Focuspuller wrote:

Regardless what you believe or don't believe, up until the firing of the gun, that  scenario had been played out in one form or another thousands of times over 100 years with the utmost safety. What made this a fatal accident is the failure of the armorer to do her job, and possibly the AD, as default safety officer, who handed Baldwin a gun and declared it "cold", without the armorer on the set. Absent that failure, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. The idea that actors in scenes involving  gunfire are responsible for the safety of their props is neither practical nor safe nor actual practice.

Thank you!  I started this thread not knowing that the District Attorney would keep this case going for so long now.  It's not even about delays or procedure so much as it is about this being an unusual event, a tragic event, and an accidental shooting in the end without solid proof of fault.  The DA is having a very difficult time putting a solid case against actor Baldwin. The AD took a plea deal probably because he was threatened with the most blame if he didn't help in the case. I see this as a reminder to be careful on our sets, but someday this entire case has to close.  It's time to move on.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Thank you!  I started this thread not knowing that the District Attorney would keep this case going for so long now.  It's not even about delays or procedure so much as it is about this being an unusual event, a tragic event, and an accidental shooting in the end without solid proof of fault.  The DA is having a very difficult time putting a solid case against actor Baldwin. The AD took a plea deal probably because he was threatened with the most blame if he didn't help in the case. I see this as a reminder to be careful on our sets, but someday this entire case has to close.  It's time to move on.

Agreed, and don't rule out the motivation of prosecutors looking to claim the scalp of a "Hollywood liberal," the plea deal by the AD one possible tactic to that end.

JSouthworth wrote:
It's clear that Alec Baldwin probably intended to shoot Halyna Hutchins and/or Joel Souza,

Your use of clear implies it's factual, if it's factual how can it be probable? If it's probable it's not factual. It's only a possibility. Do you actually read what you write?

the probability of that happening by accident is very low.

Yes we know, that's why it doesn't happen all the time. Thank you Captain Obvious.

I'm not sure whether he was aiming for one or the other, or both.

It's unclear what you're unsure of. What is clear is that you are unsure.

The motive? It could have been personal or financial, we don't know. An insurance scam perhaps.

Well you got the "we don't know" part right. I guess that's something you can be proud of. Although I'm confused on why you don't know if it's all so clear, or maybe it was just an accident? Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

JQuest wrote:
Your use of clear implies it's factual, if it's factual how can it be probable? If it's probable it's not factual. It's only a possibility. Do you actually read what you write?

There are two possibilities; either he did it intentionally, or it was an accident. Since the probability of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is either extremely low or zero, he probably pulled the trigger which makes it intentional.

JSouthworth wrote:
There are two possibilities; either he did it intentionally, or it was an accident. Since the probability of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is either extremely low or zero, he probably pulled the trigger which makes it intentional.

That's not how you presented it in your previous post. If you had I would have not found fault with it. Instead you preferred to use the intellectually dishonest tactic of presenting your opinion as fact. Something that you have become so well noted for on these forums on numerous occasions.

Further, pulling the trigger of a prop gun on a movie set in which you have been told is "cold" (aka unloaded, a fact not in dispute by anyone except you) by someone responsible for making that call does not make one a conspiracy creating murderer if it subsequently discharges because it was indeed loaded with a live round. It more likely makes it an unfortunate accident. Again, see Occam's Razor.

JSouthworth wrote:
There are two possibilities; either he did it intentionally, or it was an accident. Since the probability of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is either extremely low or zero, he probably pulled the trigger which makes it intentional.

No.

You know nothing about guns.  You have never fired a gun.  You have never had one in your hands when it fired and surprised and scared the hell out of you.  The number one lesson in a gun safety course is to always treat a gun as if it is loaded, even an unloaded gun.  Why?  Because it might go off! 

Sometimes, something unreplicable can happen.  We were duck hunting one day on a stream where ice was forming.  We canoed through some fast water. A tree was blocking part of the channel and we failed to clear it.  The canoe swung around in the current and was pushed under the tree.  We recovered the canoe, swam out in the freezing water for our guns, the duck we shot, and paddles. We then canoed down river to the next town where there was a convenience store just up a tributary.  We parked the canoe in a parking spot, and the owner was kind enough to let us get the worst of the water out of our clothes and leave or money for the coffee/hot coco on the counter to dry.  Where it got weird was a couple of days later.  We were rabbit and pheasant hunting.  As the morning progressed it got colder.  I shot a rabbit early and then another a while later.  When we got back to the farm house, for some reason, my father and friend unloaded their guns before walking through the garden, but I didn't.  A pheasant broke out of the garden and ran to the field.  When it lost the cover of the garden weeds at the edge of the field of short, young winter wheat, the bird took to the air.  I swung on it and pulled the trigger.  Nothing happened.  I checked the safety , aimed and fired and nothing happened.  I ejected the shell, seated another, aimed and pulled the trigger as the pheasant soared towards the safety of the tree row across the field, and nothing happened.  Later that day, I completely dismantled the gun and sitting there by the fire, we could see tiny drops of water on the bolt that had not dried after taking it for a swim, despite that it had been cleaned after the swim and despite that it was in a warm house for a couple days after getting wet.  The gun did not function because of a freak chance of events, weather and inadequate care.

As for Baldwin, a lousy grain of sand inside an old and worn out weapon may have had an impact that no one can replicate.  Did Baldwin pull the trigger, apply just enough weight that some other factor prevented the hammer from holding its[1](possessive form of it) position, or was there a freak accident that was the result of other people not doing their jobs. 

In my opinion, the only way Baldwin can be held responsible for this is if they are claiming that he was responsible for a culture that disregarded safety on the set and every other professional failed to be professional about their jobs because of Baldwin's lead.

With all of your speculations regarding the intent of Baldwin, you have not addressed how the gun became loaded with a live round or how that round was placed to sit in the cylinder under the firing pin.  If someone else loaded the gun, then that is evidence that there was no intent on the part of Baldwin.  If everyone involved had done their jobs prior to this event, it would not have happened.

The prosecutors have not found evidence of an intent.  How do I know that?  It's (it is)[1] because they did not charge Baldwin with a crime where intent was a factor.

[1] https://www.scribbr.com/commonly-confus … ext=Its%20(without%20an%20apostrophe)%20is,means%20%E2%80%9Cbelonging%20to%20it.%E2%80%9D


(It's really is it is, JS.)

JSouthworth wrote:
There are two possibilities; either he did it intentionally, or it was an accident. Since the probability of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is either extremely low or zero, he probably pulled the trigger which makes it intentional.

Bullshit.

Pulling the trigger intentionally in the context of a shot in a film does NOT imply the criminal intention to fire a live round into whatever  the VICTIM is instructing the actor to point the weapon at, which in this case, was THE VICTIM.

Your stupid theory requires a conspiracy to load the weapon with a live round, and that the shot in question would guarantee the "intended" victim would be shot. Preposterous, even for a nutty conspiracist like you.

Your total ignorance on full display here. Thank you.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

No.

You know nothing about guns.  You have never fired a gun.  You have never had one in your hands when it fired and surprised and scared the hell out of you.

I have fired a gun, and I know enough about them to say that if that happens, it means you're not competent with firearms.

Focuspuller wrote:
Pulling the trigger intentionally in the context of a shot in a film does NOT imply the criminal intention to fire a live round into whatever  the VICTIM is instructing the actor to point the weapon at, which in this case, was THE VICTIM.

But he denies pulling the trigger, even though he must have done. Why the need to lie about it? I think he knew the gun was loaded with live rounds.

JSouthworth wrote:
But he denies pulling the trigger, even though he must have done. Why the need to lie about it? I think he knew the gun was loaded with live rounds.

Your conclusion is BASELESS.

A possible scenario is he had his finger on the trigger AS INSTRUCTED, pulled the hammer back AS INSTRUCTED, INADVERTENTLY pressing the trigger at the same time. I have no idea what force that particular trigger on that gun required, but if it did inadvertently coincide with pulling the hammer back it would have resulted in an unexpected discharge. NO CRIMINAL INTENT OR CONSPIRACY NECESSARY.

JSouthworth wrote:
But he denies pulling the trigger, even though he must have done. Why the need to lie about it? I think he knew the gun was loaded with live rounds.

The conspiracy theory; Alec Baldwin decides to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into producing a movie in the desert so that he can hire Halyna Hutchins to direct the movie thereby affording the opportunity to intentionally shoot to kill her. Although we have no motive for him wanting to harm her.

Yeah that makes complete sense... Occam's razor dude. Look it up.

JQuest wrote:

The conspiracy theory; Alec Baldwin decides to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into producing a movie in the desert so that he can hire Halyna Hutchins to direct the movie thereby affording the opportunity to intentionally shoot to kill her. Although we have no motive for him wanting to harm her.

Yeah that makes complete sense... Occam's razor dude. Look it up.

Not to mention the need to hire a green armorer as a willing accomplice to murder, to purposely load a live round in the proper chamber to fire in a scene the other necessary accomplice, the writer, had to construct so that Baldwin would be in a position to fire AT the cinematographer, who could have been ANYWHERE in relation to the shot in question, while allowing himself believable deniability via the OTHER accomplice, the First AD making an announcement audible to all that the gun was "cold". Yes. It all makes so much sense.

Focuspuller wrote:
Not to mention the need to hire a green armorer as a willing accomplice to murder, to purposely load a live round in the proper chamber to fire in a scene the other necessary accomplice, the writer, had to construct so that Baldwin would be in a position to fire AT the cinematographer, who could have been ANYWHERE in relation to the shot in question, while allowing himself believable deniability via the OTHER accomplice, the First AD making an announcement audible to all that the gun was "cold". Yes. It all makes so much sense.

Don't forget that director Joel Souza, who was directing the action, made sure that he was standing directly behind the (supposedly) intended victim, Halyna Hutchins, when he was instructing Baldwin to rapidly draw and cock the gun, pointing it at her.  Meaning that he'd also be shot (which he was), when the bullet passed through her into him.

Having himself shot was presumably his way of having a great alibi for his particular "role" in this murder conspiracy. 

Presuming that he survived, of course.

Supposedly...

JSouthworth wrote:
I have fired a gun,

I don't believe you.  Your lack of experience has come up before and I do not remember a claim at that time that you have fired a weapon. I remember you admitting you had not. Perhaps I am wrong.  Please quote and link the post which would show I am wrong.

I would ask you to give a synopsis of your experience with guns, but your ability to play loose with the facts would make anything you say meaningless.  What you say as a forum participant lacks credibility- which is the one thing you have shot, long ago.

JSouthworth wrote:
and I know enough about them to say that if that happens, it means you're not competent with firearms.

Your posts say otherwise- you do not know enough.

Previously,  articles have been linked about guns going off.  Including this story, ([1]) at one phase of it or another.  So your statement, made in the absolute, says that this police detective was incompetent with firearms?  With that in mind, I reiterate, what you say lacks credibility.

Allow me to point out, that once again, you take only a select part of my post to counter.  I note that you did not explain a fallacy on my part, to one single point I made which dismissed your claims as wrong.  Your behavior tells me you can't counter what I said relative to the shooting,  Therefore, you resort to deflection to save face.

You are competent with guns?  Yeah, right.

[1] https://abc7chicago.com/sig-sauer-lawsu … /10974219/

JSouthworth wrote:
But he denies pulling the trigger, even though he must have done. Why the need to lie about it? I think he knew the gun was loaded with live rounds.

Who loaded the gun with live rounds? If it was Baldwin, then there's a possibility of that being proved in court, all it would take would be a fingerprint on a case. And if he admitted pulling the trigger as well, that would be that. If this is a risk that he feels he can't afford to take, that might explain why he denies pulling the trigger.

JSouthworth wrote:

Who loaded the gun with live rounds? If it was Baldwin, then there's a possibility of that being proved in court, all it would take would be a fingerprint on a case. And if he admitted pulling the trigger as well, that would be that. If this is a risk that he feels he can't afford to take, that might explain why he denies pulling the trigger.

We do have something in common. Neither of us knows what in hell you are talking about.

"Who loaded the gun with live rounds? If it was Baldwin..." Utter nonsense.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It's time to move on.

Sure, right after the trial where Baldwin explains why he cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger when he wasn't supposed to.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Sure, right after the trial where Baldwin explains why he cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger when he wasn't supposed to.

To correct part of that...

The scene, as written, involved Baldwin aiming it and slowly cocking the hammer.  While Halyna Hutchins (with Joel Souza looking over her shoulder) were framing the shot behind the camera, Baldwin was instructed to aim it at the camera and slowly cock the hammer (they all believed it was a "safe" gun).  That he was given those instructions, by the two that were shot, is not in dispute. 

What happened after that, whether the old gun (now cocked) went off or the trigger was pulled (with what turned out to be a live round in the chamber) is another matter.

I'm sure that you're not suggesting that Baldwin deliberately killed her, are you?

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
..explains why he cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger when he wasn't supposed to.

Didn't realize you were an eyewitness. Tell us more.

What were the instructions to Baldwin from the director?

What were the instructions to Baldwin from the cinematographer who was shot?

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Sure, right after the trial where Baldwin explains why he cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger when he wasn't supposed to.

Oh damn this thread I started that will never die!   FACT!  Baldwin was told to pull the hammer back!  How many times do I have to repeat that he was directed to pull the hammer back?  As for pulling thetrigger, that is still up for debate.  Wasn't Baldwin wearing gloves at the time?  If that were the case, I would believe  it possible that he didn't realize the pressure from the weight of his glove caused the trigger to engage.

My older brother almost shot his foot with a handgun very much like the one used on the set of Rust..  He had many years of practice shooting guns and the trigger went off accidently. He kept the gun, and many years later, after my brother passed away, I had a friend who is also a photographer and expert on guns come by to look at my brothers gun collection.  That handgun turned out to be a german knock off of the Colt 45 I thought it was. My family thought it wasa Colt 45, but not only was it not, but it had a slight defect that we had not noticed before.  So I tend to believe Alec Baldwin. I'm willing to listen to the prosecution, but I believe they have an uphill battle to prove that Baldwin to be at fault of what is nothing more than a tragic accident out of the millions of times that guns have been used on movie sets. Find out how the live ammo got in the gun.

As photographers and film makers ... all of us in the industry should do all we can to prevent accidents. I started this thread as I did a previous one regarding safety around railroad tracks to bring awareness that accidents happen and to please be safe! 

LightDreams wrote:
The evidence shows that some live rounds appear to have come mixed in with the dummies from the ammunition supplier and weren't properly marked.  That's based on statements made by that supplier about a potential "problem" in that regard, and a search warrant served on that supplier.

There's no real evidence for that, and also no evidence that Gutierrez-Reed loaded the gun with live rounds. It's all a little too convenient.

JSouthworth wrote:

There's no real evidence for that, and also no evidence that Gutierrez-Reed loaded the gun with live rounds. It's all a little too convenient.

By her own admission she loaded the weapon. No one else had access. Certainly not Baldwin. "Too convenient" for you? Sorry.

"Gutierrez Reed, according to affidavits filed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, had loaded the weapons that day, but she told sheriff’s detectives that she didn’t realize that actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that day.

Gutierrez Reed told sheriff’s detectives that although she checked Baldwin’s gun that day before the unscheduled rehearsal, she “didn’t really check it too much,” because the weapon had been locked in a safe during a lunch break"

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … errez-reed

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Oh damn this thread I started that will never die!   FACT!  Baldwin was told to pull the hammer back!  How many times do I have to repeat that he was directed to pull the hammer back?  As for pulling thetrigger, that is still up for debate.  Wasn't Baldwin wearing gloves at the time?  If that were the case, I would believe  it possible that he didn't realize the pressure from the weight of his glove caused the trigger to engage.

My older brother almost shot his foot with a handgun very much like the one used on the set of Rust..  He had many years of practice shooting guns and the trigger went off accidently. He kept the gun, and many years later, after my brother passed away, I had a friend who is also a photographer and expert on guns come by to look at my brothers gun collection.  That handgun turned out to be a german knock off of the Colt 45 I thought it was. My family thought it wasa Colt 45, but not only was it not, but it had a slight defect that we had not noticed before.  So I tend to believe Alec Baldwin. I'm willing to listen to the prosecution, but I believe they have an uphill battle to prove that Baldwin to be at fault of what is nothing more than a tragic accident out of the millions of times that guns have been used on movie sets. Find out how the live ammo got in the gun.

As photographers and film makers ... all of us in the industry should do all we can to prevent accidents. I started this thread as I did a previous one regarding safety around railroad tracks to bring awareness that accidents happen and to please be safe! 

The topic is valid. Just disregard the silly musings of a serial conspiracist who has never set foot on a film set, yet insists his fabricated house of cards based on his own false conclusions is credible.

Focuspuller wrote:
By her own admission she loaded the weapon. No one else had access. Certainly not Baldwin.

No, she admits to having a hangover. If she didn't know then whether she'd loaded the gun with live rounds, she doesn't know now.

JSouthworth wrote:
No, she admits to having a hangover. If she didn't know then whether she'd loaded the gun with live rounds, she doesn't know now.

She loaded the gun. It was her job. Her "hangover" may have interfered with her judgment in identifying live rounds from dummy rounds, but SHE LOADED THE WEAPON.

"The “Rust” armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, loaded the gun with what he thought were dummy rounds before Alec Baldwin used it on set, fatally shooting the movie’s cinematographer, lawyers for the armorer said in an interview with NBC that aired Wednesday.

“There was a box of dummy rounds and the box is labeled dummy. Hannah did take from that box which she by all accounts should have been able to rely on, that contains only dummy rounds,” said Gutierrez Reed’s lawyer Jason Bowles. “She loaded rounds from that box into the handgun only to later find out – and she had no idea – she inspected the rounds, that there was a live round"

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/entertai … index.html

"...and she had no idea – she inspected the rounds, that there was a live round"

Which BTW is an admission of negligence.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
Even though this is a zombie thread, it bears repeating that the first rule of gun safety is that every gun is fully loaded and ready to fire until you have personally inspected it and confirmed otherwise. You don't believe anyone telling you it is unloaded and safe; inspect it yourself. Period.

It should be noted that even blanks throw out debris that can injure someone at close range.

The second rule of gun safety is you never point a gun at anyone or anything unless you intend to shoot that person/thing, even if you have already personally confirmed it is not loaded.

If everyone always followed those two simple rules, accidental shootings would pretty much cease.

"Rules" not practical on film sets as production would come to a grinding halt as any number of actors in a multiple-gunfire scene check every single round in numerous weapons for an errant live round.

"If everyone always followed those two simple rules, accidental shootings would pretty much cease."

Yes, we are quite aware of those often-repeated "rules". How have they worked. out in the US?

On the other hand, "accidental shootings" in the motion picture industry following its own "rules" are statistically orders of magnitude less than in any other jurisdiction or venue  in the United States. One of the safest places to be free of death or injury by gunfire in the United States is... a film set.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
I have no idea why in the modern day we are even discussing operation guns on a movie set when I see youtube bloggers putting out realistic CGI gun effects. it must be some sort of throw back to the days of yore of film making "authenticity."

quite frankly its unfair to charge the guy given anyone who works in a big company such as I do you know things are all delegated. I dont check the credentials of everyone working on the team. I assume they know their jobs.

its like saying Baldwin himself should also check on the building schematics of the various sets he films at. I assume there are people who hold such jobs. he's just the lightning rod. 

what could be a bit of trouble is the people who walked off the set due to them saying things were being done fast and loose with safety. thats the credible fly in the soup.  will have to see where that leads.

Mostly agreeing with Tony on his return to the forums! Been a minute.

"its like saying Baldwin himself should also check on the building schematics of the various sets he films at. I assume there are people who hold such jobs. he's just the lightning rod. " Exactly right.

"what could be a bit of trouble is the people who walked off the set due to them saying things were being done fast and loose with safety. thats the credible fly in the soup." Also true, and that implicates the First AD, who conveniently plea-bargained out of possible jail time.

Bottom line - an inexperienced armorer, forced to divide her time between two on set jobs at the insistence of Production, failed to catch a live round when she loaded the weapon. Negligence leading to a tragic accident.

"I see youtube bloggers putting out realistic CGI gun effects."

CGI gun effects may be sufficient for YouTube bloggers and Marvel-DC-Star Wars films. For serious dramatic cinema maybe not so much, Wielding and firing an actual weapon cannot be believably faked in most cases, and some directors will insist on authenticity.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I think we can agree there is one proven fact: somebody put live rounds into that gun.

So there remain a few simple questions:

1. Who did it?
2. Why somebody did it?
3. When somebody did it?

Alec Baldwin's lawyers are arguing that Gutierrez-Reed accidentally loaded the gun with live rounds instead of dummy rounds. Is this likely? Even with a bad hangover it should be easy to tell the difference; dummy rounds have a ball bearing inside to identify them. Hence the need for this theory, unsupported by evidence, that live rounds were included in a box of dummies by the ammunition supplier. I don't buy it.

If Gutierrez-Reed didn't load the gun with live rounds accidentally, could she have done it intentionally? In theory you could have a conspiracy between Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed to commit murder and make it look like an accident. Or is it more likely that Gutierrez-Reed is simply a "fall guy"?

"One plus one equals eleven". This is a saying in the world of secret intelligence. It means that if you let one person in on something, you might as well tell eleven people because the word will usually get around.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I think we can agree there is one proven fact: somebody put live rounds into that gun.

So there remain a few simple questions:

1. Who did it?
2. Why somebody did it?
3. When somebody did it?

And the simple answer, the only feasible, likely and sensible answer:

An inexperienced, overburdened and  distracted armorer, possibly hung over, inadvertently and negligently loaded a live round into the prop gun and a tragic accident resulted. NO other explanation is realistically possible. How live rounds were even present is also the responsibility of a derelict armorer.

To suggest any other sequence of events REQUIRES another party involved - either a conspiracy to commit mayhem, murder, or what, OR, a prop gun left unattended long enough for some other unauthorized party to seize the opportunity ON THE SPOT and load the weapon with a live round which they just happen to have in their possession, IN POSSIBLE VIEW OF A WITNESS, and for what reason?

Either way, ridiculous. Let it go.