A jury in New Mexico has found the armorer on the set of Rust guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the incident in which Alec Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins with a prop gun in October 2021.
Hanna Gutierrez-Reed, the 25-year-old armorer on the set, was convicted of the charge after the jury deemed her to have been reckless in her duties. She allegedly loaded a functional .45 revolver with dummy rounds and at least one live round, which Baldwin used to shoot and kill Hutchins.
The verdict was reached after just a few hours of deliberation, and Gutierrez-Reed was immediately taken into custody. Afterward her attorney promised an appeal in the case. Gutierrez-Reed was also found not guilty on an evidence tampering charge for allegedly passing off a bag of cocaine the day of the fatal set shooting.
For the conviction, Gutierrez-Reed faces a sentence of up to 18 months in prison, along with a $5,000 fine.
In his closing remarks, special prosecutor Kari Morrissey said Gutierrez-Reed was aware of problems with Baldwinâs prop gun handling but didnât sufficiently address the issue.
âHannah Gutierrez knew that Baldwin was loose. She knew it,â Morrissey told the jury. âShe didn’t do anything about it, even though it was her job. It was her job. It is her job to say to an A-list actor, if in fact, that’s what you want to call him, âHey, you can’t behave that way with those firearms.â That is her job. That is what they pay her for. That is the job that she applied for. That is the job that she accepted.â
Gutierrez-Reedâs attorney, Jason Bowles, had argued that the fault for the shooting lay completely on Baldwin.
âIt was not in the script for Mr. Baldwin to point the weapon,â Bowles pointed out during the trial. âShe didnât know that Mr. Baldwin was going to do what he did. Ms. Gutierrez didnât point that weapon.â
Baldwin, who pulled the trigger on the live round while pointing the gun at Hutchins, has also been charged with involuntary manslaughter and is accused of causing Hutchinsâs death either by negligence or âtotal disregard or indifferenceâ for safety. He has pleaded not guilty, and his trial will begin in July.
she should have done her job, if she had she would have probably not been convicted.
I watched a lot of the trial, and I was stunned by the casual, dangerous environment she allowed on set with respect to firearms. Tons of video of people muzzling others and themselves (including the Armorer herself). Tons of moments when she should have stepped in to make corrections. Lazy, indifferent storage and control of guns and prop ammunition. The testimony from the prosecution’s firearms/armorer experts was really interesting – very smart, knowledgeable guys.
It was sad and frustrating to see all the Hollywood types confronted so starkly by their own hubris – people who really think they know better than us rubes in flyover country clinging to our guns and bibles. But when asked if they had any firearms experience: “No. No. No. No.” Guns are icky. They broke every safety rule in the book because they were too virtuous to learn how to be safe. They had literally no idea what they were doing.
The armorer was in WAY over her head and is paying for her inexperience and negligence both. Hopefully Alec Baldwin will also face justice for his role in this killing as both producer and trigger man. Tragic.
Responsible choice would have been to quit, even knowing that it would likely trash her career. Now it’s trashed anyways and she has the criminal penalties. Unfortunate that she was stuck in that situation, but one has to make choices based on life as it is, not as it should be.
Absolutely. The job is to keep people safe, including people who you may otherwise answer to. If you are protecting your career instead of your people, you are doing it wrong (and likely to wind up with much bigger problems).
That’s right just pick up a firearm point it at a person, pull the trigger, kill or injure the person and place blame on everyone and everything but the adult in complete control of the firearm. The trial was a Salem Witch Hunt which nowadays is a trend.
The what ifs are so high with firearms what happens once the projectile exits the muzzle belongs solely to the individual who pulled the trigger. The trial was a clown show especially with the defense expert who was another blowbag who failed to verify the weapon clear and went about pointing it in multiple directions and tried to justify his stupidity by claiming there are multiple ways to safely point a firearm including toward the judge who like myself has seen enough rifling from barrels pointed towards me by incompetent Gun talking blowbags like the defense expert and alec baldwin.
I’m surprised they did not charge the deceased for standing in the way of the projectile…only if she would not have done that.
Surely if she had done her job and checked the rounds properly before loading them in the gun that the trial would not have taken place because there would have not been a deadly shooting.
The following is a mere suggestion and by no means is indicative of my views, but if supported by past actions on movie sets will be an argument Baldwin’s defense team uses.
If history on movie sets confirms that through the years actors have been handed guns etc and the actors used the items as directed without making any safety checks etc with props including guns that the norm and SOP on a movie set is that the actor merely uses props(guns included) as directed and that the actor bears no responsibility in the state of the prop. If history further proves that actors in general are expected to have confidence in the person in charge of handling props, that the actor bears no responsibility in the proper operation of any prop.
If what I have said makes sense, then this will surely be an argument the defense will have to reflect the blame away from the actor and onto the armorer or whomever is responsible for said props.
Now before some here get ticked, please understand that I am not supporting the actor(A Baldwin in this case) for I do believe the last person to handle a gun bears responsibility. I am only pointing out that this will surely be a defense argument if they produce sufficient evidence to establish a historical precedence.
The defense will call witnesses to establish history and what has become standard on movie sets.
In short actors are to act and leave technical issues up to others on set.
Reportedly, shot did not require him to squeeze/pull the trigger, he’s repeatedly claimed he didn’t, but FBI test shows that’s the only way it could have fired. Also being producer, he’s also got some responsibility for the armorer not being given the time and respect to do her job correctly.
Serpent_Vision, you are correct and my post at 12:32 is only saying that history and SOP will be an argument the defense uses. Be not surprised.
Everyone in the chain who touched that gun that day is at least a little bit responsible for the outcome.
They should have checked the gun when it entered their hands, and when it left their hands. There shouldnât have been ANY live rounds within 5 miles of the set. And Alec Baldwin shouldnât have pointed the damned thing at anyone, much less pulled the trigger.
I think Baldwin is most responsible out of all of them, but if even ONE person, ANY person, in that chain of custody had done their job that day, there wouldnât have been a tragedy and we wouldnât be talking about this today.
The old adage if you want it done right do it yourself applies to verifying a firearm safe. Especially when said firearm is to be pointed at someone and especially when a what-if can occur. In other words you hand me a firearm and come hell and high water it would be verified safe…Failure to verify safe especially when the stakes were so high lands blame on no one but alec baldwin.
Simply following the 4 rules of firearm safety is all that was need. As a side note Baldwin has on numerous occasion claimed to be an expert on firearms and firearms safety. You can find his anti 2A rants while being interviewed all over the interweb.
“If what I have said makes sense, then this will surely be an argument the defense will have to reflect the blame away from the actor and onto the armorer or whomever is responsible for said props.”
The armorer’s actions (or inactions) do not absolve Baldwin’s culpability, full stop.
The prosecutor will drill that point home with the upcoming jury.
Debbie W. is correct in that the defense expert did not appear to be much of an expert when it came to proper and safe handling. He never once said “point a gun in a safe direction” which should have been his response instead of attempting to demonstrate multiple directions. “Safe direction” what ever that direction happens to be at the time is all he had to say.
A bit difficult with being used as a “general hand” as well as the armorer. Was there a clause in the contract “other duties as directed”?
And jerk-@$$ Baldwin was the financier, producer, director, and star, among other roles in this vanity project. This wasn’t a shoestring operation. It was threadbare with all the safety and employment violations being reported. They threw the armorer under the bus as a scapegoat for the failings of the one in charge.
in my opinion they’re both guilty…but for different reasons….
Stop calling the F.lli Pietta long Colt 45 revolver Alec Baldwen shot someone with, A DAMN PROP GUN!
“A prop, formally known as a (theatrical) property, is an object actors use on stage or screen during a performance or screen production. In practical terms, a prop is considered to be anything movable or portable on a stage or a set, distinct from the actors, scenery, costumes, and electrical equipment.”
I understand your point though, this is certainly NOT an inert firearm (obviously).
A prop gun would be a rubber, deactivated, fake, or blank only gun.
What they had was a gun. Not a prop gun. A gun capable of firing live ammunition.
If you take that gun off the set and used it to shoot paper targets is it still a prop gun? No, it continues to be a real gun.
I own one and it shutes real bullets. I bet it could put a hole in an airplane prop or eller
Little known fact – during early filming of Star Wars, a number of actors had various body parts cut off when Mark Hamill mistakingly kept bringing a functional light sabre on set. To deal with the problem, George Lucas decreed that from that point forward, all such scenes would be computer generated later in editing.
They executive producer is responsible for EVERYTHING on the production. Including hiring an inept druggie party girl with no experience or sense. She got what she deserves. Will Baldwin???
“They executive producer is responsible for EVERYTHING on the production.”
In the closing arguments, the prosecutor said (something along the lines of) :
“You may feel that Baldwin, as the overall boss of the job, held the most responsibility. Don’t worry, we will get to him”.
His time is soon coming. I got the impression the courtroom was shocked and offended at the casual and sloppy gun handling they saw.
The defense called a “gun expert” up to testify, and even the judge was pissed at the ‘expert’ as he pointed the gun at the judge, the prosecutor, and pretty much everyone in the courtroom. Watch what the bailiff does in this video :
I was surprised by the defense team – the lawyers seemed incredibly abrasive to witnesses for no real reason. This firearms “expert” in particular seemed less like an expert and more like “Uncle Bob” who hunts, watches YouTube, and likes talking about guns at barbecues. Not a very good defense effort in my opinion, and there actually were some things they could have used to help their client, especially the overall safety incompetence and penny-pinching of the production as a whole as well as Baldwin’s domineering personality and unwillingness to follow safety guidelines.
I rather suspect that the defense had a very difficult time finding an expert witness who would back their version of the facts, and this is what they ended up with. The fact of the matter is that Baldwin handled the firearm improperly (negligently), and someone, apparently the armorer but not Baldwin, allowed a live round to be loaded into the revolver. How a live round got mixed in with dummy rounds was solely the armorer’s responsibility. She, and only she, should have had possession of the firearms and the ammunition on set when not in the possession of one of the actors.
They seemed to have a bailiff close at hand and doing hands on correction while he was testifying.
seems like everything in this production was done on the cheap…and they paid the price…her old man is a renowned firearms expert…she was just a rookie…
“her old man is a renowned firearms expertâŚshe was just a rookie⌔
I have to believe her dad watched that trial closely and was not pleased by what he saw concerning his daughter and her actions and inactions.
It sucks this seems to happen every 30 years or so on movie sets, just long enough that it passes out of recent memory…
In its simplest form gun safety comes down to the four rules. Gutierrez and Baldwin both made their living at least in part by handling firearms. Baldwin was particularly well paid. As the senior or most authoritive person on the set, it should have been his professional responsibility to not only know those rules, but to see that they were followed by the rest of the cast and crew.
How much did she pay for this “gun expert” to display what he knows???
video 4 min long
Sweeping the Judge!!!
https://youtu.be/2KXXySVnk_o?si=dTUasMbopeCZanTi
I do not understand how anti 2A actors can justify participating in movies that feature guns. Just a bunch of hypocrites. Guns are OK when they are used to get the actors a paycheck or for their own security details. Not OK for us regular folk to use for defense.
Yeah. She was saying that PDQ arms company made a mistake and states: “The ammunition was misrepresented as only dummy ammunition when it contained both dummy and live ammunition”…..i mean WTF!!! How can you not see what is dummy round and what is real one?? We used dummy rounds a lot in military training. They have no bullet …yeez cmon….and she call her self an armorer…give me a brake.
“We used dummy rounds a lot in military training. They have no bullet ⌔
That was a blank round, not a dummy round.
BIG difference…
yeah,..easy to tell the difference…but the movies try to make the rounds look as real as possible…
âWe used dummy rounds a lot in military training. They have no bullet âŚyeez cmonâŚ. â
This was a movie set, they were doing close-ups from the front aspect of the actor and the gun, these dummy rounds were visible to the camera so they had bullets seated in the case. The only way to tell the difference wouldâve been to unload the gun and check if they had live primers, and the weight. True dummy rounds should have a hole drilled through the case and/or a BB as a rattle check.
Baldwin wonât be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, because he relied on the expert who had the duty to ensure that the firearm was safe. He will be found civilly liable, Iâm guessing about $5 million for wrongful death.
My guess, during the scene Baldwin cocked the gun, after they yelled cut he attempted to Decock the pistol as you do by holding the hammer and pulling the trigger. Unfortunately, the hammer slipped from under his thumb and dropped on a loaded chamber.
Liar, Alec had a live round in his belt.
Liar, Alec had a live round in his beltâ
Baldwin did not have custody of the firearm or the cartridges, Baldwin did not load cartridges into the belt, that was all handled by the armorer and assistant Director.
MINOR49er, God why is you hoplophobes know so little about firearms and cartridges?
First, a “dummy round” is not used in theatrical performances.
Second, a round that does not have a bullet but does have a powder charge and a primer is called a “BLANK.” You know, as in what is in between your dumb head? And are what are USED in theatrical performances.
Third, I don’t know if your hero, Baldwin will be convicted or not, but it is the RESPONSIBILITY of anyone who handles a firearm to make sure it is “safe and clear” before using or cleaning. Anyone who is handed a firearm or picks one up is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE whatever happens with that firearm.
Of course that concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is alien to you when applying the concept to a fellow Leftist.
He hired that expert. He was on the set and should have seen the poor quality of his expert’s work. He himself has been on other movie sets and claims to have some knowledge of how things should be run. He should have fired her early on based on what he should have observed.
Dummy rounds have bullets, but are not supposed to have either a live primer or powder. That way they look like real bullets but present no danger.
This is what happens when the sanctimonious, ignorant, anti-gun Democrats treat guns like they’re toys. Also, I don’t think Baldwin has been considered an A-list actor for decades.
Dude he won Emmy’s on 30 Rock not all that long ago. FWIW that’s “A-list”…
I always think of movies for A-listers, but that makes sense. I never watched that show.
And a 2017 emmy for lampooning Trump on Saturday Night live. I doubt he’ll do timeđ
{Baldwin}
“I doubt heâll do timeđ”
The mood in that courtroom was sour. If Baldwin does as I suspect and tries to deflect the blame, they will convict him.
It’s only 18 months, anyways. She’s in her 20s, it won’t be fun, but she’ll be fine.
Something tells me his time in the state prison will be a lot less pleasant, and he’ll get a much-needed ‘attitude adjustment’… đ
You mean, as in A.. H..e? Yeah, he is certainly one of those. I suspect he intimidated the crap out of the armorer.
would seem the crew didn’t respect her authority either…
Promoted to âFlaming AHâ listâŚ
Congratulations A-Lick, you finally made it!
Seems like being on a movie set with a bunch of actors and movie industry people violates the “stupid things in stupid places with stupid people” rule.
One thing I always taught my students and that was that booze and guns do not mix (this was back in the day when most kids would have never taken drugs). Since cocaine was found on the set its reasonable to assume that the female armorer Reed and maybe even Baldwin may have been high when on the set.
Baldwin and his armorer Reed violated every gun safety protocol on the books. I now remind people about how this ties in with the moronic Republicans switching states back to permitless carry with no firearms training. It all ties in with Republican infinite stupidity when it comes to owning, using and carrying deadly weapons. I remind you children “You can never call a bullet back”.
Obviously neither Baldwin or his armorer never had any firearms training.
You’ve never taught anyone about guns. Stop lying all the time.
It’s a sign of his mental illness.
Permitless carry does not absolve anyone from responsibility, particularly as concerns the terminal locations of their bullets.
Remember: just because you can, does not mean you should. That applies to a lot of things in life.
G
F
Y
There’s no excuse for having live ammunition on set, period.
Well according to the smartest people in the room. Cocaine and guns do mix very well together. And should be legal.
Good Send her to prison. And her self-defense “gun expert” can go with her.
Coming soon to a theater near you, all things that look like they could go bang, or blast, or laser, ray gun will be replaced with brightly neon green Nerf props, the actors will shout “BANG!” or “ZAP!” “KABLOOY!” and we are all supposed to just accept it.
Ah for the grand old films of 2023, when guns were guns, women were men, and men were women. Good times.
The ’60s Batman TV show was ahead of its time!
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lTDOOhj52mM/XIJO53xq5ZI/AAAAAAAAIWw/tiOzMHrt6ag-nn2vbHF8wH8CVyjxizrNgCLcBGAs/s1600/Kapow%2521%2Ben%2Bla%2Bserie%2BBatman.jpg
I watched some recently made low budget action movies where you can clearly tell the are using CO2 powered airguns.
None of them were memorable enough to remember the movies names.
I was an extra in a scene for a movie like that. The air pistol fired a capsule of grey powder that made it look as if a bullet had hit a tombstone. The gun shot sound was added later.
18 months and $5000 fine is almost worth killing off Hollywood actors.
Superman had the right idea, do it yourself.
Washington Post Journalist Discovers the Value of Armed Self-Defense (note: to add “And Was Lucky” because his intruder wasn’t like the other 99% he could have encountered who would not mind seriously injuring or killing you) > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/03/07/washington-post-journalist-discovers-the-value-of-armed-self-defense/
The individual in control of the firearm was the one with the ultimate responsibility to ensure that this doesn’t happen. The four rules of gun safety were ignored – this is the result!
Guns and booze (drugs) don’t mix. The BATFE confirmed that at Waco. All four of the deceased agents were killed with bullets consistent with the .223 and .308 caliber rifles rather than the claimed fusillade from .50 BMG machine guns and full auto AK-47s. Bullets from .223 and .308 rifles would be consistent with the weapons that were employed by the BATFE sniper team at the “undercover house” who somehow managed to fire three dozen rounds without hitting any of the Branch Davidians.
I thought David got shot, wasnt he wounded in the hand.
Don’t matter anyway, burn the evidence then take posey pictures.
The BATFE trophy awards.
Janet Reno looked like a protective burm around a river, I think they call it a dyke, or levee?
Touche! đ
When it comes to social, legal or political issues I think and do what I believe my great grandfather would have done a century ago in 1924. This business of holding people responsible for firearms “accidents” began long after that. Sure, back then you could commit intentional homicide with a gun and get away with it after claiming that the gun “just went off” and that you didn’t know that it was loaded. You could also order a gun through the U.S. mail and pay for it C.O.D. (cash on delivery) when the mailman knocked on your door. Try that today and it will be the ATF doing the knocking.
I watched the entire trial, and am not certain I would have convicted her of IM… her sloppy disregard for safety didn’t seem to line up with the letter of the law per the judge’s charging orders. But she was damn sure guilty of something. Though not the ludicrous “tampering” charge. If she’d snorted the coke, would that have been tampering? That was just stupid overcharging. I think they wanted the jury to know she was a druggie, beyond the piercings and yellow and purple hair.
I was going to give the prosecution an A+ for gun knowledge, right up until closing, when they suggested that Hannah had bought an inertia puller to convert live ammo into dummies. With superglue… all of you hand loaders know this is impossible without an expander die, and some way to reliably deactivate the primer if you don’t want it dimpled. Brass cases spring back .001″ or so after you pull the bullet. It’s that tension (plus the crimp) that keeps the bullet in place as other cartridges fire. You can’t pop it out, dump out the powder, and push the bullet back in. So I’ll give ’em a B on gun knowledge. The idiot defense (and boy did they suck) didn’t even refute this, and they had a competent handloader witness at their disposal. I said “competent handloader”, not competent witness…. He sits down, pulls out a replica revolver, and sweeps the entire courtroom. Not a good thing to do in a trial that hinged on gun safety, or lack thereof.
Alec’s done for. Enough video and discussion about him came out in this trial, that he needs to plead. He was using the revolver at one point… as a pointer, waving it around. Firing blanks after “Cut!”, and so forth. Complaining that it took too long to reload and reset for another take, and on and on and on. Plus it’s his movie, and OSHA fined the production company $100K for negligence… not overseeing Hannah properly. He’s gonna lose.
I enjoyed watching the trial, since I could skip breaks, sidebars, and the slow background testimony. The gun stuff was interesting… FBI can’t get fingerprints and DNA of of fired, or very few unfired rounds? Couldn’t get fingerprints off of but 12% of the ones in the Las Vegas shooting. The FBI has a policy now to not even try.
âHe was using the revolver at one point⌠as a pointer, waving it around. Firing blanks after âCut!â, and so forth. Complaining that it took too long to reload and reset for another takeâ
None of those are a crime.
He wonât be convicted of a criminal charge, but he will be found civilly liable for wrongful death, probably $5 million.
I would politely suggest you watch the trial, and view the evidence in light of the New Mexico statute. Nothing Hannah did in isolation was a crime either.
BTW, I made a mistake in my post… it was the FBI could only get prints off of 12% of the MAGAZINES in Las Vegas. Prints from cartridges was like .9%.
Steven paddock habitually wore gloves, itâs quite reasonable that there were very few fingerprints on the magazines or the cartridge cases:
âVegas madman regularly wore gloves because of bizarre allergies
By Social Links for Danika Fears
Published Oct. 4, 2017, 5:08 p.m. ET
Stephen Paddock
Stephen Paddock
AP
The Las Vegas gunman was allergic to certain chemicals and medications â and often wore gardening gloves around so he wouldnât get rashes, his brother said Wednesday.
Stephen Paddock, 64, was so sensitive to cleaning chemicals that he asked staff at the casinos he regularly stayed at to scrub his room with water instead of cleaning agents, his younger brother, Eric, told Reuters.
He was also allergic to certain medications and couldnât renew his pilotâs license because he wasnât able to take pills to reduce his blood pressure.â
You canât replace white men with women and browns and expect there to be no casualties. I bet Boeing offers here a job as a maintenance professional when she gets out of prison.
Comments are closed.