Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

[peachhead]

There has been more than one actor killed by a blank.
If one person is responsible for ensuring there is no live ammo on the set then I can see their liability here. However I think there has to be some responsibility shared by the person who pulled the trigger. Then again, I ain't in Hollywood and they live in a different world.

 

[JiminMaine]

Like I said all along, the armorer is responsible for the guns and ammo used on the movie set. That is what her job is. I know you all wanted to hang Baldwin so bad you could taste it. But the gun had live ammo in it and her job was to see that it was loaded with blanks. You guys will never understand that will you?

It's not a case of knowing and following gun safe handling rules. It's a case of "That gun had live ammo in it" Period. If she did her job, there would not have been live ammo in that gun.

Now let's hear all your cries about "It's Baldwins fault".

I don't know if you watched any of the trial, but I watched every minute of the testimony. I'm retired and this time of year I have plenty of free time.

The gun was not supposed to have blanks in it. It didn't need to even have dummy ammo in it for what they were doing at that time.

There is a lot of blame to go around, but ultimately it comes down to she didn't check the ammo and Baldwin did not follow safe gun handling rules. The whole movie set was a disaster when it came to gun safety.

Baldwin always wanted to use his "Hero guns" a real gun, not dummy guns even if a real gun was not needed for a particular scene. A couple of things I still have questions about are; 1. Where did the live ammo come from? This was never solved. 2. Why did Baldwin what "dummy" rounds in the gun for this scene. David Halls, first asst. director and safety coordinator was in charge of safety.

Halls testified that Hannah first presented the gun to him and showed him that it was empty by opening the loading gate and turning the cylinder, he then passed the gun to Baldwin. A couple of minutes later Hannah again showed him the gun, opened the loading gate, turned the cylinder to show him it then had what were supposed to be dummy rounds. My question is, "Who told her to put dummies in it?" Baldwin?

It stuck me as odd that there were a total of six live rounds, five un-fired and the one fired, found on the set after the shooting. That is one cylinder full. If a box of live ammo was brought onto the set were were the rest. If it was just a few random loose rounds who brought them. These six rounds did not match any of the other live ammo that the supplier of the firearms, dummies and blanks had at his place. There was never a search of Hannahs residence, her father's place or maker of the dummy rounds, Jay Swenson's place. Swenson had provided live ammo to be used at another location.

Just a lot of unanswered questions.

 

[jules]

It's a real gun that uses real ammo. I feel It was everyone that had that gun in their hands responsibility to check the gun.

 

[gnappi]

Like I said all along, the armorer is responsible for the guns and ammo used on the movie set. That is what her job is. I know you all wanted to hang Baldwin so bad you could taste it. But the gun had live ammo in it and her job was to see that it was loaded with blanks. You guys will never understand that will you?

It's not a case of knowing and following gun safe handling rules. It's a case of "That gun had live ammo in it" Period. If she did her job, there would not have been live ammo in that gun.

Now let's hear all your cries about "It's Baldwins fault".

It's not now nor has it ever been Baldwin's fault. The "Armorer" was and is incompetent.

 

[peachhead]

It's not now nor has it ever been Baldwin's fault. The "Armorer" was and is incompetent.

If he pointed that gun at someone that was not part of the script, then yep, it was his fault. Just because they live in fantasyland doesn't mean that basic gun safety rules don't apply.

 

[JiminMaine]

According to the court records, it is standard for movies to have an armorer but also a prop master who is the only other person who handles the firearms before they are given to an actor. The proper master is supposed to verify the safety of the firearm. Baldwin refused to pay for both a prop master and an armorer, insisting the armorer perform both jobs. Its how reed got the job, no one else would do it due the safety issues involved. I have often wondered if her husband had slipped those live rounds into the mix knowing that no one was checking

You obviously didn't watch the trial.

The prop master isn't supposed to handle the firearms other than to verify that they have showed up on set. They did have a full-time prop master. Hannah was a part-time armorer and part-time props assistant. They also another women sometimes helping with the firearms. It was all messed up. Way too many people handling the guns besides the armorer.

Hannah isn't married.

 

[vito]

Being handed a gun just before the cameras roll is a different situation than being handed a gun at the range by a friend, or being handed a gun from the display case at a gun shop. An actor who stopped the filming process every time he or she had to hold and fire a gun in a movie, to check that it was loaded with blanks (this is not as simple as seeing if a gun is totally unloaded. If the gun is a semi auto that is supposed to be loaded with blanks, the actor would have to eject the magazine, unload the round in the chamber, check that every round involved was a blank, and then reload the magazine as well as re-chamber a round.) he would be fired by the director for slowing down the entire process. I find Baldwin a distasteful, unlikable person, but in this case I do not think that he is responsible. The armorer is supposed to be a professional, and if assured the assistant director who handed the gun to Baldwin that it was loaded with blanks, I do not think Baldwin had any responsibility to then determine that himself.

 

[contender]

"Just a lot of unanswered questions."

This has been my take-away from the whole event. That, and the fact that there is a lot of blame to go around for this. Not just the armorer.
As mentioned,, people have been injured or killed by blanks. And I also believe that Brandon Lee was killed by a live round in a gun when there wasn't supposed to be any live ammo there either.

If we study most tragedies, often we find several small things that didn't happen that should have happened. When a small thing is done, by itself,, it's often nothing serious. But combine a bunch together & it can result in something bad. People have called this an accident. I call it negligence of several things that all came together at one time to cause a tragedy.

If we look at the facts presented in the trial,, we can see several things that were wrong. But as mentioned,, there are also a lot of unanswered questions.

This movie,, being made on a small budget,, combined with one of hollyweird's elite liberals, would not have this much press or stuff if it had happened on a larger budget film, and lesser known actors involved.
A bigger budget,, and you would have had more safety people hired. And if it had lesser known actors,, or even actors not so well known or connected as the Baldwins,,, a tragedy like this wouldn't get nearly as much press. And it's also possible that some of the answers we have wanted would have been uncovered.


I will say I haven't seen any of the actual trial,, nor much of the evidence presented in court. However,, I still believe there's a lot of people responsible for this death, not just the armorer.

 

[mr.deerstalker]

im glad some of you guys are not my lawyer, hot, cold. this guy, that guy, loaded, unloaded, married, unmarred, on duty, off duty, movies set, back yard, on a range or off a range, their special cuz the actor's, makes no difference! that's all yadda yadda, dribble! YES! all the checks and balances failed. the charge is "Involuntary manslaughter" and YES two people can be found liberal for the same harm caused. with one found guilty and NOT pulling the trigger. its gunna be hard for Baldwin to get off scott free. the time tested rule of ignorance as an excuse will not save Mr. Baldwin. he and he alone caused the harm, the armor/producer are accessory to the harm caused.

 

[eveled]

I don't know if you watched any of the trial, but I watched every minute of the testimony. I'm retired and this time of year I have plenty of free time.

The gun was not supposed to have blanks in it. It didn't need to even have dummy ammo in it for what they were doing at that time.

There is a lot of blame to go around, but ultimately it comes down to she didn't check the ammo and Baldwin did not follow safe gun handling rules. The whole movie set was a disaster when it came to gun safety.

Baldwin always wanted to use his "Hero guns" a real gun, not dummy guns even if a real gun was not needed for a particular scene. A couple of things I still have questions about are; 1. Where did the live ammo come from? This was never solved. 2. Why did Baldwin what "dummy" rounds in the gun for this scene. David Halls, first asst. director and safety coordinator was in charge of safety.

Halls testified that Hannah first presented the gun to him and showed him that it was empty by opening the loading gate and turning the cylinder, he then passed the gun to Baldwin. A couple of minutes later Hannah again showed him the gun, opened the loading gate, turned the cylinder to show him it then had what were supposed to be dummy rounds. My question is, "Who told her to put dummies in it?" Baldwin?

It stuck me as odd that there were a total of six live rounds, five un-fired and the one fired, found on the set after the shooting. That is one cylinder full. If a box of live ammo was brought onto the set were were the rest. If it was just a few random loose rounds who brought them. These six rounds did not match any of the other live ammo that the supplier of the firearms, dummies and blanks had at his place. There was never a search of Hannahs residence, her father's place or maker of the dummy rounds, Jay Swenson's place. Swenson had provided live ammo to be used at another location.

Just a lot of unanswered questions.

I read somewhere some of the dummy ammo came from another movie she was working on. Already on cartridge belts.

 

[JiminMaine]

"Just a lot of unanswered questions."

This has been my take-away from the whole event. That, and the fact that there is a lot of blame to go around for this. Not just the armorer.
As mentioned,, people have been injured or killed by blanks. And I also believe that Brandon Lee was killed by a live round in a gun when there wasn't supposed to be any live ammo there either.

If we study most tragedies, often we find several small things that didn't happen that should have happened. When a small thing is done, by itself,, it's often nothing serious. But combine a bunch together & it can result in something bad. People have called this an accident. I call it negligence of several things that all came together at one time to cause a tragedy.

If we look at the facts presented in the trial,, we can see several things that were wrong. But as mentioned,, there are also a lot of unanswered questions.

This movie,, being made on a small budget,, combined with one of hollyweird's elite liberals, would not have this much press or stuff if it had happened on a larger budget film, and lesser known actors involved.
A bigger budget,, and you would have had more safety people hired. And if it had lesser known actors,, or even actors not so well known or connected as the Baldwins,,, a tragedy like this wouldn't get nearly as much press. And it's also possible that some of the answers we have wanted would have been uncovered.


I will say I haven't seen any of the actual trial,, nor much of the evidence presented in court. However,, I still believe there's a lot of people responsible for this death, not just the armorer.

In the Brandon Lee case there had been a prior scene where they used dummy rounds. On of the dummies had a live primer and it fired and drove the bullet into the barrel. In a later scene the gun was loaded with a blank and when the blank was fired the bullet came out of the barrel and killed lee.

That brought about changes in what the armorer is supposed to do when they check a firearm. They are now supposed verify that the barrel does not have any obstructions in it.

 

[contender]

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't recall details. But none the less a round was fired that killed Brandon, even if it was a combination of 2 rounds. It also goes back to my "little things adding up" point.

 

[NH Rugerman]

MY OPINION
The jury was correct in finding Gutierrez-Reed guilty as she has some culpability in the death of Hutchins as does Baldwin.

It is not one or the other…it is BOTH of them, and both should be held accountable for their actions and inactions.

NO LIVE AMMUNITION IS ALLOWED ON A MOVIE SET…PERIOD. Baldwin as Producer and Reed as armorer are both guilty of allowing it on set, ignorance is not a defense, nor should it be.

She should have easily been able to differentiate loaded rounds from dummy rounds as dummy rounds have a little metal pellet in them so that you can HEAR that they are dummy rounds. According to the trial, she was responsible for the loaded round being in the gun.

Baldwin has lied from the beginning in trying to avoid any responsibility for his actions, starting with the lie that he "never pulled the trigger."

Not sure why it the argument is an either/or argument here…they are BOTH guilty IN MY OPINION.

 

[eveled]

NO LIVE AMMUNITION IS ALLOWED ON A MOVIE SET…PERIOD. Baldwin as Producer and Reed as armorer are both guilty of allowing it on set,

I agree 100%. Yet Baldwin is the only producer being charged. So apparently he is being charged for his position as an actor not as a producer.

Also OSHA apparently cleared him of being responsible as a producer.

I feel bad for the victims family, people die at work everyday. It is always sad, and in theory always preventable.

 

[Hvymax]

I see this as the only appropriate outcome. Guns are props on a movie set and actors are literally mannequins. It's the Armorer's responsibility to prepare the props for a scene and a production person to verify the setup.

 

[Johnnu2]

Being handed a gun just before the cameras roll is a different situation than being handed a gun at the range by a friend, or being handed a gun from the display case at a gun shop. An actor who stopped the filming process every time he or she had to hold and fire a gun in a movie, to check that it was loaded with blanks (this is not as simple as seeing if a gun is totally unloaded. If the gun is a semi auto that is supposed to be loaded with blanks, the actor would have to eject the magazine, unload the round in the chamber, check that every round involved was a blank, and then reload the magazine as well as re-chamber a round.) he would be fired by the director for slowing down the entire process. I find Baldwin a distasteful, unlikable person, but in this case I do not think that he is responsible. The armorer is supposed to be a professional, and if assured the assistant director who handed the gun to Baldwin that it was loaded with blanks, I do not think Baldwin had any responsibility to then determine that himself.

I think Vito wrote his opinion quite well. Actors, are ACTORS... For the most part, they are NOT CAPABLE of checking most anything. In addition, most being liberals, they probably have no idea what we "gun people" mean, or cling to, so vehemently as: gun safety. When we HIRE people to do the things that we cannot do (or prefer not to do); it becomes their job. If we hire someone to do two or three jobs, where previously, two or three people did those jobs, I believe that this hired employee is now responsible to do those two or three jobs (especially since I don't have the time or ability). Actors live make believe lives, they have to hire people to take care of them.
Baldwin probably has some culpability if he 'cut corners' to save production money... precisely what THAT culpability is might be adjudicated in court IF THAT is the charge they will be 'judging'.
IMHO (without ANY knowledge of the facts, and without having researched anything)
J.

 

[Chief 101]

It's always the handlers responsibility to be safe with a firearm and that can't be transferred to somebody else because you are a moron....

 

[gnappi]

If he pointed that gun at someone that was not part of the script, then yep, it was his fault. Just because they live in fantasyland doesn't mean that basic gun safety rules don't apply.

I disagree, giving the keys to a Corvette to a 13 year old is the same thing and expecting them not to take it for a spin is stupid. Actors are not trained in gun safety, they don't have to be. Props are supposed to be used and the BANG could be added with SFX if blanks were not in the gun.

As an actor he's not in my book any where near a superstar, but I'm glad if nothing else he got off just to tick off those who hate him.

 

[hittman]

Alec Baldwin to stand trial this summer on a charge stemming from deadly 'Rust' movie set shooting

A New Mexico judge has set a trial date for Alec Baldwin on an involuntary manslaughter charge stemming from a deadly shooting on the set of the movie “Rust.”

apnews.com

 

[eveled]

I see this as the only appropriate outcome. Guns are props on a movie set and actors are literally mannequins. It's the Armorer's responsibility to prepare the props for a scene and a production person to verify the setup.

Well said.

Honestly the guns probably aren't the most dangerous things on a movie. There are explosions, fires, buildings falling, car/plane/train/ wrecks etc. They hire professionals to handle all of that stuff there are safety protocols in place.

If they hire unqualified people and or safety protocols are ignored. People could die.

I feel like this case is being treated differently because an evil gun was involved.

If she died because a light tower fell on her when Baldwin leaned on it. Would we still blame Baldwin? Or the electrician who set up the tower? Or just call it an accident?