Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was the on-set armorer for the film Rust when a firearm discharged a real bullet and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
Aux News Reed
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the on-set armorer during the tragic Rust shooting, has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, per The Los Angeles Times. The decision comes after days of depressing and frustrating testimony from those on the production. The New Mexico jury deliberated for two hours before handing down the verdict, following 10 days of testimony. The jury characterized her actions as “willful disregard” for safety procedures. Gutierrez-Reed faces up to 18 months in prison.
Gutierrez-Reed was charged with manslaughter and evidence tampering after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed when a firearm held by Alec Baldwin was discharged on the set of the independent film Rust. The trial painted two different versions of Gutierrez-Reed. The defense argued the armorer is a “scapegoat for all the management failures.” The prosecution said that she was everything from hungover to having a “complete lack of understanding of her role of safety on this movie set.” Prosecutors placed all blame for the killing on Gutierrez-Reed’s shoulders, arguing that she was responsible for checking the rounds inside a gun held by Alec Baldwin. Baldwin faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and 18 months in prison if found guilty.
Gutierrez-Reed’s trial was two weeks of heart-wrenching testimony, revealing the array of oversights and mistakes that led to a tragically preventable accident. The defense argued that Gutierrez-Reed was placed in an unwinnable position on set. Producers expected Gutierrez-Reed, an inexperienced armorer on her first solo job, to also perform the role of prop assistant, which she was contracted for that day. Technically, she wasn’t a working armorer on the day of the shooting and was being paid as a prop assistant. Furthermore, being that it’s an independent production, she was often rushed through gun safety measures. For example, Gutierrez-Reed testified that the first assistant director, Dave Halls, told her, “We don’t have time” for a weapons check on the day of the shooting. Last year, Halls took a plea deal and has fulfilled his six months of unsupervised probation.
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation determined that Gutierrez-Reed could not be expected to “conduct her duties to the best of diligence.”
“The employer is asking an individual to perform multiple safety-related functions for them while also telling them that they’re spending too much time engaging in those safety-related functions,” said OSHA investigator Lorenzo Montoya.
In closing arguments, prosecutors argued that her entire job was safety, arguing that if Gutierrez-Reed knew Mr. Baldwin was “loose,” as special prosecutor Kerri Morrisey characterized the situation, then “it’s her job to say to an A-List actor, if that’s what you want to call him, ‘Hey, you can’t behave that way with those firearms.’” Undoubtedly, the historically very chill Alec Baldwin would’ve listened to a lowly, underpaid, inexperienced armorer on her first real job. Ultimately, though, the jury sided with Morrisey’s arguments.
“Hannah Gutierrez loaded live ammunition into a firearm,” Morrissey said. “The astonishing lack of diligence with regard to gun safety is, without question, a significant cause of the death of Halyna Hutchins.”
Morrisey, who also indicted Baldwin in the shooting, condemned his behavior, too. His trial is set to begin on July 9.
“Alec Baldwin’s conduct and his lack of gun safety in the church that day is something he’s going to have to answer for,” she said. “Not with you, not today. That’s for another jury for another day.”
95 Comments
Baldwin…
He probably has better (read: more expensive) lawyers.
Better lawyers yes, but also a better defense. The way to enforce gun safety on a set is to hire someone specifically to be in charge of enforcing gun safety on set – which was Gutierrez-Reed. The burden to put criminal responsibility on Baldwin will be higher.
He pointed at a person and he squeezed. Negligent even if the gun wasn’t loaded. He’s going to be convicted.
Well, to hire someone qualified and then make sure they have the time and resources to do their job properly, anyway.
I think this will be more complicated because there’s Alec Baldwin as the actor who pulled the trigger, who would be accountable to the armorer and expected to bow to her expertise, and Alec Baldwin as a producer who contributed to the lax and disorganized safety environment on set, including hiring an underqualified and overworked first time armorer for the job and not actually giving her the authority or the resources to succeed.If he were just the actor Alec Baldwin, his defense might be better. As it is, I’m not so sure.
That’s not really how a “producer,” is defined. Each “producer,” you see has a specific responsibility or responsibilities in regards to the production. And they’re specifically in the contracts, and listed in the guilds. An Associate Producer is not the producer’s assistant. Executive Producers aren’t necessarily actual executives.Baldwin, as Executive Producer, is responsible mostly for funding via his involvement. Nowhere in his duties is he expected to know the competence of the professionals on set at all time. Nor was it his job to supervise anyone else such as the armorer.
“The producer should know what’s going on,” is only spoken by people who don’t understand how movies are made. There are several producers because one person can’t know everything or manage everything.The Executive Producer rarely, if ever, even goes to the set. Their job is an office gig. They’re doing the money stuff. Most producers never see the set. They have other jobs to do, and “producer,” doesn’t just mean management. Alec Baldwin was on set because he was there as an actor. He may be executive producer, but that role doesn’t make him the on-set supervisor. Nor does it make him the CEO responsible for everything that happens. These are specific titles for a reason. The Executive Producer, believe it or not, doesn’t have carte blanche to assume responsibilities that are explicitly someone else’s job.
Yes, these are all great points. I assume you work in the industry? (I only ask because I do too). Film productions have so much potential to be messy. So many producers running around on set overseeing everything, with different teams on different days. And if there’s failed communication literally anywhere, the whole thing falls apart. In this case, it led to the death, and that absolutely is a problem.But because of the nature of production itself, it becomes difficult to pinpoint exactly what went wrong – because, more often than not, multiple things go wrong due to hiccups and oversights and financial bullshit, all caused by lots and lots of people. Picking one guilty party isn’t sufficient, even though it may be satisfying in the eyes of the public.And I do feel bad for the armorer – she was clearly in way over her head and was, like, 24 when it all went down. Most people just getting out of college are PAs at most – maybe coordinators, if they’re lucky. Obviously there was some pull because her family was in the industry. But looking back at my own time on set as a 24 year old, I didn’t know shit. And that’s absolutely one of the many oversights that occured on the production.But multiple things can be true at once. She can both a scapegoat AND guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There’s so much nuance to this case, and the only hope we can have moving forward is that the family receives some closure for what happened, and that sets will continue to improve their safety standards. (This is a long way of saying your comment is important to understanding the nuance of this case lol)
Yeah, but the testimony and the swiftness of this jury doesn’t look good for Alec. If he doesn’t change his plea, he’s going to prison for a few months.
I think he’ll ultimately get off on criminal charges but it’s going to be a big, loud trial getting plenty of attention for the prosecutors.
I actually think this helps him. Someone else has been found guilty of negligence and I think a jury will buy the fact that even if he HAD decided to check the gun, which isn’t his job, is an actor supposed to be able to tell the difference between prop and real rounds?
She deserves some kind of punishment for her failures and role in this tragedy. But this doesn’t necessarily feel like justice when there were indeed catastrophic management failures that created the environment and circumstances that lead to this tragedy as well. And I strongly suspect Gutierrez-Reed is the only one who will suffer any real consequences, besides Hall’s insultingly light sentence.
I am hoping this will serve as a deterrent to beginner armorers taking jobs they are unqualified for and give them the backbone to say “No!” to unsafe requests. While I don’t expect a big public production, I do expect a bunch of Hollywood union members will bring this up in private conversations about why it’s a bad idea to skirt unions to get around union workplace rules.For that same reason I think Baldwin should also be found guilty for skirting unions to get around union workplace rules. In addition, actor or not, everyone handling an actual firearm with the intention of operating it is responsible for personally verifying the condition of the weapon and not aiming it at anyone until they do. Not doing so is negligent. Since this movie, a personal project for Baldwin, is focused on the use of lethal weapons and their place in some slice of society, it is doubly the case that Baldwin should know this. I don’t know an effective defense for Baldwin no matter how smart or expensive his lawyers are. Like for Gutierrez-Reed, convicting Baldwin may send a message to actors to take responsibility for ensuring the handling of firearms is safe. If an actor can gain or lose 50 pounds, learn ballet or martial arts or sword fighting, then they can learn gun safety.
In another story on this, one commenter made an observation I agree with, which is that Gutierez-Reed probably did have enough practical experience to do her job… but not enough life experience to, as you suggested, say “No!” to unsafe requests. I don’t know the law well enough to figure if there’s something other than manslaughter that Baldwin may be guilty of. He’s certainly guilty of something, in my mind, as a producer, vis-a-vis the unsafe working conditions and environment. Should he have known/assumed the gun was loaded? I don’t know. I’m a reluctant gun owner myself, and handle my own firearm with a painfully monotonous but necessary degree of care. Even when I “know” it isn’t loaded, I behave as if it is. I don’t know what the expectations are on a movie set. At minimum, hopefully this puts an end to the cost-cutting tact of using actual working firearms in film productions.
I don’t know about the producer liability, but looking at it from a general business perspective, is it the fault of a senior executive if someone further down the org chart hires someone who turns out to be dangerously bad at their job? I just don’t see it as a criminal offense. Civil liability for the entire production company? Definitely.
A movie production isn’t comparable to a “general business,” that way. Being a producer doesn’t make you suddenly The Boss, responsible for literally everything. Producers have specific responsibilities and are not just like upper management in some company.Sure, hold the company liable. But it’s ridiculous to say that Baldwin as a person deserves criminal punishment. Too many people seem think his job title gives him responsibility it doesn’t and never did. His title isn’t a broad catch-all name for The Boss. It comes with limitations.
Which is exactly where I was going. Plus I’m willing to bet Baldwin was a producer in the “give me the title and I’ll help you raise the funding” sense, like many name actors. It would be pretty much impossible to draw a line from his role as producer to being at fault for Hutchens’ death. And I think most people are in agreement it’s not the actor’s job to know how to check whether rounds in a prop gun they are handed are real or dummies. So I don’t see much real risk for him here.
Baldwin as a person was negligent with a firearm. Being on a movie set doesn’t absolve a person from blame for damages, injuries, or deaths due to negligence. He was handed an actual, operational gun, a weapon he wanted on the set for authenticity to show in his movie how deadly guns are and then he treated it carelessly.
IMDb list 13 people with some sort of “producer” credit on this film (7 producers, 4 executive producers, 1 co-producer, and 1 line producer). I don’t think being a producer automatically makes someone responsible for everything that happens on set.
It seems like this whole incident should be a deterrent to …using real functional guns in movie productions.
Quote from Chad Stahelski, re: John Wick Franchise:“There is no reason to have a practically functioning gun on a set,” Stahelski said. “To have a live round on a set is criminal. There isn’t a gun on our set that you could put a round into that it would be able to fire.”They have the budget to afford to build weapons that are not live firearms and have an armorer with experience in that field. The other problem is that 90% of rental weapons are real firearms, and the suppliers do not have much motivation to turn all that inventory over.Source: https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/john-wick-4-guns-chad-stahelski-interview-1234823769/
Adam’s Rib used one made out of licorice to make this exact point and I think that would be the best possible outcome here.
Chad Stahelski never uses live guns, and he’s about the gun-nuttiest guy in Hollywood now that Charlton Heston’s dead.
Plenty of directors no longer do that, given how easy it is to CGI in a muzzle blast.
In addition, actor or not, everyone handling an actual firearm with the intention of operating it is responsible for personally verifying the condition of the weapon and not aiming it at anyone until they do.They were rehearsing a scene where Baldwin points the gun past the camera. I’ve seen someone suggest that the director and the DP should never have been standing behind the camera specifically because they were directing Baldwin to point it in that direction, which is probably true.
And there should have been a protective shield.
You can’t make up laws based upon how you think things should be. It’s not a crime to locate ANY business activity (say, building cars) in a place that avoids union involvement, and it’s not an actor’s job to be expert in firearms. That’s the whole reason Guitierrez-Reed was paid to be there.
I dunno if he got an “insultingly light sentence”. He took the plea deal and got 6 months of probation. She didn’t and is looking at a max of 18 months jailtime. The difference between those two outcomes is partially because she’s more responsible, but mostly because she decided not to take the plea.There’s a world where she took a similar plea deal and got 12 month of probation. Choosing not to was a terrible decision on her part.
Yea I’ve been mulling over why she didn’t take the deal. 100% agree it was a bad decision to turn it down. I think the only aspect I’d quibble with you on is which of them is “more” responsible for what happened. I do believe her that the general environment and atmosphere, fostered in large part by Hall, was unsafe and contributed in major ways to what happened. In my mind they’re both equally guilty, yet one of them got six months probation and the other could get three-times that in jail time. But as you said – he took the deal. She, foolishly, did not.
Do we know what deal she was even offered? It may not have been probation at all, could have been 6 months in jail or something. I think they were going after her from day one and there may not have been anywhere near the leniency.
“fostered in large part by Hall”I’ve never been on a movie set, but from what I’ve heard ADs have about as much power as the craft service provider (but still more than the writer). That set was clearly messed up in a bunch of ways, but that blame should go to the producers.
I think part of the deal was she had to admit she brought the live ammo onto set.If she didn’t, they really were trying to make her a scapegoat.What do you do if they don’t let you just plead guilty, they make you tell an outright lie to get the deal?
It really was a terrible decision. I think we have growing evidence that this person has poor judgement fairly regularly.
Possibly you’re right. But consider that a only one plea deal was ever going to happen in this case. The prosecutors likely offered to both, then once the first person took it, the second one was taken off of the table. His lawyer was just, um, quicker to the draw.
“Undoubtedly, the historically very chill Alec Baldwin would’ve listened to a lowly, underpaid, inexperienced armorer on her first real job.”
This is so stupid. If you get offered a job that has to do with safety and you’re too scared of getting yelled at by an alleged big meanie to do your job properly, then quit. As we see, if you do your job badly, people can die.
Also, there is no way in forking hell that Alec Baldwin would be waving around a weapon, being cavalier with it, if he thought there was any chance it was loaded with live ammunition. He’s been using dummy guns and prop guns for literally 35 years. He just trusts, as anybody would, that a gun handed to him on the set DOES NOT HAVE LIVE AMMO IN IT. Now, any liability as a producer in hiring this dunce, that’s a different question.
I doubt he made a single hiring decision on this production beyond maybe the director. I don’t doubt there was major looseness on the set but ultimately it boils down to whose specific responsibility it was to secure the weapon. The biggest mistake at the production level was hiring someone unqualified for the job. Testimony also said she showed up to work hungover and was generally not in the game.
The biggest mistake at the production level was hiring someone unqualified for the job eliminating the line item for hiring an armorer full time from the budget.FTFY
I’d honestly be curious how often low-budget movies combine roles like this. If it’s routine that’s one thing. If it’s a major outlier, that’s another story. Again, don’t see criminal activity there but certainly major civil exposure.
Not saying it’s criminal activity, but we know there were veterans that turned down the job because they would be required to juggle duties, and from the stories that we’ve heard about the set, even if they had found a seasoned pro to agree to work as an armorer/prop assistant, they probably would’ve walked off the job. Maybe no live ammo would’ve ended up on set, and thus *maybe* no one would have been killed, but to me it sounds like someone getting hurt was an acceptable risk for the producers. Stories from THR and Deadline have pointed out that some of the producers have a history of ignoring safety practices on their other productions. If they don’t face meaningful consequences when a person dies on their set, I’m not sure what would stop them or even discourage others from continuing to ignore safety standards to save money, since the pressure will only ever be on the people on the front lines.
It means it’s a naive take by the prosecutor
It’s also really disingenuous that the article characterizes her as an “inexperienced armorer” (twice), as if she’s some intern PA running out for doughnuts.You’re either the fucking armorer, or you aren’t. If you are, you’re responsible for the safety of the weapons on set, period. You aren’t sort-of, kind-of responsible for the safety of the weapons because this is your first job as an armorer.
If only the crew on the set of The Twilight Zone could’ve had the spine to tell Landis “Fuck you, I’m not working on this insanely dangerous stunt, you child-labor-law-violating piece of garbage.”
It’s not stupid, he was a producer on the movie. He was her boss’s boss’s boss’s boss PLUS an A list actor. The ‘she should have quit’ argument holds no water with me either. And believe it or not I think she’s guilty
That’s not how “prodicer,” works. It’s not the C-Suite.
what is a prodicer and what is c suite? are you ok?
I don’t think she should have quit either. I think she should have done her job. I’m just saying being afraid someone is going to be a meanie isn’t an excuse not to keep people safe when it’s your job to do so. She had 3 options. The best option was do her job, even if she’s afraid it might make people unhappy with her. The second best option was quit. The third option, the one she did, was not do her job and someone died because she made the worst possible choice. And that’s unrelated to whether or not Baldwin should be guilty of something or not for allegedly creating an atmosphere where people were reluctant to speak up about possible dangers on set.
Oh, look at that, America still has a working justice system.
For some.
I think it can be helpful in these cases to remember that this trial is not making some kind of universal decision about how much fault everybody may or may not have had in this incident. It was evaluating only whether Gutierrez-Reed was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I think the clear answer to that question is yes, and that does not preclude the idea that others might be culpable as well.I feel like a lot of articles are treating it as a zero-sum game, where we need to pick only Gutierrez-Reed, or Baldwin, or the production company to be liable.
I think the biggest takeaway from this case (other than that, you know, extreme negligence on account of both the producers and the crew killed a talented woman who was just starting to have a big career) is that there is a difference between what the law says and personal morality. I think Baldwin is to a certain extent responsible for the death of Hutchins because he neglected to check the gun. I do not think that should translate to a sentence (at least for the shooting; depending on his duties as producer, he may be liable).
“I think Baldwin is to a certain extent responsible for the death of Hutchins because he neglected to check the gun.”I don’t think the case against Baldwin will focus on whether he checked the gun. An actor can’t be expected to know how to check a gun or what to check it for.
I more meant on a personal level. I don’t think that should factor into the case at all, he should expect not to be handed a loaded gun. My point was that while I think he is somewhat morally responsible for not following basic gun safety, I don’t think he should be in any way legally responsible.
I don’t think I see how it would make him more culpable on a personal level either? Again, he’s not a gun expert. If I were an actor I could “check” the gun all day and still have no idea whether it was loaded with real or fake ammo. Whether he’s legally responsible has a lot to do with his particular responsibilities and decisionmaking as a producer, which will all come out at trial. I don’t think there’s any arguing that he’s responsible, morally or legally, because he didn’t know how to check what he thought was a prop. If he’s responsible it won’t have anything to do with that.
Blank rounds have crimped ends, which if you’re producing and starring in such a gun-heavy movie you should probably remember. It seems like Baldwin was pretty negligent during his gun safety training. Obviously Gutierrez-Reed is more responsible (no amount of new information can change the fact that she did drugs on set and conspired to hide evidence), but my point is that multiple people were responsible. I’m not saying that he is evil for this or anything, but what I am saying is that if you helped to produce a movie starring you, that involved you shooting multiple guns that you (assumedly) knew to be real, you should probably make sure to check you have the right kind of fake ammo in your gun before you shoot it. He was the most powerful person on that set by a mile, and the fact that he did this means he is at least a little bit responsible.
“Blank rounds have crimped ends, which if you’re producing and starring in such a gun-heavy movie you should probably remember.”Why is that something “you should probably remember” when there’s someone whose literal job it is to “probably remember” that? It’s not common knowledge. There’s no reason an actor should know that to remember in the first place.“but my point is that multiple people were responsible”Well yeah, but none of those other people are responsible for doing her job for her. They’re responsible for not giving her the time and resources she needed to do it, possibly, but they’re not responsible for doing the gun safety themselves.“you should probably make sure to check you have the right kind of fake ammo in your gun before you shoot it”
No you shouldn’t. lol You should hire someone who is responsible for doing that. The problem with the armorer is that she was also responsible for props and other stuff. Armorer should be one whole job. A person shouldn’t be armorer and prop person, and a person shouldn’t be armorer and actor. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to know and check for gun safety. In no world is that the case.
The craziest part about this is that I mostly agree with you on the other stuff. Listen, I’m not saying that Baldwin is a villain, or that he is even 25% responsible. I’m just saying like 5%. But I guess that is too much or whatever.Gun safety is not something to take lightly, not in the real world and not on a film set. Baldwin was easily the most powerful person on that film set, and at no point does it seem like he expressed care for the safety on the set of the movie he helped to create. He was on his phone for most of his one-on-one safety training. One of the most important rules of gun safety is to treat every gun as if it is loaded with a real-life bullet. In my opinion (and according to most official film safety protocols), it doesn’t matter if you’re on a movie set, out in the real world, fucking underwater. Also, I forgot to mention it earlier which is my bad, but apparently Baldwin wasn’t supposed to aim the gun at anybody, and wasn’t even supposed to shoot the gun when he shot it.Obviously Gutierrez-Reed is the most personally liable for this incident. It doesn’t matter what the working conditions were like, if you were on mind-altering substances while dealing with that level of responsibility any incident that happens under your purview is your fault. But just because you hire someone to oversee that stuff doesn’t mean you immediately forget about basic safety.
“Gun safety is not something to take lightly, not in the real world and not on a film set. Baldwin was easily the most powerful person on that film set, and at no point does it seem like he expressed care for the safety on the set of the movie he helped to create.”I agree with this! I just think his failure is upstream, not at the point of doing the actual gun safety himself. I do think he could have been more careful with the actual gun—my father always told me to never point a gun at something you don’t want dead, even if you think it’s not loaded, but that’s something he told me over and over throughout my childhood. I don’t know what Baldwin’s exposure to gun safety was throughout his life and if it hadn’t become second nature to him, that’s understandable. I do think that as an actor he was allowed to rely no assurances from the armorer that the weapon was safe. As a producer, he was responsible for making sure she had what she needed to do her job, which he didn’t.
I think that’s fair. If Baldwin failed at gun safety, it is because something went wrong during his one-on-one training with Gutierrez Reed. She says that he was inattentive during it, but she also has incentive to say she did a great job and wasn’t at all responsible for any incidents. We don’t know what kind of stuff she taught him, what kind of protocol she told him to follow. He was definitely a little responsible as producer (though I also don’t know for sure what his role is as producer – he seemed to co-write the story, but maybe he just got the movie funding and then backed off).
The public always needs a villain and never NEEDS (but will accept) more than one.CF: George Floyd or Laquan McDonald where the killer was found guilty but the cops who stood around and watched their partners kill somebody, then actively worked to obscure that event, all got off scot free.
“but the cops who stood around and watched their partners kill somebody, then actively worked to obscure that event, all got off scot free.”What the fuck are you talking about? Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao were sentenced to 3 years and 3 1/2 years for the death of George Floyd.
George Floyd was a violent crackhead who died due to the amount of Fentanyl in his system.
Speak for yourself, Doc. A lot of the public definitely did NEED more than one villian in those cases.
There is no more nuance. When people read this headline, or any headline about it for that matter, all they will see is “She’s a murderer!” There’s no distinction anymore.The internet was largely a mistake.
As I have been saying for years, if Gutierrez-Reed can be convicted, then Baldwin is almost surely being convicted as he pulled the trigger. Even if it is 6 months. Bye bye Alec.
I haven’t read every article about the case out there, but I still appreciate when they do raise concerns about all of the issues behind-the-scenes, since the vast majority of people don’t follow the case and only retain the snippets of information that get repeated in the headlines. You’re right that this case isn’t a zero-sum game, and from everything I’ve read about the tragedy, I agree with the jury’s decision to convict Gutierrez-Reed.But we also know that the production has already been fined the maximum amount by OSHA, which IMO is a laughably paltry sum, and we know that the only other person facing criminal charges for the shooting is Baldwin (after the 2nd AD accepted, essentially, a slap on the wrist deal).We don’t need to only pick one out of Gutierrez-Reed, Baldwin, and the production company to be liable, but it sure feels like (and has for a while) the party that’s referred collectively as “the production company” isn’t being as closely scrutinized for their role, which means there’s really nothing stopping them from ignoring set safety protocols in the future when they inevitably create a different production company.
I don’t understand why I’m supposed to pick people to root for here. It looks like a shitshow from top to bottom.
Root for the camera crew who quit over safety concerns.
Who said you’re supposed to?
You underestimate how much crews tend to like and trust each other.
There was never any doubt of her guilt .Baldwin is up next and deserves the same sentence ,at least but the odds are he unfortunately will get a Juicy Smollet verdict with little to no jail time .
“Technically, she wasn’t a working armorer on the day of the shooting and was being paid as a prop assistant.”I hadn’t seen this particular fact before. It really undermines the claim that the armorer has ultimate responsibility if THERE WAS NO ARMORER THAT DAY.
This whole thing is bullshit and she’s being used a scapegoat for everything wrong with this backwards ass production. She had like three jobs at once. I hope Baldwin gets his day but we all know that’s bullshit and he’ll be working again by summer.
Baldwin’s being convicted in August. You can write that down.
How is she a scapegoat if she was the armorer and the problem was with the armory? Even if she wasn’t acting as the armorer that day (says the defense attorney), she was acting as the aromorer yesterday, and she should have made sure the guns were safely loaded and ready to use yesterday.
Yeah, I don’t get this whole “she’s a scapegoat for the higher-ups!” narrative that’s being played here. Do other people in this whole mess deserve to be found culpable? Almost certainly. Did this woman legitimately contribute a whole lot to said mess all by herself? Very much so.She’s not a scapegoat.
Right, she’s one of many responsible, but she is definitely responsible.
Yeah, I’m surprised this hasn’t come up more. All I heard was she was the armorer, but was she, technically?It sounds like a Get Out of Jail Free card.
The AD who’s ultimately responsible for safety on the set and who handed it to Baldwin and told him it was a cold gun got a slap on the wrist, but a prop assistant goes to jail?
Yeah that confuses me too. Im guessing the jury weighed in the fact that she hid evidence and stuff, which I am strangely not reading much about in these articles
It is weird,on top of that never getting brought up before, the article also says she was the one that loaded the gun. So wouldn’t that mean she was doing armory work that day?
“I hadn’t seen this particular fact before.’Probably because it isn’t a fact. Read the link, it doesn’t say that.
If she wasn’t acting as armorer it’s worse. That would be extreme negligence on her part to hand over a gun to anyone.
That’s what her defense attorney said. Given that it took the jury two hours to convict I’d say that’s either untrue, or there’s a nuance we’re not seeing. It also doesn’t excuse the fact that there had apparently been live rounds around the set for a while, which should never have happened.
i wonder how and if the union defines this. there are so many small tasks that must be performed during production that may only take a few minutes here and there it would be silly to have a dedicated resource to each one, but there is always the chance for overlapping activities or varying skill requirements.
I hope Baldwin gets convicted. That prick has had it coming to him for a long time.
Well, we’ve all learned a valuable lesson: never use real bullets when making a movie. If only we had known.
Hope she appeals. This whole thing stinks worse than low tide.
This is quite literally what happens when you hire based on identity rather than ability.
This does not bode well for Mr. Balwin. I look forward to the AV Club headline in August along the lines of, ‘We will never see Trump convicted, but the guy who played him on SNL is going to prison.’
Whoa, I was expecting a hung jury. Two hours of deliberation? That’s fast. Prosecution must have put on a damn good case.As for this: “Undoubtedly, the historically very chill Alec Baldwin would’ve listened to a lowly, underpaid, inexperienced armorer on her first real job.”That’s not the point. It’s not the point whether Baldwin would have listened or not. My job as in-house counsel is to advise my clients of their legal responsibilities. Whether my client chooses to follow my advice is not my responsibility. It doesn’t matter whether Baldwin would have listened or obeyed. She should have spoken up.
The headline where “…when a firearm discharged a real bullet and…”should read “…when Alec Baldwin discharged a real bullet and”Firearms never fire themselves. Someone pulls that trigger. Baldwin’s beyond remorseful. I get it. I would be too! Unless it’s self/family defense, taking a human life should be heartbreaking. However, I also check any weapon anyone has ever handed me like my old Marine Dad and other relatives taught me. Firearms are a basic right and a huge responsibility.Watch some of Keanu’s John Wick weapons training videos. That’s what I expect from Hollywood.
Why was there live ammo on set at all? Was it being used for some scenes?
I keep seeing people saying that Baldwin is responsible for either not checking the gun or because, as producer, the buck must stop with him.But standard firearm safety doesn’t apply on movie sets, which is why there’s an armorer in the first place. Any talk of whether or not that’s the problem with movies is irrelevant in this case, as Baldwin followed the rules as required by an actor. “Well, all firearm experts say—“ is an argument moving forward, but doesn’t apply here. There was an armorer and the actor did as instructed.As for, “he’s the producer…” I always figured people here would know better. Because a “producer,” is not simply moviespeak for upper management. Each “producer,” has specific responsibilities. And they’re specifically in the contracts, and listed in the guilds. An Associate Producer is not the producer’s assistant. Executive Producers aren’t necessarily actual executives.“The producer is ultimately responsible,” is not true. There are several producers because one person can’t know everything or manage everything.Most producers never see the set. They have other jobs to do, and “producer,” doesn’t just mean management. Alec Baldwin was on set because he was there as an actor. He may be executive producer, but that role doesn’t make him the on-set supervisor.The Executive Producer doesn’t have carte blanche to assume responsibilities that are explicitly someone else’s job.
I think of gun safety as a set of concentric circles. (You can use the Swiss cheese metaphor that became well known during the pandemic if you prefer.)There was live ammo on set. Somebody put that ammo in a gun without checking what kind it was.The gun was pointed at another person rather than at, say, an unattended camera with a remote monitor.Somebody cocked the gun and (I would assume, though Baldwin’s defense may still be claiming malfunction) pulled the trigger. There’s two opportunities to keep the gun from being loaded with live ammo, and two more for it to have been merely a big embarrassment. Who was responsible (in light of the way things are customarily done on movie sets) for the choices made at each step — that’s the question. As someone pointed out in some other discussion of this tragedy, literally millions of rounds of “ammo” have been fired in the course of making movies, Westerns and otherwise, low budget and otherwise, but hardly anyone has ever been shot. Hopefully the attempts by defense attorneys to diffuse or redirect blame won’t get in the way of extracting lessons learned about why this one was different.