Halyna Hutchins' Death by a Prop Gun

[Kracker]

Alec Baldwin indicted on involuntary manslaughter by grand jury

[Toland's Mitchell]

Indicted based on new evidence, from 7 minutes of footage in 5 behind-the-scenes videos. From what I've seen, only small snippets of these clips are public, and they don't appear to be conclusive on the involuntary manslaughter charges. We'll see what happens.

As for the other ongoing criminal charge, Hannah Gutierrez Reed's trial is set to begin Feb 21st.

[Kracker]

'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

[Cash Flagg]

Gutierrez-Reed faces up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine for the charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Boy, that hefty fine is the REAL kicker!

[Toland's Mitchell]

The penalties are what they are. The verdict is what matters. There is too much of a maverick attitude in the film-making world. People do unsafe things on set more frequently than you'd think. We all know about the director of Midnight Rider who led his crew onto a railroad over a bridge without permission from the railway company, nor the knowledge of the train schedules, which led to the death of Sarah Jones. Just 6 weeks ago, a condor tipped over during a film shoot in the heart of Hollywood at the intersection of Sunset and Kingsley. It was loaded over its weight capacity, plus the arm was extended perpendicular to the chassis. This didn't make the news cause no one was killed or injured (though at least 5 figures worth of property damage). Still, nobody on the crew ever stepped in to say 'This looks risky.' Someone has to be made an example of in regards to safety on set, or this kind of crap will continue. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was a nepo baby, and ill-qualified for the job of armorer. And despite multiple accidental gun discharges and the presence of live ammo on set, the producers didn't fire her, and she didn't stop to consider that maybe she wasn't right for the job. She's accountable and shouldn't get away with it. However, I also agree with Reed's defense lawyers who argued the producers of Rust made her job much more difficult by giving her a dual role of both armorer and props assistant. Saving money by forcing the armorer to do other things...that's quite disturbing too. I believe the production team is also partially accountable for Halyna's death. Speaking of which, Baldwin's trial is scheduled for July.

[Lemmy Caution]

I don't think enough people understand just how much companies will skimp, cut corners, and plain neglect safety and environmental protection to increase profit if there weren't govt regulations and laws in place to prevent such harm. Hence the existence and need for the modern regulatory state, which many on the right decry.

The trial testimony seems to say Hannah Gutierrez-Reed handed an empty gun to Baldwin. Then loaded the gun (with 5 blanks and 1 live round), and left it with 1st AD Halls, who handed it to Baldwin. Unclear how much time transpired between HGR giving the unloaded gun to Baldwin and Halls handing the improperly loaded gun to Baldwin -- likely after some practice takes, maybe lighting or other set up issues. Or why HGR was called away when she was aware there was a loaded gun rehearsal about to take place. But that sequence of events is more understandable for both Halls & Baldwin, as the armorer had just been there, loaded the gun and left it in the care of the AD.

It seems that the jury focused on HGR loading the gun with one live round, probably believing she was the source of the half dozen scattered live rounds on set, and likely unimpressed by tales/testimony of her taking drugs and firing guns off duty. My presumption is that HGR didn't testify because of the evidence tampering charge which involved allegedly hiding a bag of drugs. Meaning she'd be subjected to a lot of questions about her drug usage during the production, which would only serve to prejudice the jury against her, negatively impacting the main involuntary manslaughter charge.

Not sure it's fair to disparage HGR. Being nepo can mean getting a position above your qualifications, but can also mean that you have knowledge and understanding of an area from a young age and beyond your years. It does sound like she should have been more professional, but playing hard is probably ingrained in the production culture, at least among the young set and the more daring crew jobs. It's still unclear where/how the live rounds entered the set. HGR initially claimed there was intentional sabotage, while reporting says at trial her team blamed the supplier of ammunition.

The production itself cheaped out on safety, both by hiring a young low-cost armorer and then only allowing her limited hours at that position/pay rate,while adding duties in a second role. There was a slack safety culture in general on set, with a couple misfires and then crew walking off. And there should have been extra safety measures in place at the time of the shooting, such as bulletproof shields and simply aiming slightly wide of the target. But generally companies and producers don't get charged criminally, and the production was fined heavily for its negligence.

[Kracker]

Sentenced to 18 months

Btw the fact that this is such a rare occurrence, so much so that this is an on-going national story, shows that sets are actually vey much safer and this isn't some kind of a rampant issue. And its regulations and consequences, penalties like this that keep it that way. Even bigwig Baldwin is facing the upmost accountability, that's unheard of in the business world. Meanwhile, the accident on the Rust set happens daily at homes across America and aren't treated like a thing at all.

[hearthesilence]

It's pretty asinine to see some people argue that Baldwin should go to jail because he violated a principle that isn't remotely applicable in this context. Yes, I get that it's a basic rule that you don't ever point a gun at someone and you should treat it as if it's loaded regardless. But how many actors do you see following that principle when you watch a war film or a crime film? Or really any movie that involves a character shooting a gun at someone? It's a stretch to say it's still applicable when they weren't actually filming a scene - he was working at that moment as an actor ready to film in the role he's in. Even if it's his own personal rehearsal, he's all dressed up in character and getting ready to film. It just seems ridiculous - it should be obvious that it's inherent in staging any kind of fiction that you're asking people - the actors - to convincingly simulate things that include actions they shouldn't do in real life. That's why you're supposed to have crew members that take on the responsibility of ensuring no one gets hurt when an actor does these things.

[beamish14]

It’s so transparent that the New Mexico D.A.’s office has deliberately turned this into a spectacle designed to curry voter interest in an election year. It’s pathetic, and scapegoating Baldwin is unbelievably dumb

[Lemmy Caution]

There are a number of problems with Baldwins actions on set:
1) he indeed aimed a gun directly at unprotected people instead of slightly away as the Guild safety rules require
2) he didnt check the gun himself, even while receiving it from not the right person
3) he allegedly didnt participate well/fully in gun safety training on set and rushed production
4) he was a producer and presumably signed off on hiring an inexperienced armorer and limiting her amoring time.

If all or most of that is true, then he made decisions and took actions that were arguably negligent and were the proximate cause of the death. Safety guidelines and best practices exist for very good reason, and following them generally insulates one from liability when things go wrong.

Edit: Part of the context for the accidental shooting was safety issues on set, so bad that a number of crew walked off the job the previous morning. The usual standard for negligence is that one knew or should have known of a danger and failed to remedy it. How that ties into the rehearsal in which the shooting occurred will likely be dealt with at trial. But it gets to issues of knowledge of danger, a pattern of non safe activity on set, arguably requiring a heightened duty of care, etc

The armorer and 1st AD both were convicted and sentenced for their roles in the tragedy. So I don't see how this prosecution is scapegoating Baldwin or why Baldwin shouldn't be tried as well -- given his central role in the shooting, dual role as executive, and alleged failures -- if they feel the case is strong enough.

Admittedly, I don't think the DA has acted terribly professionally and has gotten into unnecessary petty squabbles with Baldwin and his representation. But that shouldn't impact whether the case is tried or not.

[Peacock]

Heartthesilence - no one is upset with war films etc where actors point guns at people because one would assume those actors have been shown that the chamber is empty before being handed the weapon. I’ve never been on a set where this doesn’t happen every time a gun is handed back to an actor. If the armourer were to forget then the actor is supposed to then ask them to show them it’s empty.

Numerous people are at fault here, and as Lemmy says, Baldwin is one of them.

[hearthesilence]

I can't speak to legal liability as it pertains to guild or union rules, but I was referring to what appeared to be gun users popping up on my social media feed who weren't in film business making arguments on how Baldwin broke the rules of basic gun handling. Their points I reiterated in my previous post.

[Lemmy Caution]

Guns should always be treated as the deadly weapons they are. I quoted some industry guidelines last year (↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:36 pm) which emphasize that.

Otherwise, I'm surprised movie productions use actual guns capable of firing deadly projectiles. You'd think replicas would work fine. Or guns modified so bullets don't fit the chambers. Or these days, CGI guns added later. Real functional guns just seem like such an unnecessary danger/risk.

[hearthesilence]

Guns should always be treated as the deadly weapons they are. I quoted some industry guidelines last year (↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:36 pm) which emphasize that.

Otherwise, I'm surprised movie productions use actual guns capable of firing deadly projectiles. You'd think replicas would work fine. Or guns modified so bullets don't fit the chambers. Or these days, CGI guns added later. Real functional guns just seem like such an unnecessary danger/risk.

I wouldn't play with them, but I feel like there's a LOT of things I wouldn't do that they regularly do for action films. (Even with safety precautions, I wouldn't ask anyone, even a stunt person, to jump out of a plane or get in a vehicle that's moving at 100+ mph.) I can probably guess why some would risk using real guns for props, or at least something that can fire like a real gun - at least to me, holding the real thing feels different than a fake that you know can't fire at least a blank. With that in mind, are there real-looking guns that can fire off blanks but not actual projectiles? If possible that would seem like the best solution. The tragedy with The Crow shows why even freak accidents can happen with blanks as long as they're used in a regular gun.

[Peacock]

It comes down to budget I guess. If you need 50 1920s guns which can fire blanks why not just source 50 real guns from the period? Otherwise you’re spending a lot more making them from scratch. And if I understand correctly you can easily adapt a blank firing gun to fire actual projectiles.

But yes blanks are still deadly and shouldn’t be fired directly at someone within a certain distance.

Normally on set we use a lot of flash in the pan / smoking gun effects which are harmless when fired at close range, I guess they are just gunpowder without a projectile.

But yes going back to the real guns thing, something like Rust probably didn’t have the budget to create all those antique guns from scratch when they could just rent the real deal and know they are safely under the control of a good armourer…