First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .

[Ricklin]

I would very much like to see Baldwin be found guilty. Perhaps this trial is the setup. As 44amp said earlier in the thread, to paraphrase, the buck stops here.

[stagpanther]

I think Branca summed it up pretty well, there's negligence (liability) to go around for the whole production--management, directors etc--but the obvious logic that, no matter what anyone else did, had the armorer performed her job (or whoever did in her stead)--no live round would have ever made it into the revolver for Baldwin to fire is pretty compelling.

[Aguila Blanca]

It wasn't until we started to see videos of various witnesses in this trial that I learned there were actually three people handling the firearms and ammunition on this set. I knew that there was a prop master (Sarah Zachry) and that Hannah Gutierrez worked under her, but I didn't know that Zachry was considered an employee of the Seth Kenney, and that she was also handling the guns. And then there's a third person, named Nicole, who apparently also handled the guns and ammo.

It's a nightmare. Good luck ever figuring out who did what, when.

The reality is that, with 30 guns involved, there probably should have been at least two full-time armorers. Or maybe one full-time, and a second to be on the set any day they were going to be using the guns (for actual filming, or for blocking out scenes and rehearsing). In fact, I believe one of the professional armorers who turned down the gig said right after the incident that he had told them they needed two armorers.

[44 AMP]

but the obvious logic that, no matter what anyone else did, had the armorer performed her job (or whoever did in her stead)--no live round would have ever made it into the revolver for Baldwin to fire is pretty compelling.

It is compelling, and it is true, but it doesn't get Baldwin a pass in my book.
Either way.

First, as head of the production, it was his responsibility to see that the people hired did the jobs they were hired to do correctly. He did not.

and in the end, as the man who pointed the gun and operated it, he did not personally verify it was a "cold gun" he just took the word of the guy who handed it to him. Even if the gun had been fully loaded with live ammo, if Baldwin had not done what he did, no one would have been shot.

To me, that is the overriding factor. Everyone else's failure to follow the rules are contributing factors. Baldwin not following the rules is the reason a woman was killed. I don't see how you can argue against that.

[stagpanther]

It is compelling, and it is true, but it doesn't get Baldwin a pass in my book.
Either way.

First, as head of the production, it was his responsibility to see that the people hired did the jobs they were hired to do correctly. He did not.

and in the end, as the man who pointed the gun and operated it, he did not personally verify it was a "cold gun" he just took the word of the guy who handed it to him. Even if the gun had been fully loaded with live ammo, if Baldwin had not done what he did, no one would have been shot.

To me, that is the overriding factor. Everyone else's failure to follow the rules are contributing factors. Baldwin not following the rules is the reason a woman was killed. I don't see how you can argue against that.

I think Branca addressed that aspect pretty well when he said something along the lines of it doesn't matter if everyone else had failed, it doesn't matter if the ammo supplier gave them thousands of rounds of live ammo, it doesn't matter who said what--if the armorer had done their job--a very simple one at that, no live round would have been fired. Everything after that is incidental to the actual cause of the killing. Was Baldwin stupid in pointing the firearm at anyone and not following SAG guidelines? Yes. But it could have happened to any idiot on the set who didn't know what was actually in the gun. All that said, where I think Baldwin IS most vulnerable for charges is, at least how it appears to me, is ignoring previous signs of trouble and hiring people who were likely not qualified (which is why I suggested there needs to be some rigorous way of determining adequate and provable experience and training that assures that anyone would know whether or not someone is qualified). He should be roasted, and so should Ms Pickle (or whatever her name was).

[mehavey]

And I would offer the exact opposite:

That it didn't/wouldn't matter what ANYone else did or didn't do...
if the last man in the chain had done what anyone/everyone should
always do... check the gun.

That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?

[stagpanther]

And I would offer the exact opposite:

That it didn't/wouldn't matter what ANYone else did or didn't do...
if the last man in the chain had done what anyone/everyone should
always do... check the gun.

That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?

Then why hire an armorer to begin with?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mehavey

That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?

I haven't watched the full videos of every day of the trial, but I'm not aware that any witness has testified that she was present in the church during that rehearsal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Then why hire an armorer to begin with?

IMHO a better question is, "Why hire an armorer and then not allow her to perform the duties required of an armorer?"

Other, experienced, armorers they approach told them they needed at least TWO full-time armorers due to the number of firearms. Instead, they hired ONE young rookie, and made her only a part-time armorer. Then they supplemented her with two other young women, who knew nothing about firearms.

What could possibly go wrong?

[stagpanther]

I haven't watched the full videos of every day of the trial, but I'm not aware that any witness has testified that she was present in the church during that rehearsal.

Doesn't matter; whoever she did hand off to (apparently Halls) does not constitute "passing the buck" to someone else; unless there is conclusive proof that he somehow deliberately altered what was in the revolver, of which so far there is 0 evidence submitted to that effect as far as I know. You can't speculate on conspiracy theories, sunspot activity, interference by Venezuelan dictators (my personal favorite) etc. as to why what was in the revolver wasn't put there by the armorer without evidence.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Then why hire an armorer to begin with?

This is just a wild ass guess, the armorer position was added as extra safety. It was never intended to take away the responsibility of the shooter.

[JohnKSa]

Other, experienced, armorers they approach told them they needed at least TWO full-time armorers due to the number of firearms. Instead, they hired ONE young rookie, and made her only a part-time armorer. Then they supplemented her with two other young women, who knew nothing about firearms.

The comment you responded to was in reference to the possible guilt of Baldwin for pointing and firing the firearm. Your response is in reference to the possible guilt of Baldwin and the production company for their hiring practices and how the armorer was controlled or not controlled.

There are two separate issues here and they need to be kept separate.

1. Did the person who was holding the gun at the time it discharged/was discharged and killed one person and injured another commit a crime?

2. Did the person/persons running the organization commit crimes that led to a person holding a gun being discharged and killing/injuring persons on set.

COINCIDENTALLY, the person in both questions is the same person, but the two issues are still separate and need to be discussed separately because the two crimes, and therefore the laws that apply are different.

Trying to constantly switch back and forth just muddies the water.

It's not productive to keep doing what person 2 is doing in the following discussion:

Person 1: The armorer has responsibilities and if those had been fulfilled properly, the person holding the gun would have either known that the gun they held was "live" or would have been able to handle it as the inert object as they were told it was.

Person 2: Well, the owner/production company is guilty for their hiring practices and how they ran the armorer:

Person 1: Ok, well lets look at that issue. <Comments here about how the owner/production company hired and ran the armorer.>

Person 2: Well, that doesn't matter because the person holding the gun and pointing it was guilty for failing to follow guidelines.

Person 1: But are they really, what about <comments here about division of responsibilities on set between propmaster/armorer and actor>?

Person 2. Well, that doesn't matter because they are guilty for their hiring practices and how they controlled/didn't control the armorer.

And so on and so forth. That's not really productive. If the comment is about actor vs. armorer/propmaster responsibility, then the response should be as well. If the comment is about owner/production company responsibility vs. armorer/propmaster responsibility, then the response should be as well.

Look, the point of this thread isn't to convict or exonerate Baldwin or the armorer, it's to figure out what's going on, to see how the laws apply, to learn from the tragedy.

[JohnKSa]

This is just a wild ass guess, the armorer position was added as extra safety. It was never intended to take away the responsibility of the shooter.

There are no "shooters" on set.

The armorer/propmaster is supposed to control an environment where the normal gun safety rules do not apply. They are to ensure safety where real guns are going to be handled even though there is no safe direction, where real guns may be pointed at other persons, where blanks may be discharged, etc. They are also intended to operate and set up firearms to conform to the requirements of the scene in question.

Actors are not expected to be firearm experts, the armorers/propmasters provide that expertise and ensure safety.

https://www.iatselocal52.org/Applica...pArmorerJD.pdf

[Metal god]

Day 9
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9s4YrO8rM

[5whiskey]

Couple of things...

I think Branca addressed that aspect pretty well when he said something along the lines of it doesn't matter if everyone else had failed, it doesn't matter if the ammo supplier gave them thousands of rounds of live ammo, it doesn't matter who said what--if the armorer had done their job--a very simple one at that, no live round would have been fired. Everything after that is incidental to the actual cause of the killing. Was Baldwin stupid in pointing the firearm at anyone and not following SAG guidelines? Yes. But it could have happened to any idiot on the set who didn't know what was actually in the gun. All that said, where I think Baldwin IS most vulnerable for charges is, at least how it appears to me, is ignoring previous signs of trouble and hiring people who were likely not qualified (which is why I suggested there needs to be some rigorous way of determining adequate and provable experience and training that assures that anyone would know whether or not someone is qualified). He should be roasted, and so should Ms Pickle (or whatever her name was).

There is at least some truth to this. There is also a GIANT caveat...

That said, initial reports was that Gutierrez wasn't on the set when
the gun was handed to Baldwin. Was that in error ?

This IS a major issue.

Doesn't matter; whoever she did hand off...

If you're trying to suggest that it doesn't matter whether she was present or not, it matters a great deal. You can be my boss, in charge of me, AND EVEN responsible for my actions to our employer. If you are gone, and I take actions in your absence that leads to a death, then how are you CRIMINALLY liable (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) for my actions? Absent direct orders from you to take the action that I took, or that you intentionally (or negligently, if the statute allows for negligence) set the stage and circumstances for my actions that deliberately guides my actions, with witnesses backing that up; you are largely off the criminal hook. Now you very well may have your pants sued off in a civil trial, and that is a very different animal. You may be fired. But sued and fired are very different than imprisoned.

I fail to see how the armorer can be convicted unless witnesses say that she definitely loaded the gun, left it on the prop table, walked away, and no one else tampered with it until Baldwin picked it up and fired it. Even then, Baldwin would and should face severe consequences for handling the firearm without the armorer present. Well, as long as it is expected that the armorer must be present during live fire scenes of the movie according to industry standards (and if they aren't required to be present during such scenes, as you say... why have an armorer anyway?).

[5whiskey]

unless there is conclusive proof that he somehow deliberately altered what was in the revolver, of which so far there is 0 evidence submitted to that effect as far as I know.

It isn't up to the accused to prove their innocence, it's up to the state to prove their guilt. You wouldn't need conclusive proof that someone deliberately altered what was in the revolver... you would need conclusive proof that no one did or could have after Guitierrez loaded it since she was absent during the shooting. Probably going to be a tall order.

[stagpanther]

I'm gonna let JohnKsa respond to these since he's much better at explaining these things than I am. (yes, my pass-the-buck cop-out)

[Metal god]

5Whiskey

It’s not simply that your boss wasn’t there . Its that your boss gave you the keys to the tractor that he just wrongly repaired the brakes on . You then operate the tractor after he leaves and it fails to stop when you hit the brakes and you run over people .

Just because your boss is gone doesn’t absolve him of the liability of his actions giving you a defective tractor . His actions were a direct cause of the accident yes no ?

[mehavey]

"...your boss gave you the keys to the tractor that
he just wrongly repaired the brakes on . . . ."

Do we now know who actually loaded the gun that (Ass't Dir) Halls was reputed to hand to Baldwin calling out out “cold gun” ?
Who actually handed the gun to Baldwin?

Previous info is all over the place.... depending on who/what/when was the source.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/r...nt-1235501154/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/assistant...043300806.html

(... not that the whole enterprise doesn't appear to be an absolute dog's breakfast from start to finish.)

.

[JohnKSa]

If you're trying to suggest that it doesn't matter whether she was present or not, it matters a great deal. You can be my boss, in charge of me, AND EVEN responsible for my actions to our employer. If you are gone, and I take actions in your absence that leads to a death, then how are you CRIMINALLY liable (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) for my actions? Absent direct orders from you to take the action that I took, or that you intentionally (or negligently, if the statute allows for negligence) set the stage and circumstances for my actions that deliberately guides my actions, with witnesses backing that up; you are largely off the criminal hook.

Negligence is about failing to take ordinary care.

Some jobs are pretty critical. Leaving someone in charge without making sure they know how to do the job in your absence could be considered failing to exercise ordinary care.

Let's look at an extreme case. A 21 year old babysitter leaves to go see her boyfriend, puts a 5 year old in charge of his 18month old sister and the 5 year old does something without understanding the impact and the 18month old dies. That would be failing to exercise ordinary care and would be considered to be criminal. So she could be charged criminally for something that happened in her absence--for actions that she did not take.

In this case, if the armorer wasn't on scene and left someone else in charge without being sure that person had adequate experience and training to do the job, then it's possible that could be seen as failing to exercise ordinary care and she could be found criminally responsible for actions taken while she was not on the set because her negligence led to those actions.

[stagpanther]

Negligence is about failing to take ordinary care.

Here's a pretty good hypothetical example (I think, I made it up).

Somebody asks for permission to hunt on farmer B's property. Farmer B says yeah, go ahead, but yer on your own and responsible for yourself. No problem says the hunter. While stalking a 495 lb buck with a gargantuan rack--the hunter slips and falls into an old well covered by leaves and is killed by the fall.

The family of the hunter successfully sues Farmer B for millions and then some; he loses everything--because he knew about the existence of a well some place on his property but did not take preventive measures to make sure nobody could possibly get hurt. You also cannot legally waiver away negligence.

[44 AMP]

Because there was a fatal shooting accident, its tragically obvious the armorer failed to do their job correctly.

What this trial should be about is, first, establishing if that failure was due to the armorer's actions/lack of actions, or if it was the result of events beyond the armorer's control.

Then, establishing what legal responsibilities the armorer should be held accountable for. And what other people involved should be held accountable for.

After the shooting a great many things were reported to the press and to investigators. Some of them I believe were true. Some I'm sure were what the people saying them thought were true, and some I have my doubts about.

Several of them are key points that should be covered in court, under oath. We're on the way there, hopefully all the relevant and important questions will be answered, but its likely not all will be.

[JohnKSa]

What this trial should be about is, first, establishing if that failure was due to the armorer's actions/lack of actions, or if it was the result of events beyond the armorer's control.

What matters is whether or not what she did (or didn't do) constitutes lack of due care or negligence.

There's also the evidence tampering charge but that's another issue entirely.

Here's a pretty good hypothetical example (I think, I made it up).

Somebody asks for permission to hunt on farmer B's property. Farmer B says yeah, go ahead, but yer on your own and responsible for yourself. No problem says the hunter. While stalking a 495 lb buck with a gargantuan rack--the hunter slips and falls into an old well covered by leaves and is killed by the fall.

The family of the hunter successfully sues Farmer B for millions and then some; he loses everything--because he knew about the existence of a well some place on his property but did not take preventive measures to make sure nobody could possibly get hurt. You also cannot legally waiver away negligence.

The example is more about civil liability, the current trial is about criminal conduct.

If you change the last paragraph to: "Farmer B is arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter for not telling the hunter about a concealed well and/or for not marking/eliminating a potentially deadly hazard." then that would be a good example of a person who isn't present at the time of the death but contributed to it by failing to exercise ordinary care/by being negligent.

[stagpanther]

The example is more about civil liability, the current trial is about criminal conduct.

True--my apologies; my point was that having known about a previous potential problem and not having done anything about it--even if circumstances around the accident was not directly the fault of the person--does not absolve them from liability. This is where I see the greatest vulnerability to Baldwin, even if he makes it through the criminal trial unscathed he'll likely get leveled a massive civil lawsuit I suspect--but pure armchair speculation on my part. Unless he's already unloaded a bunch of cash to the family--might have for all I know.

If you change the last paragraph to: "Farmer B is arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter for not telling the hunter about a concealed well and/or for not marking/eliminating a potentially deadly hazard." then that would be a good example of a person who isn't present at the time of the death but contributed to it by failing to exercise ordinary care/by being negligent.

Agreed; though under the circumstances that the Farmer let the hunter on his property "at his own risk" I seriously doubt would give rise in a criminal charge. Increasingly, some states (like mine, Maine) are starting to grant zero negligence/liability in tacit "at your own risk" permission when granting the use of private property for recreational purposes.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In this case, if the armorer wasn't on scene and left someone else in charge without being sure that person had adequate experience and training to do the job, then it's possible that could be seen as failing to exercise ordinary care and she could be found criminally responsible for actions taken while she was not on the set because her negligence led to those actions.

Even if the person she left in charge was her boss, who was a direct employee of the company that supplied most of the firearms and ammunition? And the directive to NOT be present originated from her boss's boss?

I think that might be enough to create reasonable doubt for a jury.