NM v Alec Baldwin 7/8/2024

[stagpanther]

One of the things that came out at her trial was that she had both marijuana and cocaine on set.

And, if I recall correctly (not a given at my age) she reportedly had live shooting sessions using live ammo in the guns used on the set. I have zero empathy for her, drugs and live ammo--no ambiguity whatsoever IMO how live ammo found its way into the firearm Baldwin had.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

As far as her experience, her father, Thell Reed stated that she was capable of doing the job as well as he was.

""She knows what to do," he added. "She does the job as good as I do now.""

"She didn't need anymore training, she's got me," Reed told ABC News

One of the things that came out at her trial was that she had both marijuana and cocaine on set.

Honestly, I don't think it's necessary to look around for someone else to blame for the situation she's currently in.

She was inexperienced and vulnerable to pressure from Baldwin and the other bosses.

She was in her first job and afraid of being fired.

They hired her because they were a low budget operation and they could get her cheap. Experienced armorers are expensive.

They gave her duties not normally given to an armorer and interfered with her real duties.

Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case.

Honestly, she wasn't perfect, but she deserved a lot better than she got.

[Metal god]

Day 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCzM7tejEK4

[Metal god]

Prosecution really objecting a lot like I was expecting . At this point, it appears they successfully stop the defense from asking about this tech, asking the FBI to prove Baldwin pulled the trigger or something to that effect . Take my shower now

[Metal god]

At this point, I think they’ve been up talking to the judge about objections today longer than they have been actually asking questions of witnesses

[The Verminator]

The more I hear about this the more I think that the fix was in and it's been decided that the novice armorer has been selected as a scapegoat.

Just a quick check turned this up:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/...down-rust-job/

And this:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/r...se-1235930982/

[Metal god]

The prosecution did their best to protect the sheriffs office tech But she is getting shredded right now By the defense . Way worse than when she was testifying in the trial .

[44 AMP]

Seems the smartest guy in this situation is the guy who handed Baldwin the gun (assistant director??) and told him it was a cold gun.

Note that within days of the announcement there would be charges filed (and before anyone was specifically named) he took a plea deal and pled guilty to a lesser offense. That took him out of contention for being charged with manslaughter. I wonder what he knew that we don't know, and probably never will know?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Seems the smartest guy in this situation is the guy who handed Baldwin the gun (assistant director??) and told him it was a cold gun.

Note that within days of the announcement there would be charges filed (and before anyone was specifically named) he took a plea deal and pled guilty to a lesser offense. That took him out of contention for being charged with manslaughter. I wonder what he knew that we don't know, and probably never will know?

He was an experienced 2nd Director, and had been in the film industry long enough that he was close to retirement. IMHO, what he knew was that this production was NOT following the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) safety protocols for handling firearms. Once the carelessness resulted in a death, the handwriting was on the wall that anyone and everyone who handled that gun that day would be in the cross-hairs, so he was smart to cut a deal and walk away when he could.

He certainly knew that the SAG protocols required him to witness the loading of the gun ... which he did not do.

[JohnKSa]

The more I hear about this the more I think that the fix was in and it's been decided that the novice armorer has been selected as a scapegoat.

A jury of her peers heard the evidence and decided she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime she was accused of. The judge gave her the maximum sentence possible.

The bottom line is that her main job was to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. That's why she was hired. When your primary job is to prevent something and it happens anyway, it's hard to argue that you're a scapegoat.

Was she inexperienced? One of the best armorers in the business says she had the experience and training she needed to do the job as well as he could.

Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case.

It's certainly not helpful to your argument, but if you think what her dad says about her is irrelevant, you're missing the point. Why do you think she was hired instead of, for example, Karen Jane Doe who lives down the street from the producer and knows nothing about guns? She was hired because she got a recommend from one of the top armorers in the business. If you want to blame someone for the position she was put in, blame her father for telling people that she was as good as he was. If you want to blame someone for the death that happened on her watch, blame her father for telling folks she could handle the job.

Was she pressured? Her job is to maintain firearm safety on the set even when things are hectic.

She (obviously) allowed live ammo on set and didn't control it properly.

She had drugs on set.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it will be a pretty steep climb to make any progress down the road you've chosen.

I get it, you like Hannah, you don't like Baldwin. But that's not how the justice system works. We should all be very happy that trials aren't popularity contests.

[The Verminator]

LOL! Your faith in the justice system is endearing.

The view of an unbiased source trumps her dad's bragging.

"So I would never in a million years have a young person who was unseasoned, unskilled and [had] bare minimum credentials wrangle weapons on a major film for with a major star.”

“She was over her head from the moment she took the job,” Zoromski said.

That from a seasoned veteran armorer who turned down the job because it was obviously headed for trouble.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/...down-rust-job/

[JohnKSa]

LOL! Your faith in the justice system is endearing.

You're just trying to deflect attention from the fact that your assertion that she's a scapegoat is laughable. She very obviously screwed up by the numbers. She allowed live ammo on the set and didn't control it properly. She brought drugs on set. She let people distract her from her primary responsibility and by doing so she failed in her primary task of keeping people unshot on set. She was getting paid to do a job and did it so badly that someone is dead as a result and someone else is badly injured. There's no refuting any of that.

"So I would never in a million years have a young person who was unseasoned, unskilled and [had] bare minimum credentials wrangle weapons on a major film for with a major star.”

“She was over her head from the moment she took the job,” Zoromski said.

She was in her middle 20s at the time the shooting took place. How old does a person have to be before they can do a job right? We know she had proper training because we know who trained her. We give members of the military tremendous responsibility at that age.

But that's really sort of moot given your argument. Let's assume Zoromski is 100% correct.

That still leaves us with the fact that the only reason she got the job was that one of the best armorers in the business strongly endorsed her. If you can't stand the idea that she was very obviously negligent, as the evidence clearly shows, and you feel you must cast about for someone to blame for her being in over her head, the person who got her into the mess by making people think she was qualified for the job is quite obviously your best candidate. But you can't admit that because you like Thell Reed and you seem unable to assign responsibility if it makes someone you like look bad.

If that's how you want to live your life, I guess that's your decision. But it's sort of pointless for you to discuss legal matters since outcomes don't hinge on who you personally like or don't like.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

That still leaves us with the fact that the only reason she got the job was that one of the best armorers in the business strongly endorsed her.

LOL!

The only reason she got the job was because they could get a novice CHEAP.

It was only her second job.

They refused to deal with an experienced armorer and TOLD him they were low budget. (Read the link I gave you.)

They were so low budget that they gave her other duties and refused to let her do her job properly.

Her dad? He should have bought her a better lawyer.

And you? You make a list of allegations by the prosecutor and act like allegations are facts?

Come on, man.

[JohnKSa]

Come on, man.

You are essentially claiming Thell Reed lied about his daughter's competence but you still won't countenance any responsibility on his part even though no one would have hired her if it weren't for his endorsement.

You deny the facts that led to Gutierrez-Reed's conviction and sentencing because you've decided she's innocent.

And yet you think I'm the one who's being unreasonable.

You've made it plain that you don't believe evidence, even if it leads to conviction. That means that anything you state with regard to trials, guilt or acquittal or sentencing are basically just your personal opinions.

What you are saying boils down to this, whether you understand it or not, whether you will admit it or not, whether you can see how transparent you are or not.

"I like Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and her father so she's a scapegoat. I don't like Alec Baldwin so he must be guilty."

Ok. Duly noted. Of course that's not how trials work, but ok--we hear your opinion loud and clear.

[44 AMP]

We give members of the military tremendous responsibility at that age.

We do. But its also in a vastly differently structured environment. Also keep in mind that in the military, if an officer orders it done (rightly or wrongly) it generally gets done. And, if/when something goes wrong, they figure it out afterwards.

No way to know if its correct or not, but what I heard was that she got the job because a friend recommended her to the Rust production. Not her dad. I'm sure she was properly trained, BUT.....

there was no experienced "adult" supervision. She was on her own, without a guiding mentor, and it seems that on that set, once the days "work" was done, there was some "partying" going on.

Question: They say she had illegal drugs, was she ever charged with having them? Just curious...

Right now, she's not on trial. Baldwin's defense team right now is focusing on the "sloppy" investigation done.

Someone put (at least one) live round into the gun Baldwin was handed.
The armorer has been convicted of negligence for allowing that to happen.

Someone else UNLOADED the gun, after the shooting and BEFORE the police arrived. Resulting in no clear chain of custody between the accident and the time the authorities arrived and took possession.

And, it appears that someone is still unknown.

[JohnKSa]

We do. But its also in a vastly differently structured environment. Also keep in mind that in the military, if an officer orders it done (rightly or wrongly) it generally gets done. And, if/when something goes wrong, they figure it out afterwards.

Are you trying to argue that anyone under 26 is not legally responsible for their actions? If so, we need to raise the drinking age, the age at which people can be in the military, the age at which people can drive, or be police officers.

She was old enough to do the job. I can't believe I'm even having to argue such a ridiculous point.

No way to know if its correct or not, but what I heard was that she got the job because a friend recommended her to the Rust production. Not her dad. I'm sure she was properly trained, BUT.....

I really hope you're being intentionally obtuse. She got the job because she is related to Thell Reed and because he claims he trained her and she is competent. Nobody is going to hire someone off the street to be an armorer unless there's some reason to believe they are capable of doing the job. Because if they aren't capable of doing the job, people die.

They say she had illegal drugs, was she ever charged with having them? Just curious...

Not very curious. It's not like I've memorized the entire trial transcript--I do simple internet searches to get information.

The information regarding drug use (including witness statements and text messages on her own phone) was admitted as evidence in her trial. You'd have to ask a juror how much that information influenced their decision to declare her guilty.

Right now, she's not on trial.

Apparently someone mistakenly believes that if they repeatedly claim she's a scapegoat (the failed strategy her defense attorneys used in the trial) often enough, it will make Baldwin look more guilty.

Someone else UNLOADED the gun, after the shooting and BEFORE the police arrived. Resulting in no clear chain of custody between the accident and the time the authorities arrived and took possession.

And, it appears that someone is still unknown.

I don't think you can say it was someone "else", only that it was someone.

So someone may have altered the scene to try to hide guilt. Would that be sort of like destroying a baggie full of a white powdery substance before it could be tested? Because we know who did that.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You are essentially claiming Thell Reed lied about his daughter's competence but you still won't countenance any responsibility on his part even though no one would have hired her if it weren't for his endorsement.

What?

I didn't claim that, "essentially" or otherwise.

Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his endorsement.

It was her second job--did he also get her her first job?

Your snarky attacks on me and your fantasies about my motivations are getting old.

Improve your behavior or get ignored.

[JohnKSa]

What?

I didn't claim that, "essentially" or otherwise.

"Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case."
"The view of an unbiased source trumps her dad's bragging."

Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his endorsement.

You know, I believe you actually think that makes sense.

...your fantasies about my motivations...

Ok. here's your chance.

You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument. Calling evidence leading to conviction and sentencing into question because you don't like the outcome.

So given that you aren't making your decision based on facts (or at least based on selectively choosing which facts to believe and which to disregard which amounts to the same thing from a practical perspective), what is your motivation for deciding who's guilty and who isn't? How do you pick which facts to believe and which ones to disbelieve?

I've been using your own statement to divine your motivation, but maybe you would like to rephrase:

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You are essentially claiming Thell Reed lied about his daughter's competence but you still won't countenance any responsibility on his part even though no one would have hired her if it weren't for his endorsement.

I don't think Thell Reed lied, but I do think he had an incorrect understanding of his daughter's knowledge and capabilities. We also don't know if HE knew she was a druggie.

For example, it was widely reported in the aftermath of the incident that Hannah had to call her father to ask how to load dummy rounds into a firearm. That does not suggest professional competence of a very high level.

It was also widely reported that on her previous film as an armorer, many cast members and members of the production team thought she was dangerous. We don't know if her father was aware of those reports. (At least, I don't know -- maybe some of you know.)

In reality, her lack of competence almost certainly played into her hiring. I'm not saying the producers hired her because she was incompetent. They hired her because all the more experienced, better-known Hollywood armorers had already turned them down. At least one of them told the producers outright that for the number of guns and the number of cast members who would be handling (or at least wearing) guns they needed two full-time armorers.

Instead, they hired Guttierez-Reed, and then made her a part-time armorer and part-time props assistant. They didn't hire her specifically because she was incompetent -- they hired her because she was cheap. But she was cheap because she wasn't competent enough to have been smart enough to walk away from the job.

Does that excuse her for having drugs and live ammo on the set? Not in my opinion. On the other hand, the SAG rules for firearms (as they existed at the time of the incident) set up a redundant system, specifically to avoid exactly what happened. Under the SAG, whenever a gun is loaded there were supposed to be THREE people present -- the armorer (who should have done the actual loading, physically shaking each dummy round), the safety director (typically the person in Hall's position), and the actor himself/herself.

How long has Baldwin been a Hollywood actor? How many films has he made that involved guns? He had to have known (or known of) the SAG rules but, being the arrogant blowhard he is, he considered himself exempt from following the rules, and now his defense is that he relied on others to tell him the gun wasn't loaded.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

"Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case."
"The view of an unbiased source trumps her dad's bragging." You know, I believe you actually think that makes sense.Ok. here's your chance.

You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument. Calling evidence leading to conviction and sentencing into question because you don't like the outcome.

So given that you aren't making your decision based on facts (or at least based on selectively choosing which facts to believe and which to disregard which amounts to the same thing from a practical perspective), what is your motivation for deciding who's guilty and who isn't? How do you pick which facts to believe and which ones to disbelieve?

I've been using your own statement to divine your motivation, but maybe you would like to rephrase:

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."

I'll ask again:
Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his (her father's) endorsement.

That's not such a hard question. If you can't provide a link we'll have to assume your claim is false.

You continue to use unproven allegations by prosecutors of drug use, etc. as if they are facts.

That's simply prevarication.

And you continue with really insulting personal characterizations of me:

You say:

"You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument."

Seems like you WANT to get ignored.

[LeverGunFan]

Meanwhile, back at the trial, the judge sent the jury home today while the court ponders a motion by the defense to dismiss the case. The defense motion is claiming that the state has withheld information regarding ammunition found on the set. More here.

[JohnKSa]

I don't think Thell Reed lied...
...
For example, it was widely reported in the aftermath of the incident that Hannah had to call her father to ask how to load dummy rounds into a firearm.

After that he made the claims I quoted.

""She knows what to do," he added. "She does the job as good as I do now.""

"She didn't need anymore training, she's got me," Reed told ABC News

We're obviously not talking about the normal definition of "lied". What's the personal definition that you are using?

You continue to use unproven allegations by prosecutors of drug use, etc. as if they are facts.

That's simply prevarication.

Some of that evidence was based on text messages from her own phone. If she's such a good person, why don't you believe her own words?

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When it suits your purpose, you just dismiss hard evidence. Or maybe you just haven't bothered to even look into the facts of the case and yet are absolutely convinced that you know the truth. Either way, it's equally damning.

That's not such a hard question. If you can't provide a link we'll have to assume your claim is false.

You crack me up. You dismiss facts you don't like, ignore (or can't understand) reasoning that doesn't fit with your preconceptions, but then when it suits your purpose, you pretend like they actually mean something.

Because you clearly are unused to bothering with facts and coherent debate, you don't understand that there are two ways to support a claim. One way is with facts, another way is with logic and reasoning.

What's not hard is understanding why a person with no experience as an armorer but who has a father who is a famous armorer gets hired. I am pretty sure you can understand that even though you are going to do your best to pretend you don't. And we all know why you are going to maintain that pretense.

"You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument."

I did say that because it's true. You dismissed facts introduced as evidence leading to Gutierrez-Reed's conviction and sentencing simply because they didn't fit with your idea of who she was.

And what is your idea of who she is?

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."

Perhaps you could tell us all how much time you have spent with Hannah and those who know her personally, learning what a good person she is. Tell us some of the things you have seen her do that were good and that led to your forming your opinion of her that is so strong it makes you confident enough to disregard the facts.

The bottom line is you know nothing about what kind of a person she is except from press coverage and the trial. The problem is that when it suits your purposes, you can selectively choose to dismiss or accept any of that information, as you have explicitly done on this thread. Which means that you have formed a picture of her in your mind that is driven by your preconceptions--the preconception that made you dismiss some facts and accept others.

Seems like you WANT to get ignored.

Sure. I'd love it. Let's see how that works. You can start now, if you like but by now everyone can tell that you are not capable of doing so.

[Metal god]

Judge dismisses case with prejudice How’s that for our judicial system?

[The Verminator]

Judge dismisses case.

Baldwin walks.

NOW try to tell me the fix wasn't in.



https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/12/enter...ust/index.html

[JohnKSa]

It sounds like the prosecution wanted a conviction badly enough that they bent the rules so severely that the judge was left with no other option.

The judge's ruling stated, with citations, that there was no other course of action available given the circumstances.

'With prejudice' means that he can't be tried again on these charges.

That's why facts are so important. When people decide ahead of time that they know how the case should turn out and then work the facts toward that end instead of letting the facts show the way to the truth, the outcome is never good.