Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was the armorer on the film "Rust," was also charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
100% deserved, since she was directly responsible for putting a loaded gun in Alec Baldwin's hand when it was literally her job to make sure that could not happen.
lawyer: "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."
It's true that Alec Baldwin didn't know. Now let's apply that to the law:
NM Stat § 30-2-3 (2019) B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Even if Alec Baldwin did not know there were live rounds in the gun, it was a possibility that the gun might be in some way dangerous (such as with Brandon Lee's death), so it was negligent for him to aim the gun directly at the woman and pull the trigger, particularly when the scene did not call for him to do anything of that nature. Basic caution and safety would demand that he at least point the gun in a slightly different direction, not directly at another person, when firing it. Alec Baldwin also did not check the gun himself before firing it while aiming directly at another human being.
The charges are justified. involuntary manslaughter doesn't require knowledge or intent, it is effectively negligent homicide.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
If you break three of the four rules, the worst you're going to get is an ass-chewing.
You have to break all four at the same time to harm anyone inadvertently.
And yet still, there are homicides every fucking day because people couldn't be bothered to handle weapons safely.
#1 covers everything. If you assume a weapon is loaded until you have verified it is not, you cannot accidentally shoot anyone.
#2 covers everything. If the weapon is not pointed at anything other than the ground, you cannot shoot anyone.
#3 covers everything assuming the safety mechanism(s) actually work. Even if you're acting like a damned fool, and pointing a firearm in an unsafe direction, if the weapon mechanically cannot fire, the worst you're going to do is commit assault by pointing.
#4 covers everything, assuming the firearm cannot fire itself and requires the trigger to be pulled.
Sometimes, there's a #5 - know your target and what lies beyond it - which might have helped the survivor in this case, but it really only applies to when you intend to fire, unlike the first four, which are there to make sure every discharge of a firearm is intended, #5 is there to make sure every discharge has the intended consequences.
The bigger failure was the both the production company(s) not rigorously enforcing redundant safety standards (cast+crew double checking weaponry after the armorer), and crew not reporting unsafe conduct to a regulatory body or insurance company, if there was a mechanism with real consequences to do so. Frankly, the film industry should require firearm competence certification for anyone handling a gun or realistic prop. All the above are much more important than the 2nd rule by itself.
iirc Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is a nepotism baby who never should have been in charge of anything, ever
Yes. Her father was a movie weapons guy.
The Rust tragedy actually caused Hollywood to fire a lot of these jackoffs who got production jobs just because their uncle has some clout in the industry.
I seriously doubt that has happened except maybe with a handful of people handling guns specifically. Nepotism is built into the DNA of Hollywood and the large majority of people involved have a vested interest in keeping legacy jobs open for their kids to have an easy life.
You explained it very well. There's definitely enough to charge Alec. Whether the jury decides if his actions were negligent or not is up to them. I've seen cases where accidental shooters were convicted and acquitted, so it's up in the air.
Analogous situation is two actors with safety harnesses guaranteed by professional safety people messing around between scenes and one falls off to his death. It's dumb to rely on it unnecessarily, but not the pusher's fault that he should have checked the safety harnesses before horsing around; it was guaranteed.
The problem for prosecutors is that shooting an unloaded gun isn't "a lawful act which might produce death". The armorer assumed the responsibility by certifying it as an unloaded gun, unless somebody else loaded the gun after Baldwin got it. It's not the same situation as your friend handing you the gun and saying it's unloaded - he's not a professional making a promise you should be able to rely on.
Baldwin should be charged with purposely inflicting emotional distress for pointing the gun at somebody or like that, unless the facts show him aware it was loaded.
The "I didn't know it was loaded" defense doesn't work for John Doe. Why should it work for famous actors who should have been taught how to handle firearms decades ago?
Meanwhile there are people in federal detention centers a lot longer than than that without trial or conviction for 'trespassing' and 'disorderly conduct'.
I'm guessing she got hired on that merit. I think it was Nicholas Cage who chewed her out for being unsafe on the project she worked on before, so she has form for fucking it up.
Seems like they were asking for it. What if someone messes up which rounds are which somehow, and loads the real ones? Those actual bullets should be under lock and key in the storage area, and when they are out and in use, everyone should know that they are circulated and in use, and to treat each gun as loaded and dangerous to interfere with.
There is no reason, and the industry standard is basically that no live ammo crosses into a set.
Even blanks shouldn't be left with actors, there is one case in the 80s where a actor put a revolver to his head and pulled the trigger during downtime, and the blank blew a hole in his skull and killed him. The gun shouldn't even have had blanks unless the scene involved gunfire.
The only reason for there to be live rounds is because someone, likely the armorer who is the only one who should have access to the guns, was bringing it to shoot after hours. I believe cast have stated that happens.
And no one uses shots of live rounds in movies, even paper targets get squibs in them. And these days films like John Wick is almost all CGI and no blanks.
This is a pleasant surprise. I was expecting the prosecutor to lowball the charges after she only received half the funds she requested to try the case.
He had no way to know that live bullets were on set? That's a bold claim considering the union crew walked off the set the day before for accidental discharges of the guns. And other crew members were allegedly shooting cans on set.
100% deserved, since she was directly responsible for putting a loaded gun in Alec Baldwin's hand when it was literally her job to make sure that could not happen.
It's true that Alec Baldwin didn't know. Now let's apply that to the law:
Even if Alec Baldwin did not know there were live rounds in the gun, it was a possibility that the gun might be in some way dangerous (such as with Brandon Lee's death), so it was negligent for him to aim the gun directly at the woman and pull the trigger, particularly when the scene did not call for him to do anything of that nature. Basic caution and safety would demand that he at least point the gun in a slightly different direction, not directly at another person, when firing it. Alec Baldwin also did not check the gun himself before firing it while aiming directly at another human being.
The charges are justified. involuntary manslaughter doesn't require knowledge or intent, it is effectively negligent homicide.
Rule number fucking two of basic firearm safety: Don't point at anything you don't intend to destroy.
How about rule one, treat every gun like it's loaded?
That's the point of the rules. They overlap.
If you break three of the four rules, the worst you're going to get is an ass-chewing.
You have to break all four at the same time to harm anyone inadvertently.
And yet still, there are homicides every fucking day because people couldn't be bothered to handle weapons safely.
#1 covers everything. If you assume a weapon is loaded until you have verified it is not, you cannot accidentally shoot anyone.
#2 covers everything. If the weapon is not pointed at anything other than the ground, you cannot shoot anyone.
#3 covers everything assuming the safety mechanism(s) actually work. Even if you're acting like a damned fool, and pointing a firearm in an unsafe direction, if the weapon mechanically cannot fire, the worst you're going to do is commit assault by pointing.
#4 covers everything, assuming the firearm cannot fire itself and requires the trigger to be pulled.
Sometimes, there's a #5 - know your target and what lies beyond it - which might have helped the survivor in this case, but it really only applies to when you intend to fire, unlike the first four, which are there to make sure every discharge of a firearm is intended, #5 is there to make sure every discharge has the intended consequences.
The bigger failure was the both the production company(s) not rigorously enforcing redundant safety standards (cast+crew double checking weaponry after the armorer), and crew not reporting unsafe conduct to a regulatory body or insurance company, if there was a mechanism with real consequences to do so. Frankly, the film industry should require firearm competence certification for anyone handling a gun or realistic prop. All the above are much more important than the 2nd rule by itself.
Yes. Her father was a movie weapons guy.
I seriously doubt that has happened except maybe with a handful of people handling guns specifically. Nepotism is built into the DNA of Hollywood and the large majority of people involved have a vested interest in keeping legacy jobs open for their kids to have an easy life.
You explained it very well. There's definitely enough to charge Alec. Whether the jury decides if his actions were negligent or not is up to them. I've seen cases where accidental shooters were convicted and acquitted, so it's up in the air.
Analogous situation is two actors with safety harnesses guaranteed by professional safety people messing around between scenes and one falls off to his death. It's dumb to rely on it unnecessarily, but not the pusher's fault that he should have checked the safety harnesses before horsing around; it was guaranteed.
The problem for prosecutors is that shooting an unloaded gun isn't "a lawful act which might produce death". The armorer assumed the responsibility by certifying it as an unloaded gun, unless somebody else loaded the gun after Baldwin got it. It's not the same situation as your friend handing you the gun and saying it's unloaded - he's not a professional making a promise you should be able to rely on.
Baldwin should be charged with purposely inflicting emotional distress for pointing the gun at somebody or like that, unless the facts show him aware it was loaded.
The "I didn't know it was loaded" defense doesn't work for John Doe. Why should it work for famous actors who should have been taught how to handle firearms decades ago?
I just said why, because a professional certified it. Works for John Doe as well.
Go bungie jumping and the harness comes off, your family can't sue because you killed yourself by not testing the safety equipment? That's crazy.
It's really just all her fault.
But it would be funny if he went simping for a fat retarded girl and took responsibility on himself.
Meanwhile there are people in federal detention centers a lot longer than than that without trial or conviction for 'trespassing' and 'disorderly conduct'.
Already served awaiting trial for many.
Apparently they found live ammo not only on set, but in both his and Jensen Ackles gunbelt.
Wondering if anyone saw a bald guy in a black suit on set before this.
Damn Trump trying to set him up!!!
Excellent work recreating the D'alvarde hit 47
I genuinely don’t understand how it’s possible for a trained armourer to unintentionally fuck that up…
Like I just don’t get that part of all this.
Sure, she might not have been particularly competent, but is this not… Literally one of the most fundamental parts of her job..??
I really don’t understand that, nepotism hire or no…
She is the daughter of Thell Reed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thell_Reed
I'm guessing she got hired on that merit. I think it was Nicholas Cage who chewed her out for being unsafe on the project she worked on before, so she has form for fucking it up.
He’s facing nothing and everyone knows it.
Is there a reason to have a live round on set ever when actors are present?
I get the AD may spend a day specifically filming bullet holes being made, but that's, like, a four man job.
Seems like they were asking for it. What if someone messes up which rounds are which somehow, and loads the real ones? Those actual bullets should be under lock and key in the storage area, and when they are out and in use, everyone should know that they are circulated and in use, and to treat each gun as loaded and dangerous to interfere with.
There is no reason, and the industry standard is basically that no live ammo crosses into a set. Even blanks shouldn't be left with actors, there is one case in the 80s where a actor put a revolver to his head and pulled the trigger during downtime, and the blank blew a hole in his skull and killed him. The gun shouldn't even have had blanks unless the scene involved gunfire.
The only reason for there to be live rounds is because someone, likely the armorer who is the only one who should have access to the guns, was bringing it to shoot after hours. I believe cast have stated that happens.
And no one uses shots of live rounds in movies, even paper targets get squibs in them. And these days films like John Wick is almost all CGI and no blanks.
This is a pleasant surprise. I was expecting the prosecutor to lowball the charges after she only received half the funds she requested to try the case.
About fucking time.
He had no way to know that live bullets were on set? That's a bold claim considering the union crew walked off the set the day before for accidental discharges of the guns. And other crew members were allegedly shooting cans on set.
Call when he spends a min in the locker.