and the cinematographer is NOT in a better place. She is gone. Forever. Get serious FFS and take your “Balwin really tried” to follow the rules BS somewhere else.
You should stick 2 just starring things, because this is an insipid comment, and the rest of your argument is bad and wrong.
Oh, damn, you’re right. It is an analogy. Well, live and learn.I am hearing your profound anger and rage about gun violence, and I understand your wish to hold people responsible. That said, I don’t appreciate your implication that I don’t care or have sympathy re: Hutchins’ death just because I’m not handing out trite advice to never touch a loaded gun ever (I assume this is what you were going for with your <17 thing above?) Baldwin the actor (as opposed to Baldwin the producer) also got hosed here, and it’s got nothing to do with him “really trying.”
Obviously, he got hosed to a smaller extent than fucking dying! But acting as though only the person who suffered most in a situation is worthy of sympathy is using the emotional reasoning of a child.He was given a gun. The authority on set loudly proclaimed that it was a cold gun. He was not supposed to check the gun under the safety protocols of this movie, i.e. it’s a safe gun! It’s been checked by two people! He was working with his co-creatives on practicing how to draw for this silly little Western they were filming and it killed one of them. He gets to live with that every day. Can you imagine? Poor bastard.^ (I am predicting your response to this as “I can’t imagine, because I would never pick up a gun and not check it.” That’s fine. But maybe just try to work those empathy muscles and see where it gets you.)
The news reported that the gun had been for target practice (i.e. for funsies) on set. Whatever person took out a prop gun and put live rounds in it to dick around should face serious legal repercussions.Other people were also supposed to check the gun. The
AD and armorer who were supposed to check the gun but did not realize
it contained live ammunition should face serious legal repercussions.The producers hired a guy with a history of unsafe behavior and someone with virtually no experience to manage the prop guns. I don’t know how legal liability works for that. Subjectively, I think they bear some moral responsibility but not as much the AD and armorer.
Checking a gun for objects in the chambers is a BASIC safety rule, taught in every gun shop, military unit and shooting range throughout the world and by every gun organization throughout the world, including the NRA. Checking the gun’s chambers for objects is also in Baldwin’s union contract and it was in his contract when he pulled the trigger on a loaded gun and killed Ms Hutchins. Weather or not I have sympathy for Baldwin is of ZERO importance. Being an actor, and playing the child’s game of pretend for a living does not and CANNOT protect you from real adult consequences in the real, adult world. If you cannot accept the UNAVOIDABLE consequences of handling a deadly weapon, by taking 30 seconds to check that weapon, then like a child you should be prevented and forbidden from handling deadly weapons.
Well, now that you’ve used all caps for several words, you’ve convinced me.Snark aside, I’m including a link to an NYT article where said union states the “prosecutor’s contention that an actor has a duty to ensure the
functional and mechanical operation of a firearm on a production set is
wrong and uninformed,” adding that “an actor’s job is not to be a
firearms or weapons expert.”Anyway, I think we can all agree this is a tragedy and that we all hope for some regulations with fucking teeth (or the cessation of filming with guns) to prevent it from happening again
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/arts/alec-baldwin-manslaughter-rust.html
The union contract states that an actor has the RIGHT (since you find all-caps convincing) rather than the DUTY to protect themselves and others by checking the gun. Baldwin chose not to exercise that right in order to save 30 seconds of time and money. He may not be legally culpable but he is certainly morally culpable. This tragedy occured in a country where a toddler accidentally shoots and kills someone every week. We as a country do not take gun safety seriously. Baldwin getting away with killing his cinematographer is such an egregious example of this that I would move abroad if I could.
Alright, you’re totally right, and this was a good conversation.
What a kind thing to say. I enjoyed it too. Your criticisms were constructive and sometimes funny. I take it from some of your other comments that you are a teacher. That is good news. 🙂
The actor is not one of those people, so he wouldn’t bare responsibility. And your attempt at a comparison is fucking stupid.
Baldwin’s union contract […] required him to check the gunThis is the first time I’ve ever read that. Where was that reported?It takes thirty seconds to check the gun if you are inexperiencedHave you ever worked on a film set? That’s thirty seconds holding up production multiplied by every time the gun is handed to him. That’s exactly the kind of lag time that’s supposed to be eliminated by procedures like, “Having an experienced armorer on set” and “having the AD check the gun and announce ‘cold gun’ before handing the gun to the lead.” The same procedures that have been shown to work as long as they’re actually followed.
I don’t know what Alec Baldwin knows, but I wouldn’t know the difference between a bullet and a blank. I also wouldn’t know how to check a gun for a bullet, as I’ve never touched any gun.
It’s not his job to do that, nor is it his responsibility. What he did was dumb AF, absolutely, but EVERYTHING on set involving weapons is the sole responsibility of the armorer. There was some real BS happening on set in regards to the weapons, apparently. The armorer is young, dumb, inexperienced, and above all unprofessional. This is what happens when you have a situation where lives are dependent on safety and the studio hired someone who was clearly not appropriate for the job.
If you see a “blank” or any other object of any kind in any of the chambers then you should put down the gun and not touch it again.
Here is some advice for you: learn anything, literally ANYTHING about how guns are used in movies before spouting your idiotic ignorance.
Please don’t give “tips” like this. It’s a movie production, he didn’t accidently shoot her at a party trying to show off. Different rules.
Baldwin’s union contract and basic bleeping sense required him to check the gun. George Clooney has said publicly that he always checks the gun. If Baldwin had checked the gun his “friend” would not be dead. He should have checked the gun. It takes thirty seconds to check the gun if you are inexperienced, as I and (I assume) Balwin are. If you are not a sociopath you. should. ALWAYS. CHECK. THE. GUN.
How many thousands of movies you think were made with actors that knew little about guns? There was a procedure and it failed. It wouldn’t fall on him. It really isn’t that hard of a concept.
No it fucking doesn’t require him to check the gun. Stop being a moron and think before you write.
Doesn’t seem like the police did a bang-up job of investigating the cause of a preventable death here.
This is rich. The prosecutor here was too busy preening on Fox News about how she had “gotten” Alec Baldwin and didn’t do a competent investigation. Now, they’re trying to deflect blame. It’s extremely likely the production cut corners and behaved in an unsafe manner. But the prosecutor was absolutely trying to score political points with the MAGA crowd.
Yeah, it’s kind of telling that in a criminal prosecution of one person for their negligent handling of a firearm that was under their care, the prosecutors are more interested in digging up dirt on the person who hired them.Especially when they already tried to go after that person and failed.Shows where their priorities are.
Is it weird that they’re live-streaming this? Do they live-stream all of their hearings?
This prosecutor accidentally charged Baldwin with a law that was not in effect at the time of the incident. They need to be fired, the entire department needs to be fired, the idea that anybody would take their accusations seriously is a joke, the whole thing is a joke, the investigation is more of a travesty than the incident.
which producers have rejected on the grounds that the request is “burdensome.”
Really?? So it’s like that?