You don't think Baldwin yelling "Right away, Right away, Let's reload!" demonstrates a movie producer putting undue/irresponsible pressure on the armorer and film crew?

I think it raises it as a factoring issue at the very least.

As an armorer you have the ability "To take your toys and go home". I've been on set with directors who can compromise safety and skirt rules. You just have to stand your ground and say "Do you want to do it right away, or do you want to do it safely?".

Since the Twilight Zone/John Landis fiasco I don't think any director would have the huevos to call you on it. They hire you for your expertise, not their ability to push you around. Any stuntman worth his salt would question any unsafe suggestion from a director/producer.

Granted, the armorer was very "green" and inexperienced, that was their first mistake. Jumping over dollars to save nickles.

So I can create a shell company.
Pay a bum on paper to be my 'armorer'.
Shoot a bunch of people in public. How bout children in schools.
And it's no longer my fault.
It's the bum's fault.

Liberals must really hate Alex Baldwin...

I don’t get how hal took the weapon. Gave it to AB as a cold gun and rats on everyone else. He could have put the live round in the gun for heaven’s sakes.

That's the "chain of custody" question and could be the armorer's "get out of jail free" card. He had no reason to handle that gun. Inexperience and incompetence all around came into play from "below the line" employees on up.

they could've done a relay race every time and it wouldn't be relevant. the issue is live ammo was on set. that's it.

Waaaay back when this was still a fresh story, it was widely reported that Guiterez-Reed was away at lunch, not even on the set, when Baldwin pulled the trigger. The assistant director gave the gun to Baldwin, told him "cold gun", and that was that. Guiterez-Reed was nowhere to be seen. Proceeding without the armorer on set was central to the story, at least originally. So now they are trying to say she was there?

I'm not sure if she was on set. But the photo of her prop cart, completely disorganized was a telling tale. And the fact that she had a bunch of miscellaneous loose rounds in a fanny pack, let's just say that's not the way we do things.

Never mind the fact that she handed off some cocaine to another crew member to "hold" for her when she was isolated for questioning.

Along with the remote location, I'm sure once they wrapped after a days filming the booze and drugs came out and "plinking" became part of the night's festivities.

I'm not saying that AB is completely innocent in this but when you're the armorer and not on set, all guns are locked up, not laying around on a prop cart.

The fanny pack with loose rounds shocked me too.... That set must have been crazy for that to even be a norm.

Yes, another thing covered in many of the news stories very early on - guns not locked away when the armorer was away from the set. It was determined then that she was not the only one with either the keys or the combination to the lockup, be it a safe, trailer, or whatever. It came out then that Baldwin had demanded access, and we were told that was highly unusual.

We have now gone from all of that - that she was not on set, that Baldwin also had access to the guns - both of which were widely covered, to an almost complete character assignation of Guiterez-Reed. She has now been successfully painted as some inexperienced, out of control drug addict who was snortin' coke between takes and leading alcohol-fueled plinking sessions after hours. On top of that, she has conveniently been charged with carrying a gun into a bar in another state - based upon some manner of cell phone records (texts, locational, or whatever) rather than an actual arrest with a gun in her possession in that bar.

The power and influence of the Hollywood/media machine on full display.

Baldwin is 100% solely responsible for the death of that woman. Period. He pointed a loaded gun at her. He cocked it. He pulled the trigger. As the possessor/handler of that gun, in that moment, he was fully responsible for both its condition (loaded or unloaded) and anything that happened with that gun, regardless of chain of possession, what he was told about its condition, all of that. It is entirely incumbent upon the current possessor/handler of any firearm at any time to verify its condition (loaded or unloaded), and to never, ever, under any circumstances point it at anything they are not willing to destroy. Much less cock the hammer and pull the trigger... Gun Handling 101. Absolutely inviolable rules. Unless, of course, you are "special". Like an "A List" actor. Hollywood... now using the advantage of time to blur and obfuscate the original story. Simply disgusting. But, well, Hollywood...

Guilty of involuntary manslaughter...

https://nypost.com/2024/03/06/us-news/rust-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-found-guilty-of-involuntary-manslaughter-in-fatal-shooting-of-halyna-hutchins/

Rust armorer found guilty
 

The jury found her guilty today of manslaughter . Per the article only faces up to 18 months in prison .


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/arts/rust-armorer-convicted-alec-baldwin-shooting.html

Horribly unjust verdict. I predict it will not survive on appeal.

I assume she'll be the scapegoat and AB will not be convicted.

That whole operation was a sht show..... is she a sacrificial lamb?

As well she should, but 18 months? Seems incredibly low

Is Baldwin off now, scot-free?

Or is there more to come?

She is the scapegoat, least powerful person involved

At least she got rid of that crappy dye job!

But the most responsible for managing firearms on set.

She had one job at which she failed miserably.

I’m guessing other armorers in entertainment think she got off easy.

I don’t know if there’s much of a difference but I think Baldwin should go down as negligent homicide, if there is such a thing.

She was also a props assistant, which was not wise from what I've read. But she's a total flake IMO and did completely fail as armorer. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Where’s Hugh when you need a comment? Lol

Her lawyer told her to do that....iow, look sane....normal. Not her real self.

Not surprised. Only a 2 hour deliberation. Could get up to 18 months. She'll be out in 6 months.

Baldwin bears some responsibility as producer of the movie. He was there when this happened.

I predict you are wrong.

Funny I would say she was supposed to be the most powerful person involved when it came to anything related to weapons on set and with an experienced armor this would've never happened

His case is next (July)...so yes...more to come........

I agree 100%

She was twice removed from possession of the firearm on which Alex Baldwin pulled the trigger while he had it aimed at a living human being. She did not hand it to the Assistant Director, the guy who handed it to Alex Baldwin. She did not tell that Assistant Director that it was a "cold gun". Nor did she hand it to Alex Baldwin. She was not even on the set when Alex Baldwin fired the fatal shot.

An old buddy of mine who practices law made me aware of a legal doctrine that is often utilized in vehicular accident situations. It's known as "last chance to avoid". The hypothetical was "what if I'm driving some old schittbox (or something on which I'm hopelessly underwater on the loan) and 'opportunity' presents itself?" in the form of some other driver who cut me off, ran a red light, or whatever. Gave me the "opportunity" to total the car while he was clearly "at fault". Well, guess what? If you actually had an opportunity to avoid the collision but chose not to, things get very, very murky...

Both the Assistant Director and Alex Baldwin had that "last chance to avoid". If either had followed centuries old gun safety protocol and had checked the gun themselves, no one would have died. Two missed opportunities. One dead cinematographer. Twice removed from the armorer.

At my own gun club (as in all others) we have long established rules for the "transfer" of firearms. All actions are open, chambers empty, chamber flags in place, magazines removed, cylinders swung open (on double action revolvers), loading gates open and cylinders free to rotate and inspect (on single action revolvers), etc. Anyone caught violating these simple rules is sent home and made to stand tall in front of our Range Committee to explain their transgressions before they are allowed to return to the range.

We've all heard the Hollywood argument that actors simply cannot be expected to understand guns and their operation. Bullschitt. I have hunted in places where the camp help, and the guys who tag along on the hunt - skinners, trackers, etc. - run around naked when we are not with them, cannot read nor write in any language, yet are expected to safely carry and handle loaded rifles (so they can hand them to you in a hurry when the situation demands) when we are in the field. More so, they are expected to be able to quickly reload the one you just handed over your shoulder to them, in trade for the one they just loaded for you.

So, no - the supposition that no one on set is responsible for the condition of the firearm in question other than the armorer is no more than Hollywood "A List" entitled actor nonsense. Anyone with a gun in their hand is responsible for that gun. The only one responsible for that gun.

As to Baldwin.... she is def. responsible for the arms/wpns and the condition at usage.

However, Baldwin was the 'OIC,' the guy in charge and some of the vids show him rushing the crew in many clips...and during the shooting shots...hurrying things along and the very young and probably newbie armorer did not 'take charge' and stop him so he is also complicit.

As to all of the actual events and timing leading up to that final event I am not privy to all of that...but he is not Scot free because she was found culpable.

I do believe her sentence was over the top tho given the circumstances I am aware of.

Hugh is excercising discretion. He may be called as an expert witness.

This. She was either totally incompetent or just reckless. Either way, she deserves a lot more time.

Uh, understood.

On the Baldwin side, I get it as producer, but as a human, if I am handed a gun/prop that the person whose job it is to know if it’s live/loaded or not, I have to trust them. But then again, I hired them, I am my own worst enemy…

How does one become the person in charge of firearms when you have a prior history with drugs and rehab?? They did do a nice job of trying to normalize her for the jury by getting rid of the clown hair though!

Yes, also very stupid. Cocaine (by the sounds of it) onsite. I think she was concentrating on being cool and part of the "movie people scene" other than doing a good job of what she was employed to do.

You are absolutely right, Michael. The armorer is supposed to have absolute authority over all things gun related on set. At least that is my understanding, with the disclaimer that I have never been on a movie set.

It is also my understanding that with a more experienced, and therefor forceful and assertive armorer, this would not be allowed to happen. Such an armorer would have shut them down. Again, having never been on a movie set, that is merely information I have gleaned from those who have.

Where I do have some experience, and some industry contacts, is in the field of firearms. Not Hollywood, but firearms. I've actually met her dad, Thell. Not that that means anything. Anyway, my admittedly distant contacts in the industry are in agreement on one thing - they would not have taken this job.

Why? Because... Alec Baldwin. He has a "reputation". No experienced armorer, with a good name in that industry, was willing to risk it by working under the conditions they expected to see on his set. Nor, apparently, was Baldwin willing to accept one who would "talk back". The result was an unholy matrimony between an inexperienced armorer seeking to expand her resume' and a producer/director/actor more than willing to run roughshod over her. One who both demanded access to the guns and handled them when she was not on set.

A "stronger", more "authoritative" armorer would have allowed neither. The armorer should have been, as you point out, the ultimate authority. "The most powerful person involved." But she was not. Baldwin was. By his own design.

Or she was overworked and needed a stimmy to keep her going

Would you aim and fire a weapon at your daughter.......without first double checking if it had live rounds or not?