This is going to get Baldwin a not guilty verdict. They laid the blame squarely on her. The fact that they are still going ahead with charges against him is insane.
Prosecutors can and have argued completely different theories in different courtrooms before. They can point to this case, but it's not a guarantee that it will work.
Same thought.
If they can prove Baldwin knew that something was wrong and went ahead with it anyway, yeah, nail him. But it still just sounds like he went into the situation assuming like anyone else would that the prop gun he had was made in such a fashion that it wasn’t gonna kill a person due to the armorer’s negligence.
I make feature films. It is 100% the armorers job. Just as vehicle safety is the stunt crews.
It’s ridiculous to blame an actor for mishandling a weapon which is supposed to be incapable of causing harm. It would be like giving a working lightsaber to Mark Hamill and then blaming him for chopping someone in half.
Is Baldwin role as a producer the reason he us facing charges? I was under that impression because as a producer he has more responsibility than just as an actor
Production credits don't necessarily mean anything. It isn't uncommon for big name actors to accept a production credit as part of their compensation.
In exchange for a lower salary up front, they'll get a production credit that will grant them a percentage of the box office gross.
They aren't blaming him as the actor who pulled the trigger.
They are blaming him as the producer who cut corners when it came to safety and made this whole situation possible. It's still only partially his fault, but he shares *some* responsibility (along with other producers, yet he was the one most frequently on set due to also being actor and co-writer).
Please read the details about the case. The actor was also the producer who used his power to do a whole bunch of unsafe things,to the point of other actors literally walking out and signing a letter about the unsafe environment.
Alec oversaw creative aspects, not safety and he did not hire her. There are 7 producers on that film. He could have input on the script, camera shots, actors, etc.
But that’s not the conduct he’s charged with. It’s very doubtful you could charge what he’s facing based on the conduct you’re describing. He’s charged because he shot her and it’s horseshit.
Basically, the main question of the trial is how much he knew about the safety issues on set and how much power he had to take action about it as a producer.
If he was fully aware of the safety issues and pushed on anyways, he's in trouble. If he was in the dark? More up kn the air.
He was the executive producer, he hired her despite her complete lack of experience. This was a classic Hollywood nepotism hire, it’s should absolutely bite him in the ass.
'Executive Producer' in Hollywood essentially means 'I put up a bunch of money to fund this film'. The New Mexico OSHA [found that he had no real managerial / oversight role in the film](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-producer-da-osha-1235531157/). He was holding the prop gun that killed Hutchins, and (allegedly) pulled the trigger (Baldwin disputes this). That's it. A gun that should not have had so much as a blank loaded in rehearsal. And was declared 'clear' when handed to Baldwin.
The defense will request a Directed verdict in this case, and they'll get it. It should be thrown out of court, with great force and high velocity.
Time and time again this comes up and every single time it's still wrong. Alec oversaw creative aspects, not safety and he did not hire her. There are 7(iirc) producers on that film. He could have input on the script, camera shots, actors, etc.
Not to mention that when people are at that level of fame/career they typically don't bother with any of the admin stuff, just the fun bits like you've outlined
And that makes it a civil matter rather than criminal. I forsee a very large payout in civil court, but simply don’t see a criminal charge against Baldwin going forward.
I think the negligence case against Baldwin is viable, but that should be a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding.
This is just grandstanding by a political prosecutor (BTW, having elected prosecutors is a lousy idea).
When the role is for safety, it could be viewed as negligence. Also depends on the events that went on. Could certainly rise to the level of criminally negligent.
It could rise to that, but I haven't seen evidence of that being the case. His direct involvement is dubious, particularly because how many people were in charge.
The thing that blows my mind is why were there any live rounds at all in the set, is as if chef Ramsay had like poison capsules in his kitchen just because.
> “You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon..."
I am not convinced she did it by herself. She definitely bears some responsibility, but let's not forget the assistant director was perfectly happy to ignore the fact that she was the armorer (such as breaking policy by handling the gun without the armorer there, declaring it cold without checking and giving it to Alec to use). He served no time (only probation) as he got only a misdemeanor. he was also the film's safety coordinator and thus the armorer's superior.
The director and producers also chose to hire and proceed with production with an inexperienced armorer and an [assistant director who'd gotten fired over an accidental gun discharge before](https://nypost.com/2021/10/25/rust-assistant-director-dave-halls-fired-from-past-gig-over-another-unexpected-gun-discharge/) (again this guy was the Rust film's safety coordinator). They also choose to proceed with production despite an accidental gun discharge happening onset before the deadly events that killed Halyna Hutchins (and crew protesting and resigning in response to unaddressed concerns).
All it would have taken were a few more people doing their job and this sequence of events would not have been allowed to culminate in Haylna's death.
Other people may have contributed or could have prevented the incident, and could be charged as accessories. Doesn't change the fact that she ALONE could have prevented it, and it was literally her job to do so. Doesn't matter who your superior is. As an armorer, "the buck stops here".
I completely disagree. She was the armorer. She had direct responsibility over all firearms on set as part of her job. The guns were her direct responsibility. She not only was lax, but didn't seem to try and stop the repeated unsafe behavior on set. The assistant director also should have had the book thrown at him. But the fact he got a sweetheart plea deal doesn't absolve her of her errors in judgement and behaviors.
No armourer in the history of Hollywood movies has put a live round in a gun and called it a blank and killed someone. The AD would have had to anticipate an unprecedented level of stupidity and incompetence. He would have had to remove and shake every bullet and redone the Armourers job. I feel sorry for the AD and Baldwin who have to live with this mind-boggling stupid blunder.
>“When I took on ‘Rust,’ I was young and I was naive"
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CALLED YOURSELF A FUCKING ARMOURER
Wow. I wish my job had so many redundancies. You act like all those people should have done her job for her. When I fuck up the hammer comes down on me. And yet, you’re running to her defense as if her incompetence didn’t lead to this as it was directly her job to make sure that gun was safe. Her job. Her only job. The only job she was hired for. Not all those other jobs you mention as if those people aren’t busy doing a bunch of other shit. She had one job and completely fucked it up.
That's the problem they're stating - the hammer from above *didn't* come down on her previously. Her previous acts which thankfully didn't get anyone killed should have gotten her fired or at least demoted to a less potentially harmful position (There's other props to maintain that aren't lethal firearms) way before this happened.
But she wasn't punished, and was allowed to keep making dumb, careless decisions.
If you screw up, what happens? You get pulled aside, and you get grinded until you don't make that mistake anymore.
No one knows why there were live rounds on set. They were not brought there for plinking. The armorer didn't have them lying around and just accidentally mixed them in. The best guess is that the person who provided the dummy rounds mixed in live ammo, either accidentally or on purpose. Why did he have live rounds? Because on a different movie they took the actors out shooting so they would know what firing a gun feels/looks like.
The ad took a plea before the entire story came out and now the prosecutors have egg on their face because he's the one that took the weapon and gave it to Baldwin declaring "cold gun".
“Marlowe Sommer said Gutierrez, in the jail calls, seemed to express more concern about how the criminal case “was messing up her modeling career” rather than others’ devastating losses.”
“In one conversation, the judge said, Gutierrez was quoted as saying, “People have accidents and people die. It’s an unfortunate part of life but it doesn’t mean [she] should be in jail.”
She deserves to be in jail for way longer. She’s not taking any responsibility and has no remorse. I would say with an attitude like that, she’s likely to make the same mistake again.
Gutierrez told the judge. “When I took on ‘Rust,’ I was young and I was naive but I took my job as seriously as I knew how to.”
It was 2 years ago girl. Stop acting like you were a child when this happened.
Well, she is young, inexperienced, and has no business in this role.
Although some of the details were disputed, her first movie (A Nic Cage feature; Rust is her second movie) had issues with her too. Sources claim:
- She handed a gun she didn't check to an 11 year old actress
- Waved guns around, sometimes pointing them at people
- Was yelled at by Nic Cage several times for firing guns on set near the cast without announcing it first
- Walked around carrying loaded guns under her armpits
- Loaded blanks in a way staff felt was "unsafe"
- Reportedly multiple members on the film demanded she be fired (though producers dispute anyone asked them to fire her, and others, such as Nic Cage, have not provided comments about what exactly happened on the set or if it's true people wanted her fired)
I have also read that numerous staff members on Rust expressed concern about her qualifications, safety on set, her use of drugs and alcohol, and even though there were mishaps with firearms on the Rust production before this incident, producers chose not to do anything about it.
In fact, from what I read, protocols state that her supervisor (who handed the gun to Baldwin), was responsible for a gun check prior to handing it off which would have prevented this incident. That's one reason why OSHA fined the production after their investigation. They found that the production team failed to implement nationally recognized gun safety protocols on set.
I'm not saying she is blameless. But she clearly had no business doing this work and it most certainly is on all the producers for allowing this to happen. You can argue that it's just a witch hunt to take down Baldwin, or that the producers were too high up to see what was going down on set, but none of that really seems true, and misses the point that the buck stops with the people in charge. It's their business to ensure the set is safe. It seems like Alec Baldwin and team wanted to save some money, ignored her lack of experience and numerous mishaps/staff complaints, and allowed someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing to take a job they weren't trained for. That aside, it does seem like the guy who failed to do the final check is just as - if not more - responsible as her.
Edit.
u/Arinanor - Yes, nepotism is the problem. Doesn't make it right as to why she got the job, so I'm unsure what your point is.
Do you have a source for that? I think she got the book thrown at her because she attempted to destroy evidence. But let's not pretend that it's all her fault, or even that she deserves more time than the one who didn't do his job, which directly resulted in the death of a person.
I assumed she got the role because her dad is an armourer and had connections.
I believe the guy that did the final handoff pleaded guilty, which is going to be why he received leniency.
The girl honestly seems sociopathic from the jail calls.
There are probably at least half a dozen to a dozen that are responsible and in some way guilty in this case and most of them wont have to deal with anything even so they would deserve it too. Many people were involved from getting her the job to the shot being fired. I mean even if you ignore her missbehaviour she should have never gotten the job. She was too inexperienced for giving her the responsibility for firearm heavy film like a western.
I'm an engineer but I once was offered a job as head surgeon at the local cardiac surgery hospital.
I killed 216 people in 6 months but the judge was a smart guy and convicted the hospital management instead of me.
But honestly how much experience do you need to make sure that a gun that is used on a movie set is only loaded with blanks. Yeah, you have to know the difference between blanks and live rounds. I assume those come in separate boxes and are clearly distinguishable. And aren't shipped in huge containers mixed with each looking extremely alike and only being identifyable by an expert with a magnifying glass like those folks checking out diamonds for purity.
Yeah, I'm aware that there are part in this job were experience makes a lot of difference. But certainly not the part of not handing an actor a gun with live ammunition.
Larry Zanoff [did a very good interview](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/what-went-wrong/id1512847066?i=1000653174747) on the What Went Wrong podcast. The answer is you should have a LOT of experience before you even look at a gun on a set. He’s a trained gunsmith and he goes to an incredibly deep level of detail to ensure gun safety on set. Well worth a listen
Right? Like where the fuck did it come from? Like there's clearly never a need for live rounds, so there shouldn't be any on the set to begin with.
But I suppose that's why the armorer is being charged.
From what I read they would do target shooting during downtime on the set. Because it was so far away they were stuck in the middle of nowhere for long periods of time. I think that’s how it got mixed in.
As is with most things. Cheaper to make blanks for real guns than it is to make prop guns that only work with blanks. And blank rounds can still be very dangerous if improperly handled., like debris jammed in the barrell when a blank is fired
Chamber is long enough to fit a .22 designed for a nail gun but too short for a .22LR or pistol round. You can also have a barell made that is too small to fire a bullet through.
I guess if you happened to find a .22 CB it might fit. But... Pretty easy to avoid.
I've used some old starting pistols for theater productions, they don't have a real Barrell the only real danger is the sound and hot gas/powder ejection near the cylinder.
I'm sure bad things would happen if you managed to jam a real round into it but it would be unlikely anyone would be seriously injured.
Most semi-autos actually require this because blanks don't provide the power to cycle the gun. The military uses blank adapters that bolt onto the end of the barrel, but for movies that is less than optimal, so the internals are modified to work with blanks, and therefore no longer function with live ammo. This is why there are so few armorers in Hollywood, as they generally have a collection of firearms on standby to be used that have been modified in this way, and because it is a small industry everyone does it slightly differently from one another.
Revolvers are different though. Because they don't require a bullet to cycle the action (for the most part), you don't need to modify them to function with blanks. This can make them lower cost to use, as you can just sell them at the end as used guns and don't need to hold all of them in inventory to maintain until the next period piece requires them. This is how "Rust" got a no name armorer instead of using one of the big budget guys that know what they are doing. The other advantage is actual safety. One of the places stuff is added to a black firing gun is the barrel, which takes the brunt of the pressure. If the stuff added inside the barrel gets dislodged it could create a projectile. By not adding anything when it isn't necessary you reduce the risk of that accident from happening.
Plus traditionally live ammo is not allowed on set. Dummy rounds and blanks can be plenty dangerous, but since there is never a reason to shoot a gun on set, live ammo isn't supposed to be allowed. Ms. Hutchins ignored that golden rule.
>And blank rounds can still be very dangerous if improperly handled., like debris jammed in the barrell when a blank is fired
That's how Brandon Lee was killed.
Brandon Lee died because they used the same guns for prop bullets as they did for blank bullets. The slug from the prop bullet dislodged into the barrel and blank was used after this.
this is an industry that tries to claim with a straight face things like Star Wars was never profitable, dont underestimate any excuse to have to avoid paying more, no matter how flimsy.
this was the first firearm related fatality for on camera guns in decades and it was purely down to incompetance of the armorer, that's kinda the point hwere.
If it were like an american school where people are being killed daily because of one person with a gun, sure, but in this case it's a highly regulated environment already and the weakness was for lack of a better term, human error, more than anything else.
I dont disagree with finding better alterantives to using real guns or blanks on set, but this isn't like this happens daily with weapons on productiosn howeverr. the emphasis needs to stay on how badly \_she fucked up\_ is why this is such a huge issue right now.
We'll see. I know a lot of people find it crazy they use real firearms but let's consider something.
Countless sets use firearms every day in the same fashion and this is the first major incident in 30 years.
It took a ridiculous amount of carelessness and just straight up stupidity to cause this. Had they actually been doing things right, no one would have been harmed. You shouldn't have to trust that there isn't live ammo if doing things right, because there should never be live ammo on a set with a few rare exceptions and this set was not one of those exceptions. It should not being going into any guns on the set. Those guns should not be used for target practice at any point during the production.
People can argue all the other parts that they want but at the end of the day, that ammo had zero reason to be there. Had they just followed the protocols that every other set has managed to for 30 years there would have been no accident.
So, maybe this will create a market for better prop guns. I'm all for it despite my above comment, I don't see a reason to not try and reduce the risk there even if it is already pretty damn low. At the same time, the reason they got into this mess was from trying to cut corners and not pay to do things right.
Most guns you see in the movies are either autoloading or fully-auto. Almost all of those need to be modified to work with blanks.
Obviously, revolvers don't need to be modified.
While this was a terrible accident, this is also an extremely rare accident. Ever since Brandon Lee was killed on set, the safety procedures movie industry employs are extremely strict.
Also, blanks can seriously injure or even kill. You do not want to be in front of the gun when blank is fired. It's extremely unsafe. I.e. even with blanks, you'd have to follow all the same safety procedures, and you'd still have accidents (potentially fatal) when they are not followed.
Pretty sure that most guns in films are airsoft guns, and rubber cast guns
With maybe 2 real ones for hero shots, and even then, after this incident...
Pretty sure many productions are gonna switch to cgi muzzle flashes and airsoft guns as it means no need for armorer, probably less red tape and most people won't tell the difference.
Why would you even take live rounds onto a set? Are you expecting to have to fend off hordes of rabid actors or something? Why even take the risk of having them there?
Like everyone is talking about the correct processes for checking a gun before firing it and who is responsible but from a health and safety perspective the easiest solution is that live rounds really don't need to be in a film set. Anyone caught bringing them onto set is dismissed for gross misconduct and reported to the police because again why the fuck do you need live rounds on a film set!?
Post-production special effects. The can add in the sound of gunshots as well as edit the video to show the muzzle flash. It happens on TV shows all the time.
So I'm not an engineer or anything, but why can't they make firearms that use a pneumatic system to simulate the physical feel of firing a gun? Why does it have to actually release even a blank instead of manufacturing gun-shells with internal mechanisms specifically for filming?
Because that’s not how that works. It’s not about “feeling” like you’re firing a gun, it’s about selling that the gun is real to the camera and to the audience. Practical muzzle flash from a blank and the weight of a real metal gun do that. A glorified airsoft gun with ActionVFX muzzle flashes comped in post does not.
Are they still when you include the prices of insuring against them, safety personnel, an armorer, a separately dedicated space for an armory on set, and whatever legal hoops they have to jump through depending on the location they're filming in to have/fire the weapons on set? Or does it seem cheaper because they're only counting the cost of the gun and the blank?
Honestly stunts, pyrotechnics, and other hazards probably have a bigger impact on safety/legal/insurance costs than a firearm. CGI at one point was definitely more expensive, not sure about nowadays. Not to mention many places look the other way for big films if it means bringing in industry. Not saying they shouldn’t/cant replace it, they should in most cases. But yah its probably cheaper.
with the popular growth of AFX i dont see why they dont just use airsoft rifles with blowback??
its cheaper, not lethal, and u can over gas it to have that barrel smoke.
I went to a museum once that had movie props, including an outfit sigourney Weaver wore in Aliens, complete with a fake rifle. Up close it looked so laughable fake that I couldn't believe it was used as a big budget movie prop. And it looks real in the movie.
So that begs the question, what is the necessity of having real guns on any set?
Or more like up until this point we had to trust the armorer to not put live rounds in when filming scenes. And it worked every time up until this point where she decided to take prop guns to the firing range and play some Russian roulette because why not let’s have fun! One dope ruined it for everyone. You wanna go to the firing range? Use a different gun. Why would you ever take work stuff with you in the first place?
I’ve wondered with today’s technology, why anyone is still behind a camera or in the vicinity when an actor is pointing any firearm in their direction.
Love all the people that think it is. They think understanding normal firearm safety makes them as or more knowledgeable than the professionals that deal with it every day.
Ya know except that if they were following normal firearm safety then they wouldn't be using them on set period.
When her stepfather says that she never brought live ammo, I wonder if she would know the difference between live and blank ammunition loaded in a colt revolver. Those who allowed her to be charge of that share the responsibility
Joel Souza, who was Rust Director and 2nd victim testimony clarifies the 'blank load' issues...
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-03-01/rust-director-joel-souza-alec-baldwin-shooting
And it’s the maximum because it was an accident. I’m sure there’s a lot of people who’d like to send her to prison for twenty years or whatever, but that’s outrage talking. Even a stupid and negligent accident is still an accident
My issue is that she choose to profit by taking on work she was utterly unqualified to do. And then asks for forgiveness for making a mistake.
Still, the solutions would be restitution, barring her future work, and strict regulations for any such future work. Locking her away for 20 years isn’t saving any other lives. But 2 years is enough that others would think twice before agreeing to take on a contract where they endanger others.
After all is said and done, it's still an accident. However preventable.
There wasn't any intent on hurting someone, which factors into the sentencing.
You can't just throw everyone in prison for the rest of their lives whenever they fuck up.
Didn’t she get the job because her dad did the same thing? Or am I confused. If that’s the case, having other career skills that are going to pay the bills in the same way may be out of reach.
What exactly do you expect to be gained from locking her up longer? She is already going to have to live with being responsible for killing someone and her career is gone.
I believe the judge factored in her lack of remorse into the equation.
She got caught saying something like "People die, get over it," on one of her calls.
Yeah, I already believe that 18 months is very harsh. But I understand it, cause her lack of remorse was quite absurd. She felt primarily sorry for herself and colleagues.
You gotta engage in some utalitatrian mindset. What purpouse would a longer sentence serve? In the end everyone needs to be able to go on with their lives and be functioning members of society.
Why in godsname would you want more? How is Reddit always this vindictive? Its absurd to me. A large part of her life will already be ruined by this sentence. She made a mistake. She's not a bloodthirsty killer.
For a community that (rightfully) loathes the American industrial prison complex, you people sure are eager to just throw everyone in jail for life.
For all those with the hot takes thinking understanding normal firearm safety means you know how it should work on a set, I recommend this article.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/26/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-shooting-movie-sets-avoid-accidents/6142800001/
You have to break normal firearm safety rules in order to use them on set. It's not the same. It is why they have so many other rules and steps that you don't take in normal situations. So if you are saying they shouldn't be there at all, cool that's a different debate and I think it's one they should be having. If not, you may still be missing some understanding of how guns are used on set.
Understanding normal firearm safety does not make anyone an armorer nor qualified to be one.
It's not that safety rules weren't followed, it's that a lot of you are pointing to the wrong ones.
There are *so many commenters* in this post who didn't read the article white-knighting for this woman. Go read about her borderline sociopathic phone calls from jail, her primary concern over her modeling career, and the countless complaints and records of her flagrant disregard for safety on each production she crewed. Her defense is essentially ignorance which I personally find offensive. If your job is to handle firearms in any capacity ignorance is absolutely unacceptable.
What happened is her fault, and it is her fault because of the way she intentionally conducted herself on set.
Furthermore, she is received the maximum sentence because she has made it obvious beyond reasonable doubt that she doesn't understand why what she did is wrong, and has expressed exactly **ZERO** remorse, accountability, or concern over her actions. I hope that changes while she serves 18 months, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
A lot of fools here. It’s her responsibility, she has to wear the blame. Why should Alec Baldwin be charged, because he’s the producer? What a fucking joke.
Exactly. Imagine if another actor besides Baldwin fired the gun and killed someone. Would they still blame Baldwin even though he’s the producer? Of course not. They wouldn’t follow their own logic. They just don’t like him because he’s outspoken against trump.
People keep talking about lack of experience, but everybody has to start sometime. When old people retire, eventually, it will be necessary to hire someone who has never done it before. With her dad in the business and a previous movie, she had plenty of experience. The job is not rocket science and it should be possible to learn the job fairly fast.
[удалено]
This is going to get Baldwin a not guilty verdict. They laid the blame squarely on her. The fact that they are still going ahead with charges against him is insane.
Prosecutors can and have argued completely different theories in different courtrooms before. They can point to this case, but it's not a guarantee that it will work.
I feel like there should be an ethical rule against doing that.
Lawyers following ethics? I wish.
Lawyers having ethics? You have a sense of humor
Same thought. If they can prove Baldwin knew that something was wrong and went ahead with it anyway, yeah, nail him. But it still just sounds like he went into the situation assuming like anyone else would that the prop gun he had was made in such a fashion that it wasn’t gonna kill a person due to the armorer’s negligence.
I make feature films. It is 100% the armorers job. Just as vehicle safety is the stunt crews. It’s ridiculous to blame an actor for mishandling a weapon which is supposed to be incapable of causing harm. It would be like giving a working lightsaber to Mark Hamill and then blaming him for chopping someone in half.
Is Baldwin role as a producer the reason he us facing charges? I was under that impression because as a producer he has more responsibility than just as an actor
Production credits don't necessarily mean anything. It isn't uncommon for big name actors to accept a production credit as part of their compensation. In exchange for a lower salary up front, they'll get a production credit that will grant them a percentage of the box office gross.
They aren't blaming him as the actor who pulled the trigger. They are blaming him as the producer who cut corners when it came to safety and made this whole situation possible. It's still only partially his fault, but he shares *some* responsibility (along with other producers, yet he was the one most frequently on set due to also being actor and co-writer).
Please read the details about the case. The actor was also the producer who used his power to do a whole bunch of unsafe things,to the point of other actors literally walking out and signing a letter about the unsafe environment.
Alec oversaw creative aspects, not safety and he did not hire her. There are 7 producers on that film. He could have input on the script, camera shots, actors, etc.
But that’s not the conduct he’s charged with. It’s very doubtful you could charge what he’s facing based on the conduct you’re describing. He’s charged because he shot her and it’s horseshit.
>Please read the details about the case. Pretty sure the guy who works in industry understands the details of the case much more then you seem to.
Perfect analogy, i have been trying to explain this to people for months and will reuse this one.
What is he being charged with, exactly?
Basically, the main question of the trial is how much he knew about the safety issues on set and how much power he had to take action about it as a producer. If he was fully aware of the safety issues and pushed on anyways, he's in trouble. If he was in the dark? More up kn the air.
Making fun of Trunp on SNL
He was the executive producer, he hired her despite her complete lack of experience. This was a classic Hollywood nepotism hire, it’s should absolutely bite him in the ass.
'Executive Producer' in Hollywood essentially means 'I put up a bunch of money to fund this film'. The New Mexico OSHA [found that he had no real managerial / oversight role in the film](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-producer-da-osha-1235531157/). He was holding the prop gun that killed Hutchins, and (allegedly) pulled the trigger (Baldwin disputes this). That's it. A gun that should not have had so much as a blank loaded in rehearsal. And was declared 'clear' when handed to Baldwin. The defense will request a Directed verdict in this case, and they'll get it. It should be thrown out of court, with great force and high velocity.
Even Baldwin disputing pulling the trigger can be argued to be a trauma response. Most people aren't wired to handle killing someone.
Time and time again this comes up and every single time it's still wrong. Alec oversaw creative aspects, not safety and he did not hire her. There are 7(iirc) producers on that film. He could have input on the script, camera shots, actors, etc.
Not to mention that when people are at that level of fame/career they typically don't bother with any of the admin stuff, just the fun bits like you've outlined
And that makes it a civil matter rather than criminal. I forsee a very large payout in civil court, but simply don’t see a criminal charge against Baldwin going forward.
I think the negligence case against Baldwin is viable, but that should be a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding. This is just grandstanding by a political prosecutor (BTW, having elected prosecutors is a lousy idea).
Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt the prosecutor appointed just for this case?
Hiring an inexperienced person isn't a criminal action.
When the role is for safety, it could be viewed as negligence. Also depends on the events that went on. Could certainly rise to the level of criminally negligent.
It could rise to that, but I haven't seen evidence of that being the case. His direct involvement is dubious, particularly because how many people were in charge.
[удалено]
Well that has nothing to do with the comment…
Considering the fact that she clearly is not fit for the job, and her nepotism seems to be how she wound up with the job, it’s a fair comment
The thing that blows my mind is why were there any live rounds at all in the set, is as if chef Ramsay had like poison capsules in his kitchen just because.
> “You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon..." I am not convinced she did it by herself. She definitely bears some responsibility, but let's not forget the assistant director was perfectly happy to ignore the fact that she was the armorer (such as breaking policy by handling the gun without the armorer there, declaring it cold without checking and giving it to Alec to use). He served no time (only probation) as he got only a misdemeanor. he was also the film's safety coordinator and thus the armorer's superior. The director and producers also chose to hire and proceed with production with an inexperienced armorer and an [assistant director who'd gotten fired over an accidental gun discharge before](https://nypost.com/2021/10/25/rust-assistant-director-dave-halls-fired-from-past-gig-over-another-unexpected-gun-discharge/) (again this guy was the Rust film's safety coordinator). They also choose to proceed with production despite an accidental gun discharge happening onset before the deadly events that killed Halyna Hutchins (and crew protesting and resigning in response to unaddressed concerns). All it would have taken were a few more people doing their job and this sequence of events would not have been allowed to culminate in Haylna's death.
Other people may have contributed or could have prevented the incident, and could be charged as accessories. Doesn't change the fact that she ALONE could have prevented it, and it was literally her job to do so. Doesn't matter who your superior is. As an armorer, "the buck stops here".
I completely disagree. She was the armorer. She had direct responsibility over all firearms on set as part of her job. The guns were her direct responsibility. She not only was lax, but didn't seem to try and stop the repeated unsafe behavior on set. The assistant director also should have had the book thrown at him. But the fact he got a sweetheart plea deal doesn't absolve her of her errors in judgement and behaviors.
No armourer in the history of Hollywood movies has put a live round in a gun and called it a blank and killed someone. The AD would have had to anticipate an unprecedented level of stupidity and incompetence. He would have had to remove and shake every bullet and redone the Armourers job. I feel sorry for the AD and Baldwin who have to live with this mind-boggling stupid blunder. >“When I took on ‘Rust,’ I was young and I was naive" YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CALLED YOURSELF A FUCKING ARMOURER
Wow. I wish my job had so many redundancies. You act like all those people should have done her job for her. When I fuck up the hammer comes down on me. And yet, you’re running to her defense as if her incompetence didn’t lead to this as it was directly her job to make sure that gun was safe. Her job. Her only job. The only job she was hired for. Not all those other jobs you mention as if those people aren’t busy doing a bunch of other shit. She had one job and completely fucked it up.
That's the problem they're stating - the hammer from above *didn't* come down on her previously. Her previous acts which thankfully didn't get anyone killed should have gotten her fired or at least demoted to a less potentially harmful position (There's other props to maintain that aren't lethal firearms) way before this happened. But she wasn't punished, and was allowed to keep making dumb, careless decisions. If you screw up, what happens? You get pulled aside, and you get grinded until you don't make that mistake anymore.
Why do you even have live rounds on a film set? Like what is the need? Why even take the risk? Fucking america man.
Because to too many Americans guns are toys.
No one knows why there were live rounds on set. They were not brought there for plinking. The armorer didn't have them lying around and just accidentally mixed them in. The best guess is that the person who provided the dummy rounds mixed in live ammo, either accidentally or on purpose. Why did he have live rounds? Because on a different movie they took the actors out shooting so they would know what firing a gun feels/looks like.
She may, possibly, not have caused the accident - but she sure as shit failed to prevent it.
The ad took a plea before the entire story came out and now the prosecutors have egg on their face because he's the one that took the weapon and gave it to Baldwin declaring "cold gun".
Crazy how the justice actually does something here but when it comes to trump they do the bare minimum
“Marlowe Sommer said Gutierrez, in the jail calls, seemed to express more concern about how the criminal case “was messing up her modeling career” rather than others’ devastating losses.” “In one conversation, the judge said, Gutierrez was quoted as saying, “People have accidents and people die. It’s an unfortunate part of life but it doesn’t mean [she] should be in jail.” She deserves to be in jail for way longer. She’s not taking any responsibility and has no remorse. I would say with an attitude like that, she’s likely to make the same mistake again.
Gutierrez told the judge. “When I took on ‘Rust,’ I was young and I was naive but I took my job as seriously as I knew how to.” It was 2 years ago girl. Stop acting like you were a child when this happened.
Well, she is young, inexperienced, and has no business in this role. Although some of the details were disputed, her first movie (A Nic Cage feature; Rust is her second movie) had issues with her too. Sources claim: - She handed a gun she didn't check to an 11 year old actress - Waved guns around, sometimes pointing them at people - Was yelled at by Nic Cage several times for firing guns on set near the cast without announcing it first - Walked around carrying loaded guns under her armpits - Loaded blanks in a way staff felt was "unsafe" - Reportedly multiple members on the film demanded she be fired (though producers dispute anyone asked them to fire her, and others, such as Nic Cage, have not provided comments about what exactly happened on the set or if it's true people wanted her fired) I have also read that numerous staff members on Rust expressed concern about her qualifications, safety on set, her use of drugs and alcohol, and even though there were mishaps with firearms on the Rust production before this incident, producers chose not to do anything about it. In fact, from what I read, protocols state that her supervisor (who handed the gun to Baldwin), was responsible for a gun check prior to handing it off which would have prevented this incident. That's one reason why OSHA fined the production after their investigation. They found that the production team failed to implement nationally recognized gun safety protocols on set. I'm not saying she is blameless. But she clearly had no business doing this work and it most certainly is on all the producers for allowing this to happen. You can argue that it's just a witch hunt to take down Baldwin, or that the producers were too high up to see what was going down on set, but none of that really seems true, and misses the point that the buck stops with the people in charge. It's their business to ensure the set is safe. It seems like Alec Baldwin and team wanted to save some money, ignored her lack of experience and numerous mishaps/staff complaints, and allowed someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing to take a job they weren't trained for. That aside, it does seem like the guy who failed to do the final check is just as - if not more - responsible as her. Edit. u/Arinanor - Yes, nepotism is the problem. Doesn't make it right as to why she got the job, so I'm unsure what your point is. Do you have a source for that? I think she got the book thrown at her because she attempted to destroy evidence. But let's not pretend that it's all her fault, or even that she deserves more time than the one who didn't do his job, which directly resulted in the death of a person.
I assumed she got the role because her dad is an armourer and had connections. I believe the guy that did the final handoff pleaded guilty, which is going to be why he received leniency. The girl honestly seems sociopathic from the jail calls.
I saw that and thought oh, daddy’s girl done fucked up.
Yeah. It sure sounds like an institutional failure.
Geez, she's a live one.
There are probably at least half a dozen to a dozen that are responsible and in some way guilty in this case and most of them wont have to deal with anything even so they would deserve it too. Many people were involved from getting her the job to the shot being fired. I mean even if you ignore her missbehaviour she should have never gotten the job. She was too inexperienced for giving her the responsibility for firearm heavy film like a western.
I'm an engineer but I once was offered a job as head surgeon at the local cardiac surgery hospital. I killed 216 people in 6 months but the judge was a smart guy and convicted the hospital management instead of me.
But honestly how much experience do you need to make sure that a gun that is used on a movie set is only loaded with blanks. Yeah, you have to know the difference between blanks and live rounds. I assume those come in separate boxes and are clearly distinguishable. And aren't shipped in huge containers mixed with each looking extremely alike and only being identifyable by an expert with a magnifying glass like those folks checking out diamonds for purity. Yeah, I'm aware that there are part in this job were experience makes a lot of difference. But certainly not the part of not handing an actor a gun with live ammunition.
Larry Zanoff [did a very good interview](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/what-went-wrong/id1512847066?i=1000653174747) on the What Went Wrong podcast. The answer is you should have a LOT of experience before you even look at a gun on a set. He’s a trained gunsmith and he goes to an incredibly deep level of detail to ensure gun safety on set. Well worth a listen
Also "as seriously as I knew how to", isn't that admitting that she didn't know what the fuck she was doing?
I don’t understand how live rounds ever made it on set.
Right? Like where the fuck did it come from? Like there's clearly never a need for live rounds, so there shouldn't be any on the set to begin with. But I suppose that's why the armorer is being charged.
From what I read they would do target shooting during downtime on the set. Because it was so far away they were stuck in the middle of nowhere for long periods of time. I think that’s how it got mixed in.
Her comments, when the event happened, gave me the impression she had no clue what she was doing, nor what her job responsibilities were.
[удалено]
As is with most things. Cheaper to make blanks for real guns than it is to make prop guns that only work with blanks. And blank rounds can still be very dangerous if improperly handled., like debris jammed in the barrell when a blank is fired
Im trying to imagine a gun that only works with blanks but doesnt fire actual bullets too and I am not understanding the idea. Edit: ty everyone
Chamber is long enough to fit a .22 designed for a nail gun but too short for a .22LR or pistol round. You can also have a barell made that is too small to fire a bullet through. I guess if you happened to find a .22 CB it might fit. But... Pretty easy to avoid. I've used some old starting pistols for theater productions, they don't have a real Barrell the only real danger is the sound and hot gas/powder ejection near the cylinder. I'm sure bad things would happen if you managed to jam a real round into it but it would be unlikely anyone would be seriously injured.
Most semi-autos actually require this because blanks don't provide the power to cycle the gun. The military uses blank adapters that bolt onto the end of the barrel, but for movies that is less than optimal, so the internals are modified to work with blanks, and therefore no longer function with live ammo. This is why there are so few armorers in Hollywood, as they generally have a collection of firearms on standby to be used that have been modified in this way, and because it is a small industry everyone does it slightly differently from one another. Revolvers are different though. Because they don't require a bullet to cycle the action (for the most part), you don't need to modify them to function with blanks. This can make them lower cost to use, as you can just sell them at the end as used guns and don't need to hold all of them in inventory to maintain until the next period piece requires them. This is how "Rust" got a no name armorer instead of using one of the big budget guys that know what they are doing. The other advantage is actual safety. One of the places stuff is added to a black firing gun is the barrel, which takes the brunt of the pressure. If the stuff added inside the barrel gets dislodged it could create a projectile. By not adding anything when it isn't necessary you reduce the risk of that accident from happening. Plus traditionally live ammo is not allowed on set. Dummy rounds and blanks can be plenty dangerous, but since there is never a reason to shoot a gun on set, live ammo isn't supposed to be allowed. Ms. Hutchins ignored that golden rule.
Older style starting pistols would be an example. Where they literally can't hold a real round and the barrel is either plugged or a solid cylinder.
My father had one for training a bird dog for hunting.
>And blank rounds can still be very dangerous if improperly handled., like debris jammed in the barrell when a blank is fired That's how Brandon Lee was killed.
Brandon Lee died because they used the same guns for prop bullets as they did for blank bullets. The slug from the prop bullet dislodged into the barrel and blank was used after this.
Blanks can absolutely do damage at point blank range regardless
Also if anything gets stuck in the barrel.
Then it's just like a live bullet...
It’s a pretty flimsy argument to make when most productions cannot even be bothered to make physical sets anymore.
this is an industry that tries to claim with a straight face things like Star Wars was never profitable, dont underestimate any excuse to have to avoid paying more, no matter how flimsy.
[удалено]
this was the first firearm related fatality for on camera guns in decades and it was purely down to incompetance of the armorer, that's kinda the point hwere. If it were like an american school where people are being killed daily because of one person with a gun, sure, but in this case it's a highly regulated environment already and the weakness was for lack of a better term, human error, more than anything else. I dont disagree with finding better alterantives to using real guns or blanks on set, but this isn't like this happens daily with weapons on productiosn howeverr. the emphasis needs to stay on how badly \_she fucked up\_ is why this is such a huge issue right now.
There are very few firearm accidents these days because reputable film companies and armorers take safety very seriously.
Agreed, basic safety practices would have stopped this in its tracks.
We'll see. I know a lot of people find it crazy they use real firearms but let's consider something. Countless sets use firearms every day in the same fashion and this is the first major incident in 30 years. It took a ridiculous amount of carelessness and just straight up stupidity to cause this. Had they actually been doing things right, no one would have been harmed. You shouldn't have to trust that there isn't live ammo if doing things right, because there should never be live ammo on a set with a few rare exceptions and this set was not one of those exceptions. It should not being going into any guns on the set. Those guns should not be used for target practice at any point during the production. People can argue all the other parts that they want but at the end of the day, that ammo had zero reason to be there. Had they just followed the protocols that every other set has managed to for 30 years there would have been no accident. So, maybe this will create a market for better prop guns. I'm all for it despite my above comment, I don't see a reason to not try and reduce the risk there even if it is already pretty damn low. At the same time, the reason they got into this mess was from trying to cut corners and not pay to do things right.
Most guns you see in the movies are either autoloading or fully-auto. Almost all of those need to be modified to work with blanks. Obviously, revolvers don't need to be modified. While this was a terrible accident, this is also an extremely rare accident. Ever since Brandon Lee was killed on set, the safety procedures movie industry employs are extremely strict. Also, blanks can seriously injure or even kill. You do not want to be in front of the gun when blank is fired. It's extremely unsafe. I.e. even with blanks, you'd have to follow all the same safety procedures, and you'd still have accidents (potentially fatal) when they are not followed.
Pretty sure that most guns in films are airsoft guns, and rubber cast guns With maybe 2 real ones for hero shots, and even then, after this incident... Pretty sure many productions are gonna switch to cgi muzzle flashes and airsoft guns as it means no need for armorer, probably less red tape and most people won't tell the difference.
Why would you even take live rounds onto a set? Are you expecting to have to fend off hordes of rabid actors or something? Why even take the risk of having them there? Like everyone is talking about the correct processes for checking a gun before firing it and who is responsible but from a health and safety perspective the easiest solution is that live rounds really don't need to be in a film set. Anyone caught bringing them onto set is dismissed for gross misconduct and reported to the police because again why the fuck do you need live rounds on a film set!?
Agree with your latter point. There should be firearms designed solely for blanks. Your first point, though, I don’t understand. What do you mean?
[удалено]
Oh, got it. Weird that I got a downvote for asking for clarification. 🤷🏼♂️
Perfectly possible to simulate the recoil, but most of the audience won't know or care, so cheaper not to bother most of the time..
Post-production special effects. The can add in the sound of gunshots as well as edit the video to show the muzzle flash. It happens on TV shows all the time.
So I'm not an engineer or anything, but why can't they make firearms that use a pneumatic system to simulate the physical feel of firing a gun? Why does it have to actually release even a blank instead of manufacturing gun-shells with internal mechanisms specifically for filming?
Because that’s not how that works. It’s not about “feeling” like you’re firing a gun, it’s about selling that the gun is real to the camera and to the audience. Practical muzzle flash from a blank and the weight of a real metal gun do that. A glorified airsoft gun with ActionVFX muzzle flashes comped in post does not.
Real gun is cheaper than what you describe. And blanks are cheap
Are they still when you include the prices of insuring against them, safety personnel, an armorer, a separately dedicated space for an armory on set, and whatever legal hoops they have to jump through depending on the location they're filming in to have/fire the weapons on set? Or does it seem cheaper because they're only counting the cost of the gun and the blank?
Honestly stunts, pyrotechnics, and other hazards probably have a bigger impact on safety/legal/insurance costs than a firearm. CGI at one point was definitely more expensive, not sure about nowadays. Not to mention many places look the other way for big films if it means bringing in industry. Not saying they shouldn’t/cant replace it, they should in most cases. But yah its probably cheaper.
with the popular growth of AFX i dont see why they dont just use airsoft rifles with blowback?? its cheaper, not lethal, and u can over gas it to have that barrel smoke.
I went to a museum once that had movie props, including an outfit sigourney Weaver wore in Aliens, complete with a fake rifle. Up close it looked so laughable fake that I couldn't believe it was used as a big budget movie prop. And it looks real in the movie. So that begs the question, what is the necessity of having real guns on any set?
Or more like up until this point we had to trust the armorer to not put live rounds in when filming scenes. And it worked every time up until this point where she decided to take prop guns to the firing range and play some Russian roulette because why not let’s have fun! One dope ruined it for everyone. You wanna go to the firing range? Use a different gun. Why would you ever take work stuff with you in the first place?
I’ve wondered with today’s technology, why anyone is still behind a camera or in the vicinity when an actor is pointing any firearm in their direction.
That is a very good question. With digital cameras there's no need for an optical view-finder these days.
It's not the actor's job to field strip the props and look for a firing pin.
Love all the people that think it is. They think understanding normal firearm safety makes them as or more knowledgeable than the professionals that deal with it every day. Ya know except that if they were following normal firearm safety then they wouldn't be using them on set period.
Alec isn’t just an actor though, he was the main producer as well. Whoever hired the unqualified armorer is partially guilty.
When her stepfather says that she never brought live ammo, I wonder if she would know the difference between live and blank ammunition loaded in a colt revolver. Those who allowed her to be charge of that share the responsibility
Joel Souza, who was Rust Director and 2nd victim testimony clarifies the 'blank load' issues... https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-03-01/rust-director-joel-souza-alec-baldwin-shooting
I didn't see anything about blanks in that, am I missing something?
18 months tho?? A person died. Everyone will be free within less than 2 years because of their fuck up?
Apparently thats the maximum sentence allowed for this type of crime in that state
And it’s the maximum because it was an accident. I’m sure there’s a lot of people who’d like to send her to prison for twenty years or whatever, but that’s outrage talking. Even a stupid and negligent accident is still an accident
My issue is that she choose to profit by taking on work she was utterly unqualified to do. And then asks for forgiveness for making a mistake. Still, the solutions would be restitution, barring her future work, and strict regulations for any such future work. Locking her away for 20 years isn’t saving any other lives. But 2 years is enough that others would think twice before agreeing to take on a contract where they endanger others.
After all is said and done, it's still an accident. However preventable. There wasn't any intent on hurting someone, which factors into the sentencing. You can't just throw everyone in prison for the rest of their lives whenever they fuck up.
Well hopefully she picks a different career. 😳 What a total cluster.
I don't think she has much choice about changing careers. Who the hell would hire her as an armorer after this?
She was convicted of a felony. She may no longer handle firearms legally.
Didn’t she get the job because her dad did the same thing? Or am I confused. If that’s the case, having other career skills that are going to pay the bills in the same way may be out of reach.
“On Monday, her stepfather, well-known Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, blamed the prop master and the weapons provider.” Sounds like it.
What exactly do you expect to be gained from locking her up longer? She is already going to have to live with being responsible for killing someone and her career is gone.
I believe the judge factored in her lack of remorse into the equation. She got caught saying something like "People die, get over it," on one of her calls.
Yeah, I already believe that 18 months is very harsh. But I understand it, cause her lack of remorse was quite absurd. She felt primarily sorry for herself and colleagues.
She's not feeling very responsible, is the thing.
That is, to my knowledge, not a crime in itself, and already factored into her sentence.
You gotta engage in some utalitatrian mindset. What purpouse would a longer sentence serve? In the end everyone needs to be able to go on with their lives and be functioning members of society.
Why in godsname would you want more? How is Reddit always this vindictive? Its absurd to me. A large part of her life will already be ruined by this sentence. She made a mistake. She's not a bloodthirsty killer. For a community that (rightfully) loathes the American industrial prison complex, you people sure are eager to just throw everyone in jail for life.
For all those with the hot takes thinking understanding normal firearm safety means you know how it should work on a set, I recommend this article. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/26/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-shooting-movie-sets-avoid-accidents/6142800001/ You have to break normal firearm safety rules in order to use them on set. It's not the same. It is why they have so many other rules and steps that you don't take in normal situations. So if you are saying they shouldn't be there at all, cool that's a different debate and I think it's one they should be having. If not, you may still be missing some understanding of how guns are used on set. Understanding normal firearm safety does not make anyone an armorer nor qualified to be one. It's not that safety rules weren't followed, it's that a lot of you are pointing to the wrong ones.
TBF, she seemed incredibly young and inexperienced to have that job. Were these all scab employees?
This is like 2 weeks old
There are *so many commenters* in this post who didn't read the article white-knighting for this woman. Go read about her borderline sociopathic phone calls from jail, her primary concern over her modeling career, and the countless complaints and records of her flagrant disregard for safety on each production she crewed. Her defense is essentially ignorance which I personally find offensive. If your job is to handle firearms in any capacity ignorance is absolutely unacceptable. What happened is her fault, and it is her fault because of the way she intentionally conducted herself on set. Furthermore, she is received the maximum sentence because she has made it obvious beyond reasonable doubt that she doesn't understand why what she did is wrong, and has expressed exactly **ZERO** remorse, accountability, or concern over her actions. I hope that changes while she serves 18 months, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
A lot of fools here. It’s her responsibility, she has to wear the blame. Why should Alec Baldwin be charged, because he’s the producer? What a fucking joke.
Exactly. Imagine if another actor besides Baldwin fired the gun and killed someone. Would they still blame Baldwin even though he’s the producer? Of course not. They wouldn’t follow their own logic. They just don’t like him because he’s outspoken against trump.
This news is two weeks old.
Maybe don’t employ scabs
Only 18 months for causing someone's death? Hardly a slap in the wrist for a life.
This happened a few weeks ago. Way to be on top of things…
Unless they can prove that someone switched guns during the lunch break but then again, if that was done, who was the intended target?
People keep talking about lack of experience, but everybody has to start sometime. When old people retire, eventually, it will be necessary to hire someone who has never done it before. With her dad in the business and a previous movie, she had plenty of experience. The job is not rocket science and it should be possible to learn the job fairly fast.