Holy shit!
Immediately after the verdict was read out in court, the judge ordered the 24-year-old armorer placed into the custody of deputies. Lead attorney Jason Bowles said afterward that Gutierrez-Reed will appeal the conviction, which carries a penalty of up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
So will she be sentenced to prison–or just community service and a fine?
That was quick. I’m not surprised by the verdict. The level of incompetence in this case was overwhelming.
The prosecution did a excellent job presenting this case.
Baldwin is probably sweating hard now. He’s going to need a very good trial attorney. I wouldn’t be surprised if a deal is worked out to avoid trial. It won’t be easy because the DA has already shown they have strong evidence.
The OHSA report mentioned earlier is aimed directly at Baldwin and the other Rust producers.
Part of the rationale for this verdict was that the armorer was the person on the set who had final responsibility to make sure the guns were safe. So his personal responsibility for actually firing the gun seems to be diminishing into nothing. If he has some responsibility as a producer (one of six) for hiring an armorer who was, in practice, incompetent, does not seem to be the sort of thing that would put him in prison. Her maximum sentence, for bearing that responsibility, is 18 months and a fine.
From what I understand, OSHA specifically found that Baldwin was not that kind of producer. His producer credit was limited to casting and script changes, not hiring or overseeing crew.
Slightly OT. But a number of years ago, a friend came over to do some plinking in the backyard. He accidently negligently swept me with the muzzle of his rifle as he was getting it out of the case. I yelled, “Hey, watch your muzzle!!” He responded, “It’s O.K. - it’s not loaded.” 
I missed that point. That’s going to help Baldwin’s case.
Thanks for the link.
This state OSHA organization doesn’t conduct criminal investigations. Their investigation related to workplace practices was also performed prior to the completion of the police investigation as were their conclusions and they did not have access to a lot of the evidence later uncovered.
The strongest evidence against Baldwin was as an actor who disregarded gun handling procedures and used what influence he has as producer to interfere with Gutierrez job. In addition, he lacks credibility after making conflicting statements and seeming to conspire with Gutierrez to cover their actions.
It’s irrelevant to his case because he’s no longer being charged under that theory of criminal liability. It is strictly for his conduct as a person handling a firearm.
I suspect it will come down to a battle of the experts presenting competing claims on (1) how likely it is that he pulled the trigger or if it’s possible he didn’t pull the trigger and (2) whether it even matters
if he pulled the trigger at all. That latter point will, I think, be most critical to the outcome of the case.
I think that is precisely the point at issue. I believe the official story from the Guild is that he did not disregard gun handling procedures but (1) who says we have to accept what a bunch of actors have to say about gun safety? and (2) I seem to recall that some actors at least disagree and think, as you say, that he did not in fact behave appropriately as an actor handling a firearm.
According to the linked article:
I’m watching a recording of the DA’s closing argument now. The DA says the same thing: OSHA does not conduct criminal investigations.
Is that quote unclear? Does it say that they conduct criminal investigations?
I guess I missed the point of the quote?
Blithely dismissing OSHA findings by saying “OSHA doesn’t do criminal investigations” is disingenuous at best. Does that mean that since they don’t do criminal investigations, OSHA findings have never once come up in any criminal case ever? That would seem to defy credulity.
What we have here is a case where OSHA came to conclusions in direct opposition to what the DA has concluded. But keep in mind that the DA keeps bringing and dropping charges in this case, almost as if they’re either fishing or looking for a scapegoat. Interestingly, the one person OSHA found to be most at fault and culpable in this whole affair is the one guy that the DA already gave a sweetheart plea deal to, and they gave that plea deal almost immediately. Within weeks, if I recall correctly.
It really does seem like some of this prosecution is politically motivated.
Maybe I’ve lost the plot of the thread here, but which conclusions are those? If it’s that Baldwin did not have managerial oversight as a producer, I thought the latest development (some time ago, actually) was that the state chose not to charge him on that theory (of negligent oversight leading to death) after all, and was instead charging him only on the basis that his (allegedly) negligent conduct resulted in the firearm being discharged into a person, causing death. Did that change?
Well that just makes me curious as to the context of why the DA brought up OSHA at all. What was the relevance of OSHA, specifically?
They didn’t choose not to charge him. They charged him. Then they dropped those charges. That’s a different thing than choosing not to charge him in the first place.
Now they’re charging him with essentially waving the gun around and pulling the trigger. While he was rehearsing a scene that involved cross drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera. (I’m not sure if cross-drawing is the right terminology.)
Both Baldwin and an eyewitness standing right next to him stated that he did not pull the trigger. It would seem that the charges are predicated on him not treating the gun like a normal person in a non-acting situation should treat a gun. Except that clearly doesn’t apply to an actor rehearsing gun handling for a scene that requires that actor to demonstrate gun handling.
In short, they are reaching. They can’t actually charge the guy who is responsible since they already cut that guy a deal almost immediately. So they’re going after the high-profile actor who happens to be an outspoken liberal.
Let’s just say that the DA’s track record in bringing charges against Baldwin has been less than stellar. Descriptions of their previous charges could include words like “unfounded” and “baseless.” And now you say they are dismissing OSHA, as if (and you are not saying this part, I am) OSHA is the equivalent of some neckbeard in his mom’s basement posting conspiracy theories. That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence as to the integrity of these charges.
This seems to be the whole crux of the case.
That is not (and frankly never has been) my impression, but especially now that I have watched the closing argument. The prosecution laid out a very strong case that (1) the armorer is the one who brought live ammo onto set and (2) the armorer was not checking to verify supposed dummy rounds at all. That is, no one ever saw her rattling bullets to determine if they were really dummy rounds (some of the dummy rounds had holes, others did not, and the only way to verify the latter was to do the rattle test, which I still think is outrageously dangerous even if the check is actually performed).
So I frankly don’t think it matters whether the AD “took” the gun from the armorer or, as the prosecutor argued in closing, the armorer gave the gun to the AD. There was a pattern of no fucks being given over gun safety, both in front of and by the armorer, and the armorer is the one who not only allowed live bullets into the gun, she’s the one who brought and mixed up live bullets with dummy rounds and then didn’t bother to check the dummy rounds.
She is absolutely the one to blame over both the AD and Baldwin.
That said, I am torn on whether Baldwin is guilty. I suppose I’d need t hear all the evidence to decide. Which, I suppose, is why we have trials and juries and such.
But just to remind everyone where I am at, I am in the camp of not being entirely convinced that just because an actors’ guild decides it’s safe to point a real gun at people on a movie set, that the rest of us mere humans necessarily need to accept their conclusions.
Actors don’t make law.
And, again, I wouldn’t be shocked if the DA can find an expert or two willing to say that Baldwin didn’t even behave appropriately according to the standards of an actor.
But then, doubtless, the defense will do the opposite.
So I guess we’ll see who is more convincing (and how much more convincing they are).
The AD was in charge of set safety, and this was not the first time there was an accidental gun discharge on a set on his watch:
He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the Rust incident, receiving six months of unsupervised probation. The sentence happened last March, so I assume he’s been free and clear for six months now. This guy definitely deserved jail time.
Agreed completely, but that starts at the top. The armorer was under Halls’ purview; he was in charge of set safety. The armorer should definitely do jail time, but Halls should have gotten more time than whatever she gets. Though part of why I think that is that he has a history of “oopsie” gun incidents on movie sets, and I’m not entirely sure if a history like that is admissible in court.
Because of covid protocols there wouldn’t have been any witnesses regardless.
In any case, I think the charges against Baldwin specifically are absurd. Both the ones that were dropped and the ones that are now being argued.
If you have an hour, consider watching:
