Baldwin pulled the trigger. There shouldn't have been live rounds on the set period. I understand the reason for live rounds is primarily for target practice. But on the set there is no real reason for accuracy.
He claims he didn't pull the trigger (but he knows he did). Not only that but he was in charge of the entire set and did not run a tight ship. He was more concerned with how many close up shots of himself he could get into the movie.
There is no target practice on a movie set. Ever. There is never any reason for live rounds on a movie set. On a movie set you aren't supposed to point the gun at anybody. They choose camera angles to obscure what the actors are pointing their weapons at.
Another dreg led by the nose and the news media. Pulled a trigger or not, the person hired to keep the set free of live ammo failed at her job. Baldwin's liability ends at hiring her.
@@READY_OR_NOT And you can just say anything you like and not back up your claims with anything whatsoever. IWLMS rules and IATSE and SAG Union rules on movie sets simply do not allow the conduct you're talking about.
Person A: Hannah Gutierrez, _Rust_ Armorer Person B: Alec Baldwin, _Rust_ lead actor and producer Person C: Halyna Hutchins, _Rust_ cinematographer Scenarios: ONE: Person A is not negligent + Person B is not negligent = Person C survives. TWO: Person A is negligent + Person B is not negligent = Person C survives. THREE: Person A is not negligent + Person B is negligent = Person C survives. FOUR: Person A is negligent + Person B is negligent = Person C dies. Therefore, because the ONLY scenario in which Person C dies is because both Person A and Person B were negligent, therefore Alec Baldwin MUST also be convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter. Literally nothing else makes logical sense here. I rest my case.
As a gun instructor . It comes down to the person holding the gun to check the gun and where it is point before the trigger is pulled , even if you think the gun is loaded with blanks .
The judge was wrong to say that the armorer alone was responsible. Without having Baldwin's part looked into, a determination was made without those facts.
The judge didn't say the armorer was soley responsible, she said Hannah alone turned the gun from a harmless to a lethal weapon. Once Baldwin got hold of that lethal weapon he performed his own reckless actions for which he should be duly convicted.
@@asherhouseman6838 I don't see how you can call Baldwin's actions reckless. He had every reason to believe the armorer and 1st asst director did their jobs and that gun was safe. You have a real problem with showing criminal negligence there which is required for involuntary manslaughter by lawful act in New Mexico. The Armorer's actions were clearly reckless.
Alec Baldwin has way more responsibility than the Armorer seeing how he hired her, was on scene during all this, and fired the freaking weapon himself. He was grossly negligent
I don't see how you can justify gross negligence here. It was not Baldwin's responsibility to make sure the gun was safe, that's the armorer and 1st assistant director's job. Now he did point the gun at people when he shouldn't have, and he pulled the trigger when he shouldn't have. But in New Mexico, you have to prove criminal negligence for involuntary manslaughter by lawful act. You have to show he knew what he was doing was dangerous, and he did it anyway with reckless disregard for the safety of others. He had every reason to believe that gun was not dangerous. I think that's going to be a problem for the prosecution.
@@stargazer7644 there's been evidence of live rounds being fired by the crew which included Baldwin. Alec Baldwin is a credited producer for this film which means he has deep involvement in the making of this film 'Rust' He allowed this to happen. Besides the firing of live rounds on a film set (something that should've never been allowed in the first place) There's been testimony of relaxed conditions and drinking amongst the crew. If he ran his production correctly and acted more responsibly none of this wouldve happened. He was negligent
@@RickyMartin-r8v I've seen the anonymous tabloid reports of that, but I have not heard any evidence or testimony submitted during the trial of that. Alec Baldwin has history as a gun control activist. Do you really believe he'd be plinking on set?
@@RickyMartin-r8v Alec Baldwin is a gun control activist. He isn't going to be plinking cans on set or allowing it. There was no testimony given during the trial of anything like this occurring. They were not able to determine how the live rounds got on the set..
@@stargazer7644 If he hired the armorer, than her misconduct is his as well. He didn't follow safe hiring practices if he hired someone stupid enough to bring live rounds onto the set. You're gonna tell me he didn't know or hear of any live rounds ever being shot? Are they just carrying live rounds for fun?
Why a 24 year-old is in charge of armor on a movie set is beyond me and THAT is Baldwins liability. He (I assume) hired her. Her liability is (or should be) quite clear.
Why? The so called 'professional' who wad hired to keep live ammo off the movie set failed at her job. A year and a half is all she has to serve after HER NEGLIGENCE got someone killed. His liability is limited to the fact that he hired her, full stop.
@@birchsongsltd.6831 , that would be true, if a producer hired an armorer, with full authority due to expertise, who makes everything function for the actor. Are you really saying that's what happened here? No, that's not what happened here. The producer was also the actor, and was frequently overriding the armorer on decisions and handling, having dismissed the armorer from the closed set before the incident. The armorer's only fault was not insisting on a dismissal in writing or else she would personally take the firearms and leave without letting anyone take them back, and insisting if they call the police then that's fine so there will be a record that she's been stripped off responsibility for what happens. If that happened, then the shooting occurred, they'd have Baldwin pinned for it. The ambiguity got her sentenced, and him scott free.
@@RoundShades Not buying this argument ESPECIALLY considering the fact that live ammo rounds were being fired at cans and bottles by the crew during down time on the set, again addressing the immaturity of the hired 'expert.' What your suggesting is that a head chef should be held soley liable for one of his staff who sickened and killed a patron. The chef's liability is that he/she hired someone who presented as something the were not. Experienced.
@@birchsongsltd.6831Certified Instructor and life long shooter here. I'm guessing you have no firearms experience to know about handling safety as it applies to the person in possession. You can't assign liability. Baldwin pulled the trigger. Baldwin killed someone. He's responsible regardless of someone else's say-so, just as you or I would be.
I absolutely agree that neither of these 2 have shown any kind of remorse and in Baldwins case his arrogance was ugly it’s hard to look at him, in print and on screen and then there’s his wife and her phony accent… they deserve each other.
@@minidigger1000 I think you’re being naive as a gun owner myself it’s my responsibility alone to ensure gun safety when handling my weapon or when I’m around someone who is handling a weapon. Have you seen the video of the range instructor messing with a pistol and the client sits there right in front of him and the gun goes off and he kills her. She should have been behind where that gun was pointed and as an instructor he should have 1000% known better. I put that on him as she was there to learn how to use a gun and clearly there weren’t enough safety protocols in place had there been she might still be alive. As the person who was in charge of this movie he had a duty to see that the weapons department was properly staffed with knowledgeable people handling those guns and he himself as the last person to handle that gun should have checked for himself. Guns don’t kill people but idiots and crazy people do. I put him in the category of idiots.
@@birchsongsltd.6831 super doofus - know the reason why Alec Baldwin hire professional armor is so they can place blame when something goes wrong. I got money, He’s playing this all along with the way to get off.
A potential juror does not have to be totally ignorant of the case, they must be able to presume the defendant innocent and listen to the facts presented in court to determine a verdict. If you waited until you found a jury never hearing about cases in your location some trials would never happen. The reporter could use an update on jury selection qualifications.
He's been in 97 movies and 38 tv shows. He's a writer, actor and producer whose movies have made over $7 billion. He's been nominated for Academy awards and Tony awards. He's won Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG awards. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't A-list.
It's not that simple. It was a film shoot. In the film industry, everyone has prescribed roles and responsibilities around use of firearm props. There was never even supposed to be live ammunition on the set. Baldwin was handed the gun by the assistant director, who then yelled "cold gun," telling everyone on set that the gun is safe to use. Was it that guy's fault? Or the propmaster who was supposed to check all firearms before each take? Or the director who told him to fire the gun directly at the camera for the scene? A lot of different people contributed to the situation that killed Hutchins, but the person with the responsibility to ensure everyone's safety by overseeing *all* aspects of firearm use on set is the armorer. The whole reason the film industry started requiring all film shoots involving guns to hire an armorer was Brandon Lee's accidental shooting death (back in 1993) by a gun that was supposed to be loaded with blanks. The job exists precisely to avoid these types of horrible tragedies! So yeah, I agree with the judge that Gutierrez-Reed had the primary responsibility here, and I am glad she got the maximum sentence. But the producers (including Baldwin) should bear some responsibility as well.
He should have checked for himself if the gun was “cold”. Checking the firearm is the responsibility of the person about to fire it or even hold it. Baldwin pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. He can’t be more responsible.
This shouldn’t even be a thing Baldwin assumes no responsibility. You would not suspect a fkn bullet being in a prop gun. Ever. That never happens. Someone had to intentionally sneak that bullet in there. Bc that’s just something like that just doesn’t happen. I feel bad for him that must of felt horrible.
@@jakesmith9526 I’d suspect but guaranteed most of the world wouldn’t expect that and no way could I fault them for that. Someone did something shady guaranteed it.
It was a real gun, Alec Baldwin specifically wanted this real gun as his movie accessory, including color & finish. It was a real gun he was wielding around that he ordered for his movie role, safety concerns be damned. You reap what you sow. Gun safety is a real thing and sometimes is ignored by the ignorant
Mr. Baldwin pulled the trigger and pointed the weapon. He's just as guilty as the armorer. They're both at fault. That's one of the big problems with these people nowadays. They all place the blame on someone else and refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes. You know,cbe adults and say, yes I was wrong, I made a mistake. I'll take total responsibility for my actions and pay the penalty for my actions. I find myself surrounded by small children, who are trapped in adult Bodies like this woman and Mr. Baldwin, on a regular basis. What's happened to people acting like adults in our country. It's appalling, everyone thinks they're entitled that you owe them something for some reason and everyone plays the blame game nowadays. It's probably only going to get worse as time progresses in our country. I've noticed that most people, usually spend a lot of time, judging others and casting stones. But very few reflect upon themselves and their bad behavior. You can always find a reason for your bad behavior. What a bunch of small children that are supposed to be adults, alive in our current society in the United States, that we have today.
When you have someone whose specific job is gun safety on the set, and who was so criminally negligent in that job, it's going to be pretty hard to put that on Baldwin.
On things like this everybody handling the gun the armor and even the person who is going to do the scene should check the gun there can never be enough people checking the gun to make sure that it's empty or has the blanks that are supposed to be in it
Nobody loads and unloads the gun except the armorer. The actors involved are supposed to be able to watch the armorer show the rounds are inert as she loads the gun.
_*At Lease Justice was Served! (With the way it's Constructed!🤦🏻♂️) Still no Closures for the Family! R.I.P*_ *_Still To this Day, I cannot, for the life of me, Understand, 🤷🏻♂️"WHY WOULD THERE BE 'LIVE AMMUNITION' ON A MOVIE SET?!!!🤦🏻♂️_*
I think there should have been much more imvestigation as to exactly where the live ammo came from, why it was there, who put it in the gun, , that person would be a murderer. And they need to come up with a fake gun incapable of firing bullets, instead of using real guns.
A gun that can't fire bullets generally can't fire blanks either. Unless someone fesses up, there's no way to ever know where the live ammo came from. We know exactly who put it in the gun. Gutierrez loaded it, failed to check it, and handed it to Baldwin. And no, that person is not a murderer. She is guilty of involuntary manslaughter by a lawful act, not murder.
I don't think you understand what murder is. They were not able to determine where the rounds came from. They know exactly who put them in the gun. The Armorer did. You can use fake guns and put the gunfire in with CGI later. It costs more to do it this way. They traditionally use blanks which requires real guns. When Rust resumed filming, they switched to CGI.
1 - The company is responsible for hiring and assuring the employee is trained and competent. 2 - The company is responsible to reasonably review the employees performance. 3 - at least two employees did not report that the fire arms were being stored incorrectly. 4 - the Armours boss, who is required to double-check the weapon before it is deemed 'safe' did not do his job, and admitted that he didn't know much about guns. 5 - gun safety 101 - never EVER point a working gun at anyone and pull the trigger. No matter if it was deemed safe or not. The young lady is taking the fall for Baldwin and the company. Period. I don't like her attitude or the possible drug use either. That's irrelevant. The facts say she is a patsy pure and simple.
Baldwin is also guilty. He did not personally clear the weapon before use which is common practice on film sets. This was a tragedy that never should happen.
Actors are not allowed to clear weapons. That isn't common on ANY film set. That's the armorer's job. Baldwin should have had the armorer check the rounds and load the gun in his presence. THAT's common on a film set.
It's not much time for Gross negligence and being irresponsible, is it. She should be happy that's all the time she got. Her and Baldwin, both show no remorse about the girls death.
If it was an accident,I don't think nobody should get sentenced to prison. Nobody was sent to prison when Brandon Lee was shot and killed on the movie set of The Crow.
Leave those guys alone. If someone fr put that in their go after them. But charging Alec Baldwin is a joke he wouldn’t have know that was in there. Thinking it’s a prop gun. Whoever gave him that gun shoulda double checked bc someone had to sneak that bullet in there or something. That just doesn’t happen.
@@taztazzington736 Because you have to use a real gun to shoot blanks. Blanks are identical to real cartridges, they just don't have a projectile. They fire burning powder out the barrel. Prop guns can be real guns, or they can be replica guns. If you're shooting blanks on set, they're real guns. If you're hitting someone in the head with one or throwing it on the ground it's likely a replica gun.
What happened to treating every gun as if its loaded, and only point in a safe direction? He knows so much about guns, and he knew those common rules, so why was he pointing a gun at her, a cinematographer, in the first place, to intimidate her?
In my opinion this verdict means nothing to the baldwin trial. They will stack the deck of jurors with women.They will feel sorry for Alec.And we love him and he will be found not guilty.
Alec pulled the trigger. This women was just reckless but it’s not illegal to leave live rounds in a gun. It’s illegal to point a gun with live rounds at someone and pull the trigger. I think our legal system is grasping at straws as of late.
I don't think you have any understanding of what happened here. When your job as armorer is to ensure gun safety on a movie set, and you fail to ensure rounds loaded into the gun are inert, and someone is killed, you're guilty of criminal negligence. You've done something that you know is dangerous with reckless disregard for the safety of others. That IS illegal. When you do that and someone is killed, that's involuntary manslaughter. It's people who can't be bothered to find out even the basics of what they're talking about before publicly spounting an opinion about it that is the real problem.
@@stargazer7644 sure if you did something like that in your own home or in private but in this case it was failed company policy. She did not leave rounds in the gun with any ill intentions. This should not be illegal. Maybe if we had laws that govern how guns are used for business and she knowingly violated one of such rules, I would understand. In what world do we say that we can prosecute people who fail to their jobs appropriately while on the clock unless they knew that their actions or inactions could lead to serious injury? An example of this would be her allowing the loaded gun to go to set knowing that it has live rounds and will likely harm someone. Do we really think this was the case here? Even when a doctor messes up and kills someone, they only have to pay out insurance. We don’t hold every doctor that makes a mistake to a criminal standard. We are setting a nasty precedent here and I truly believe they overstepped. From now on if anyone grabs a gun in sight and shoots someone with it without verifying rounds, we will hold the person who loaded the gun liable for criminal manslaughter. Does this make any sense to you?
@@andrewsnyder9262 You don't seem to understand what negligence is. She was responsible for making sure there were no live rounds, and she intentionally and recklessly didn't do it. That is illegal. There's screwing up at work, and there's negligence, and there's criminal negligence. There's a range here. You absolutely could hold a doctor to a criminal negligence standard. If a doctor performed surgery while drunk and the patient died, you can be sure criminal negligence is going to be applied. Don't you see how that's different from a doctor simply making a mistake? You have to know what you're doing is dangerous, and you have to show willful reckess disregard for someone's safety. Pretty much anyone you ask would agree operating on someone while drunk meets both of those tests. You don't hear about it happening with doctors making mistakes because it doesn't often rise to the level of being criminal negligence thankfully.
@@stargazer7644 you are reaching for the ole straw man here it seems. I am well aware of what negligence is and there is a difference between simply not checking the gun as required by the job duties and intentionally avoiding checking the gun while knowing someone may be harmed by that lack of action. She could have been tied with other duties and just didn’t get to it or assumed that everything was ok and was operating under the pretense that the gun was not loaded with live rounds. Maybe there was a communication breakdown and she wasn’t able to properly carry out her duties. Nobody knows for certain how it played out. Everyone went in cya mode. The point I’m making is that the act alone of not checking the gun which is part of a job duty while working for a private company is not in and of itself the definition of negligence. This is where the law is overstepping. If they could prove that she did it knowing that the gun was loaded this would be a whole different case but this turned out to be a mistake made on the job with no intentions of harming anyone. I never mentioned anything of a doctor performing duties while impaired. Obviously we all know that is clear cut criminal negligence if something goes awry. I’m referring to a legitimate mistake and typically one that patients sign off on before any operation is performed. And back to Alec; the act itself of pointing a gun at someone and killing them is 100% illegal. Not the act of not checking a gun for safety. There is no such law that governs that. Again I will maintain my position that they overstepped and set a nasty precedent with this case. Let’s prosecute all the people who made mistakes in their jobs that potentially led to unsafe conditions for others. We all know dam well that the legal system doesn’t work that way unless you can prove they did it knowing someone could get hurt. They didn’t prove that here.
@@andrewsnyder9262 "She could have been tied with other duties and just didn’t get to it" Shooting had been stopped all morning due to the film crew walking off the job. They established there wasn't anything else for her to do. And if there had been, then Baldwin wouldn't have gotten his gun. Only Hannah handled Baldwin's guns. I don't know what you're talking about communication breakdowns. She loaded the gun. What she didn't do was check the dummies as she was required to do, and someone died because of it. What do you mean nobody knows for certain? The 4 people involved and who witnessed it testified as to what they happened. You mentioned "We don’t hold every doctor that makes a mistake to a criminal standard." and wanted to know why. And I explained to you why with an example. Did you even watch the trial? Obviously not. So why are you even talking about it? "the act itself of pointing a gun at someone and killing them is 100% illegal." No, obviously it isn't. People shoot and kill people all the time and aren't arrested for it. Cops. Homeowners. Soldiers. Since you can't make any logical arguments, have no reading comprehension, and obviously don't have a clue what happened in the trial beyond the headlines, I'm done here.
There was a huge, gaping legal hole to induce Not Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, IMO. Chain of custody of weapon used was legally WEAK.( H.G. was not on set/ Baldwin sent another person to retreive weapon/Balwin failed to personally check weapon/ Baldwin denied pulling trigger, yet, his finger clearly shown on trigger, etc. Yet, by trouncing H.G., it magically shifts blame away from A.B. Shell-game legal trick, IMO.)
Chain of custody of weapon? What? The armorer loaded it, didn't check it, handed it to Baldwin who didn't ask for it to be checked. What are you going on about?
He shouldn’t be in trouble for that. If he didn’t shoot it at that time, when he was practicing, then he would’ve shot his costar while the film was rolling
You never point a weapon at anyone, no matter what, in the first place, and it's your responsibility to look in the chamber and check the weapon while handling it. Just as soon as it's in your possession. That's basic gun safety 101. I bet you don't own any weapons, ever even fired one or have any clue about how to load it unload one or even how to check the chamber of one to see if it's empty or not, do you. You're probably va democrat too,vI bet and want all guns taken away from our countries, citizens, I bet. It's folks like you that make our government into the tyrant's and corrupt politicians that want absolute total power over our lives. If we get invaded by a foreign power, which we probably will sometime soon. You'll wish that you had one and knew how to use one to try to defend yourself and loved ones and property.
No, this is like arresting the person whose job it is to guarantee the safe use of firearms on a movie set whose criminally negligent actions resulted in a death and serious bodily injury.
Father, I ask that you please help provide the truth for who’s responsible for the live rounds being used.. Father, I ask that you please bring healing for family and friends.. Please talk to them and bring guidance into their lives with your Word.. In Jesus name, I pray.. Amen!!!
I think the correct person is being held accountable. She had one job, and failed in the worst way any of us could, when it ends in someone losing their life. No matter your feelings about Alec, he is an actor, not a weapons expert.
Hard to believe they are trying to convict an actor for playing with a prop gun. No actor in their right mind would ever expect a live round to be on the set! How dare these idiot prosecutors accuse him of anything, for pulling a trigger of a prop gun. Prosecutors are full of 💩💩💩💯
I dont think anybody should be charged in this case. It was an accident and not intentionally done. My question is why didn't anybody get charged when Brandon Lee was killed on the movie set making of The Crow?
Because the laws in North Carolina are different from New Mexico. Nobody got charged in Brandon Lee's case because North Carolina's requirements for criminal negligence were not met. That isn't the case here. The Armorer in New Mexico was found to be criminally negligent because she knew what she was doing was dangerous and she showed reckless disregard for the safety of others by not checking the dummy rounds as she was responsible to do when she loaded the gun. Someone died because of it, so she's guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
