Halyna Hutchins' Death by a Prop Gun

[Never Cursed]

The shot in question was one of Baldwin firing a gun directly at the camera - I understand how it might feel weird to include that given what happened during the rehearsal (though I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't do anything)

[furbicide]

I'm honestly shocked they've gone ahead with this. Thought the film would be abandoned for sure.

[hearthesilence]

It makes sense in the context of the husband wanting to move on while doing something positive for his wife's memory. Having a production finished in memory of a participant who unexpectedly passes away would be pretty much in the tradition of the arts, though granted not always done. But also it would address the financial aspects of a settlement - I wouldn't be surprised if the profits went into a trust for any children and/or a charitable cause in her memory.

[DarkImbecile]

Baldwin and the set armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter

[Toland's Mitchell]

Baldwin and the set armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter

This was a long time coming. I thought Reed and Halls would be charged, not Baldwin. Rust was set to resume filming this month. Needless to say, that's probably not happening.

[soundchaser]

Baldwin and the set armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter

This was a long time coming. I thought Reed and Halls would be charged, not Baldwin. Rust was set to resume filming this month. Needless to say, that's probably not happening.

It makes no sense for Baldwin to be the only producer charged, if that's the angle they're going for. This smacks of a prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves.

[beamish14]

Baldwin and the set armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter

This was a long time coming. I thought Reed and Halls would be charged, not Baldwin. Rust was set to resume filming this month. Needless to say, that's probably not happening.

It makes no sense for Baldwin to be the only producer charged, if that's the angle they're going for. This smacks of a prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves.

This prosecution is theatre, and nothing more. At the most, he’ll cop a plea and get probation, but I can’t see any prison time for him

[Toland's Mitchell]

It makes no sense for Baldwin to be the only producer charged, if that's the angle they're going for. This smacks of a prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves.

I don't think his status as producer is the angle they're going for. Rather, that Alec was ultimately the person who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

[soundchaser]

It makes no sense for Baldwin to be the only producer charged, if that's the angle they're going for. This smacks of a prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves.

I don't think his status as producer is the angle they're going for. Rather, that Alec was ultimately the person who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

He's being charged as both, is my understanding.

[Lemmy Caution]

The dual role combo: the triggerman who didn't check the gun himself and responsible for the aim, plus an overseer on a troubled, allegedly negligent shoot.

[hearthesilence]

This was a long time coming. I thought Reed and Halls would be charged, not Baldwin. Rust was set to resume filming this month. Needless to say, that's probably not happening.

It makes no sense for Baldwin to be the only producer charged, if that's the angle they're going for. This smacks of a prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves.

This prosecution is theatre, and nothing more. At the most, he’ll cop a plea and get probation, but I can’t see any prison time for him

Me neither, but I guess we'll see. Lemmy, do you think it's likely Baldwin will be held accountable for not checking his gun? Or could you argue that an actor or producer in general can't be a reliable firearm expert - that the responsibility and the decision about firearm safety should be with the armorer because that's essentially why they're hired as they should have the expertise. With that in mind, I guess the debate for many is whether Baldwin pointing what he thought was a safe gun in Hutchins's direction and pulling the trigger makes him largely responsible for her death. I keep thinking of other scenarios where someone physically does something that could lead to someone's death or injury but do it anyway believing the necessary precautions were taken by others who basically took on that responsibility as part of their job - if it was a retractable prop knife that jammed and stayed extended, or someone pushing someone through breakaway glass that was still able to cut someone badly, would that mean those actors are responsible for any potential injury or death if those props didn't work as intended?

[Kracker]

Baldwin and the set armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter

This was a long time coming. I thought Reed and Halls would be charged, not Baldwin. Rust was set to resume filming this month. Needless to say, that's probably not happening.

Reed is the armorer. She was charged alongside Baldwin. But people only care about or hate Baldwin so he gets the headlines all to himself. Halls is the assistant director and he pled to a lesser charge already.

why would they cancel filming? you got the rest of the people on set who had nothing to do with the incident who don't deserve to lose their gig. Instead of making everything all about Baldwin. Not to mention you now have the guarantee, the Rust set will be the safest one in the industry for the rest of the production.


So what i read from this is after all the investigation, they ultimately can't figure out who is liable, either Baldwin or the armorer or both. So they are leaving it up to a jury to decide. But it seems with Baldwin, all they have to go on is that he was somehow negligent, like if he so much as didn't adhere to a safety rule concerning the gun, versus the armorer whose very job was to make sure the guns are safety. The investigation could have turned up the goods on the armorer and thus she gets charged, but are uncertain that Baldwin could have prevented the accident by doing something he was supposed to, so get charged alongside her. It really depends on the facts of the case, what all they have on the table, but i don't see him doing a plea (since he hasn't already) if he thinks he can at least prove his responsibility was minimal, which would result in a very light sentence at the worst.

[Toland's Mitchell]

I don't think his status as producer is the angle they're going for. Rather, that Alec was ultimately the person who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

He's being charged as both, is my understanding.

I'm confused. He's being charged for involuntary manslaughter, for being the one who pulled the trigger. What does his role in the production matter?

Me neither, but I guess we'll see. Lemmy, do you think it's likely Baldwin will be held accountable for not checking his gun? Or could you argue that an actor or producer in general can't be a reliable firearm expert - that the responsibility and the decision about firearm safety should be with the armorer because that's essentially why they're hired as they should have the expertise. With that in mind, I guess the debate for many is whether Baldwin pointing what he thought was a safe gun in Hutchins's direction and pulling the trigger makes him largely responsible for her death. I keep thinking of other scenarios where someone physically does something that could lead to someone's death or injury but do it anyway believing the necessary precautions were taken by others who basically took on that responsibility as part of their job - if it was a retractable prop knife that jammed and stayed extended, or someone pushing someone through breakaway glass that was still able to cut someone badly, would that mean those actors are responsible for any potential injury or death if those props didn't work as intended?

I don't think Baldwin can be held accountable for not checking the gun. That wasn't his job. However, as a veteran actor who has handled a gun on set numerous times over the years, he's been through the safety protocols. He should have known better. The prosecution could make a case that Baldwin is accountable for knowingly not going through those safety protocols. Hard to say if that's enough to convict him. Meanwhile, the defense could make a case he was following the director's instructions to point the gun in their direction, and he was told the gun wasn't loaded and had no reason to doubt it. I've mentioned this upthread that Baldwin's share of the blame isn't as much as the Halls's or Reed's. If Baldwin gets a sentence, I think it would be light. On the other hand, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is likelier to serve a few years, if convicted. As for David Halls, he already pleaded guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon.

[Kracker]

I don't think Baldwin can be held accountable for not checking the gun. That wasn't his job. However, as a veteran actor who has handled a gun on set numerous times over the years, he's been through the safety protocols. He should have known better. The prosecution could make a case that Baldwin is accountable for knowingly not going through those safety protocols. Hard to say if that's enough to convict him. Meanwhile, the defense could make a case he was following the director's instructions to point the gun in their direction, and he was told the gun wasn't loaded and had no reason to doubt it. I've mentioned this upthread that Baldwin's share of the blame isn't as much as the Halls's or Reed's. If Baldwin gets a sentence, I think it would be light. On the other hand, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is likelier to serve a few years, if convicted. As for David Halls, he already pleaded guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon.

Well as i just mentioned, if Baldwin didn't follow so much as one rule or protocol that could have prevented the accident, then he would be responsible, albeit not as responsible as the armorer and the sentence would reflect that. Baldwin isn't pleading if he's confident he can prove he did everything he was supposed to do before a jury. To me the charge just says there's no definite black-and-white proof that Baldwin wasn't negligent, they have to have parties testify whether he was or wasn't before an impartial jury. Baldwin knows what he did or didnt do and if he had violated any rule by now and he can afford the best legal team so if he's not pleading, i dont see a conviction. The armorer could also be testifying that it was really Baldwin that was responsible and not her so this trial could really be a case of Baldwin v. Reed and that's how the charges for Baldwin maybe came about.

[Toland's Mitchell]

Well as i just mentioned, if Baldwin didn't follow so much as one rule or protocol that could have prevented the accident, then he would be responsible, albeit not as responsible as the armorer and the sentence would reflect that. Baldwin isn't pleading if he's confident he can prove he did everything he was supposed to do before a jury. To me the charge just says there's no definite black-and-white proof that Baldwin wasn't negligent, they have to have parties testify whether he was or wasn't before an impartial jury. Baldwin knows what he did or didnt do and if he had violated any rule by now and he can afford the best legal team so if he's not pleading, i dont see a conviction. The armorer could also be testifying that it was really Baldwin that was responsible and not her so this trial could really be a case of Baldwin v. Reed and that's how the charges for Baldwin maybe came about.

Ah, I see we said similar things within 3 minutes of each other, and I didn't see your post before mine. But I mostly agree. To answer your question about why they would cancel filming, it's hard to imagine them filming in light of this development. I would think Baldwin has other things on his mind now. But who knows? To your Baldwin vs. Reed point, I don't think Reed could testify that Baldwin was actually responsible. If she tried to pin the blame on Baldwin in court, I think the prosecutor would easily refute that claim. As the armorer, the buck stopped with her. It was her job to make sure the guns were safe.

[Kracker]

Baldwin is just the star and one of the producers. You have whole other small army of people from producers to production hands not wanting to just write this off as a loss unless they were actually forced to. And its not much of a development, they knew from day of the accident, people were going to wind up in court over this and a good chance one of them would the guy who pulled the trigger.

EDIT: Baldwin’s attorney says the film will be completed and he will continue to star while standing trial.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/entertai ... index.html

[Toland's Mitchell]

That can't be helping Baldwin's PR, which isn't very positive to begin with, not to mention it would seem difficult to get in the right headspace to continue acting in this film while standing trial. I figured if Rust were to resume shooting, it would be after the trial. Then again, there is the chance of conviction, in which case there's no way it would continue (not with him anyway, and they'd have to start over with a new actor). Plus Baldwin may not work again for a very long time after Rust, so might as well finish it.

As for the manslaughter charges, the prosecution should be able to prove Baldwin knowingly disregarded film industry safety practices with a firearm. But I doubt that would be enough to convict him, as the defense should be able to argue that it wasn't his job to check the gun beforehand. I think he'll get the same outcome as Dave Halls. His charges will be lowered to negligent use of a deadly weapon.

Reed, on the other hand, may get the manslaughter conviction and serve a few years.

[Kracker]

He's getting a lot of support from his fellow actors and SAG thinks the charges should be dropped. The negative backlash is coming from the conservative pro-gun crowd who hate him anyway and seethe at the opportunity to distract from the fact that Rust set incidents happen in their homes everyday. So this isnt really changing PR.

And as you mentioned Rust is set to resume filming this month, so will they likely finish principal photography before the trial happens, which is months away most likely. Not to mention, any sentence carried out will be even longer away, the movie will well be in the can by then. A lowered charge is a pretty likely outcome of all this. if Baldwin wasnt a producer, he probably wouldnt be charged at all. After all, the actor who shot Brandon Lee never got in trouble.

Also i forgot about this but as part of the settlement, Hucthins' widow was made an executive producer for Rust. So that's another reason the film has to be completed.

[beamish14]

After all, the actor who shot Brandon Lee never got in trouble.

Nobody got prosecuted over that, which shows just how many different chains of command that motion picture props go through

[MichaelB]

A negligence lawsuit brought by Lee's mother against the production company was settled out of court.

[beamish14]

A negligence lawsuit brought by Lee's mother against the production company was settled out of court.

Right, and there was insurance money, but no armorer/set dresser/stunt coordinator was deemed to be criminally negligent

[hearthesilence]

Yeah, it was a horribly freak accident IIRC - basically a bullet was lodged in the barrel of the gun so when the blank went off, it pushed it out as if it was loaded in the chamber. I imagine it's now become standard to check the barrel for that reason.

[Kracker]

There was an episode of Cursed Films that went into full detail about what happened but it came down to the production company cutting corners.

[Toland's Mitchell]

"Production company cutting corners" sounds all too familiar. But yes, The Crow had an armorer, but production wanted to save money and didn't have him on set the day Lee was shot. They figured it was a simple enough scene, that the armorer wasn't necessary. Thus there was no way the armorer could be held accountable for Lee's death. Whereas Rust's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was present on set when Hutchins was shot. She could be held accountable, however "production cutting corners" still applies. Apparently Reed was performing multiple duties, as the weapons handler and helping with the props department. Production was trying to save money, and didn't hire enough crew. Reed's lawyer will try to make a case that she was overworked, and the production company made it impossible to her job as the armorer.

[Brian C]

Reed's lawyer will try to make a case that she was overworked, and the production company made it impossible to her job as the armorer.

I am not a lawyer, of course, and I’m not really even trying to make a legal argument here … just thinking aloud that this seems like a terrible defense in that it’s essentially an admission of guilt.

“The charge is that you were negligent.”

“We’ll you have to understand, I was overworked, so naturally I was neglected the safety standards that were part of my job.”

As an attempt to plea deal to get a lighter sentence, I guess I can see it. She might even deserve consideration based on that.

But as a defense in hopes of acquittal? Yikes, not sure they’d want me on a jury, if that’s the argument they want to make. It seems roughly akin to saying that, of course I fell asleep at the wheel and killed those folks, I’ve been super stressed and sleeping badly the last week.

But, highly possible that there are intricacies in the law that I’m not factoring in here, I guess.