Baldwin walks free

[foxtrapper]

I found this on Reeders site. Petition from Brian Pearce for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
Friday, July 19, 2024, 17:11

Posted with Gary's Permission

To Whom It May Concern; July 15, 2024

Re: Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (RUST Movie Armorer)

The purpose of this article is to petition financial help for a freedom loving American family that has been victimized and destroyed financially by a prejudice court system and a prosecuting attorney that lied, withheld evidence and intentionally covered up facts. This has also resulted in an innocent person going to prison.

On October 21, 2021, during the filming of the movie “Rust” on location in Bonanza City, New Mexico, an unknown person placed a live cartridge into a Pietta SAA pattern revolver chambered in 45 Colt being used as a prop gun. Extreme anti-constitutionalist, anti-Second Amendment activist and Hollywood elitist Alec Baldwin was both actor and producer of the movie. While filming inside a church, Baldwin cocked the gun, pointed it directly at Halyna Hutchins and pulled the trigger after the director had ordered the filming to stop. The bullet tragically killed cinematographer Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza. Baldwin later claimed (on national television) that he did not pull the trigger. However, the FBI carefully examined the gun and found that it was functioning 100% correctly and that the trigger had to be pulled for the gun to fire. And the only way for that bullet to strike Hutchins was for the gun to be pointed directly at her! And prior to production Baldwin stated “…my gunplay-is all right at my fingertips at all times.” This certainly suggests that he claims to know how to shoot guns.

Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter, but the case against him was dismissed by the judge without prejudice on July 12, 2024 due to the prosecuting attorney concealing evidence from the defense. The hidden evidence was in regards to the live ammunition found on the set, which was also concealed from Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s defense team. If this evidence would have been included, Hannah would also have been exonerated. Most authorities consider this malicious prosecution and could result in the prosecutor going to prison!

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was hired as the Rust armorer and contracted to receive less than $8000 for her services. She was 24-years old at the time and is the daughter of legendary shooter and fast draw artist Thell Reed that has 50-years experience as a Hollywood armorer and has trained many famous actors how to correctly handle guns (more on Thell in a moment). According to Thell, Hannah grew up with guns, shooting and even worked with him many times. She gleaned skill, safety and firearms knowledge from her father. Furthermore, she attended 4 years of college at Arizona State University, earning a Bachelor Science degree and studied Film, resulting in her being a true professional to work in the motion picture industry. She has never been in trouble with the law and has no criminal history. Rust was her second job as head armorer.

As producer, Baldwin gave continual orders to the cast and crew and many stated that he had lost control and that the set was in continual chaos and disorganized. For example, he assigned Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to other prop duties and literally prevented her from doing her job. Armorer’s are supposed to load the gun with blanks, hand the gun to the actor, let the cinematographer shoot the scene and then take the gun back to reload etc. They are hired to control guns at all times and lock them up at night. However, on the day of the fatal shooting, Hannah was not even in the “church building” when the fatal shot was fire. And neither was she the one that handed Baldwin the gun that contained 5 dummy rounds and one live cartridge. In spite of being prevented from doing her job, she was charged criminally.

After the incident, Hannah was told by the prosecuting attorney that if she would pay for a lie detector test and pass, that she would not be prosecuted. She took the test and passed 100%, but the prosecutor lied and proceeded with charges. She was even falsely charged with tampering with evidence, but there was no supporting evidence and she was found not guilty. But she was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Clearly the prosecuting attorney was not seeking justice, rather was only fishing for any possible conviction.

As a result of the judge not allowing the jury to hear many facts, combined with the prosecution illegally concealing evidence, Hannah was convicted. Hannah’s case is currently in appeal, so those facts cannot be discussed today. Hannah was given the maximum sentence allowable by law and is approximately 3 months into her 18 month prison sentence.

Thell Reed is a true icon in the firearms industry that is held in high esteem-especially by those of us that love single action sixguns. He began shooting at age 7, but soon his father gave him a pair of Colt Single Action Army 45 Colt sixguns and told him to learn how to make a living with them. At a very young age he was competing in Jeff Cooper’s Big Bear Leatherslaps (that later became the South Western Combat Pistol League) held in Big Bear Lake, California. He competed against many world class shooters, but the top six were often Jeff Cooper, Jack Weaver, John Plahn, Elden Carl, Ray Chapman and Thell Reed, with Reed generally considered having the fastest draw of them all. He went on to compete in fast draw work where he set records and began offering exhibition shoots even in Japan. His fame really grew when Elmer Keith traveled to California to shoot with 20-year old Reed, watched his skills using live ammunition and recorded times with an official timer. Keith reported those results in the February 1964 issue of Guns & Ammo Magazine in an article titled “Thell Reed…All Time Wizard With A Sixgun!” From 1964 through 1970, Reed served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps. After his time in the service, Reed returned to exhibition and fast draw shooting and soon began working as a trainer for many high profile actors and actresses and working as an Armorer for motion picture industry.

With his daughter Hannah being charged criminally, along with the high profile nature of this case, the attorney fees have been exorbitant. Thell is now 81 years old and has been forced to mortgage his home, sell guns and take on considerable debt to finance Hannah’s legal expenses. Her case is in appeal, but with very limited income, the Reed family is out of resources. And as we can all imagine, Thell and his wife Stacy are under tremendous stress and heartache due to their daughter being in prison. A Go Fund Me account was attempted, but that was denied claiming that Hannah is a “violent felon”, which is absurd!

We are petitioning for financial help from within the firearms industry and from anyone that can see the injustice of this case. Even small donations of $10, $20, $50 or more will be greatly appreciated! Venmo donations can be made directly to Thell Reed @rugerreed1883. Companies and individuals that prefer to send checks, please make them payable to Thell Reed, but for the Reed family’s safety, please mail them to Brian Pearce at P.O. Box 36, New Plymouth, ID 83655. Words cannot express the Reed family’s gratitude for any contributions, which will help to finance Hannah’s appeal and overturn her conviction.

[sharps4590]

Anyone who expected less is themselves blind.

[eisenhower]

I'm sorry, and I respect Brian Pearce's career as a gun writer, but he lost me right off the bat with:

"Extreme anti-constitutionalist, anti-Second Amendment activist and Hollywood elitist Alec Baldwin was both actor and producer of the movie."

I think most people in the gun world are incapable of separating their contempt for Baldwin from their analysis of this situation. That a professional writer would choose to start off his appeal to overturn a conviction of one of the parties with this kind of ad hominem attack on another party only drives this point home for me.

DeWayne

[bradshaw]

Jul 20, 2024 9:35:16 GMT -5 eisenhower said:

I'm sorry, and I respect Brian Pearce's career as a gun writer, but he lost me right off the bat with:

"Extreme anti-constitutionalist, anti-Second Amendment activist and Hollywood elitist Alec Baldwin was both actor and producer of the movie."

I think most people in the gun world are incapable of separating their contempt for Baldwin from their analysis of this situation. That a professional writer would choose to start off his appeal to overturn a conviction of one of the parties with this kind of ad hominem attack on another party only drives this point home for me.

DeWayne

*****

DeWayne.... correct.

Sounds like there is firm ground for a compelling appeal. To drag politics into the equation weakens a technical challenge. The issue is CONTROL. Control has been brought up before in this thread; The question must be answered. Years ago a prop master told me of star on the set refusing to follow gun handling protocol.

In another realm----construction and demolition----the term controlled blasting refers to skillful work performed with high explosives. To do the work safely requires someone exercise control. That someone is the blaster. When the project manager, site manager, or equipment contractor insists that work on the site continue while the blaster prepares to go hot, we have a problem. When egos overstep safety, we have a problem.
David Bradshaw

[CraigC]

Jul 18, 2024 20:07:46 GMT -5 eisenhower said:

We can agree to disagree. There's a lot of ascribing hubris, arrogance, etc. to Baldwin, but the fact I would hope all of us can agree on is that he had no intent to hurt anyone. With that as a premise, I simply do not expect actors on a movie set to treat a firearm the same way you or I do in the real world. That's not to say that in the wake of this accident they shouldn't start. But I simply do not share in most of you guys' belief that he has the same level of legal responsibility as the armorer on the set for reasons I've laid out above. What Eastwood might do because he's gun-savvy is not a standard I would apply to every actor put in a position of handling a firearm. We expect the armorer to control his weapons in the real world. We expect the actors to play pretend with them in the fantasy world. To my way of thinking, one person on that set bore the primary responsibility for ensuring live ammunition was not in that gun and it wasn't the actor it was handed to. As I say, moving foreword, ammunition verification checks at every level make good sense.

I'm sorry but you've got it all wrong. "No intent to hurt" is why it was manslaughter and not murder.

In fact the actors are supposed to be trained in safe gun handling and they are not supposed to point them at anyone. Period. Ever. A hard lesson learned from previous movie set deaths. That rule was obviously not followed and someone died as a result. That is reason enough for a manslaughter charge. I heard early on that Reed pushed for more training and Baldwin denied the request. Ignorance is never an excuse. I had also heard what Brian Pearce wrote that she was not on set when the incident happened and she was not the one that handed the loaded gun to Baldwin. How can she be responsible if she was not present? Why are actors and other staff handling firearms without the armorer present?

Baldwin's political leanings aren't germane but it does point to a bit of irony. Along with a guarantee that he knew nothing about firearms and implies he would be resistant to learn. My contempt for Baldwin as a person is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he fired the shot that killed someone, he did not follow safety protocols, he did not let the armorer do her job and he lied about pulling the trigger. He's also the producer and the authority on the set.

[eisenhower]

I reserve the right to be wrong, but may I ask, for my own edification, where are these rules laid down that you're citing such as an actor is not supposed to point a firearm at anyone, "Period. Ever."

My understanding is that Baldwin claims Mrs. Hutchins specifically asked him to point the firearm "at her armpit" as they set up a camera angle for the scene. If "rules" were broken, it sounds like the unfortunate victim was not following them either, which further speaks to the tragedy of this whole situation.

I am completely open to reconsidering my opinion, but would like some factual evidence as opposed to the ad hominem stuff that frequently seems to be the foundation for the outrage at Baldwin.

DeWayne

[CraigC]

www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/

After Brandon Lee, everything changed.

Yes, the victim also was involved in breaking safety rules but you know who her boss on set was? Baldwin. The producer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the safety protocols are followed. In this case, the guy handling guns without the armorer present. The same guy that pulled the trigger and then lied about it. He was there. He broke the rules. He pulled the trigger. He was the boss. Reed wasn't even present. There's no logical way to make him not responsible, in some capacity. It was negligence at the very least.

The fact that Baldwin is a leftist is irrelevant. The fact that he is an arrogant Hollywood elitist certainly is because that is ultimately what got a woman killed.

As I said, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the daughter of a shooting legend who grew up not only with a sixgun in her hand but in the world of Hollywood armorers, the best in the business. Not some elitist Hollywood clown who claims it just "went off".

[eisenhower]

Thanks for the links - interesting stuff.

Upon a quick scan, the Contract Services memorandum says as follows, "Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed."

If I were representing Baldwin, this would be the foundation of my defense - that "other appropriate personnel" determined by "the needs of the production" were present if the armorer was not. But legally, I don't even know what (if any) weight these industry standards carry in terms of civil/criminal liability.

And again, talking about Baldwin being "a leftist" and "an arrogant Hollywood elitist" is as irrelevant as who the armorer's daddy is. You're certainly welcome to invoke your opinions at will, but what I'm saying is that when trying to sort out the actual legal issues here, that kind of talk provides heat, not light.

[rexster]

One possibility: In his mind, AB may think that he did not pull the trigger, because he did not recall consciously pulling the trigger after cocking the hammer. He may well, however, have used the trigger as a carrying handle, as so many folks do, in which case cocking the hammer would not result in the sear, on the trigger, engaging any of the notches on the hammer, in which case the hammer would fall, as soon as it is unrestrained by the thumb. When done intentionally, we call this “slip shooting.” I am not “defending” AB, when I say this, but he may mistakenly believe that he did not “pull” the trigger.

My take is that the Four Rules are a bit different, when applied to SAA-pattern and many other Single Action sixguns, because the HAMMER needs to be included in the rule regarding trigger management. An SAA-pattern weapon, with damaged hammer notches, OR with its hammer notches modified to facilitate “slip shooting,” can fire, even if the trigger is not pulled. Safety with an SAA-pattern revolver is more about “hammer management,” than “trigger management.”

On the main topic, I see that there were several failure points, along the path of the weapon being fired, with live ammo, while in the actor’s hand. In circumstances that allow real firearms to be pointed directly at people, it would seem, to me, that the buck stops with the person who loaded the live ammunition into the weapon. Not being a lawyer, or any kind of expert in NM law, that is simply my opinion. That person has already been convicted. Much negligence and recklessness, on the part of multiple persons, seemed to be factors, but, it was the armorer who selected the cartridges, and loaded the weapon. She SHOULD have known the difference between live and movie-prop ammo. I can see some culpability on the part of the assistant director, too, and, of course, he did enter a plea that reflected that culpability.

Just my two pence. I am not a lawyer. I did enforce Texas law, for 33+ years, but that is not the same thing as understanding NM law. I know that NM law has some interesting differences from other states’ laws.

[CraigC]

Jul 21, 2024 9:58:54 GMT -5 eisenhower said:

Thanks for the links - interesting stuff.

Upon a quick scan, the Contract Services memorandum says as follows, "Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed."

If I were representing Baldwin, this would be the foundation of my defense - that "other appropriate personnel" determined by "the needs of the production" were present if the armorer was not. But legally, I don't even know what (if any) weight these industry standards carry in terms of civil/criminal liability.

And again, talking about Baldwin being "a leftist" and "an arrogant Hollywood elitist" is as irrelevant as who the armorer's daddy is. You're certainly welcome to invoke your opinions at will, but what I'm saying is that when trying to sort out the actual legal issues here, that kind of talk provides heat, not light.

Are you his biggest fan or what? I get that you liked him in Hunt for Red October but this is getting to be ridiculous. He fired the shot that took someone's life. He ignored the basic rules of firearm safety and did so without the armorer present. He is responsible for everyone on that set.

This ain't a courtroom either.

The fact hat he's an arrogant Hollywood elitist is absolutely relevant and it's easy to presume he's the type that would think the rules do not apply to him.

As is the fact that the armorer is the daughter of the most highly respected and long standing men in the business.

And again, if the armorer was not present how can be she held responsible? It could very well be that if they had followed protocol, had the armorer present, made it clear they wanted to point the gun directly at the camera, she would've double checked the gun and found the live ammo beforehand. That is his doing, not hers.

[eisenhower]

No, CraigC, I'm not "his biggest fan," and the fact that you're turning this into that kind of argument gets right at the heart of what I've been saying. This is more about heat than light. More about emotion than law.

I'm simply attempting to apply legal rigor to the facts of the case in the face of a lot of ad hominem blustering against Alec Baldwin, who it is fair to say is a reviled person in the context of an internet gun forum. Doesn't matter.

A jury of Ms. Gutierrez-Reed's peers (not "Hollywood elites" - her peers), after digesting and contemplating the details of this case, found her guilty. They did not care who her father is, his reputation, whether she has handled guns all her life, what "team" she's on, etc. - they only cared that she loaded a live round into a gun that was her responsibility, handed it to an assistant director who then handed it to an actor who, having been told clearly by the AD that it was a "cold gun," then accidentally shot and killed a person with it in the process of doing his job. The jury determined that in so doing, she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's a tragedy, as any case of involuntary manslaughter would be. She has every right to appeal, and I wish her the best if she does.

Because someone posted on the matter, I have simply offered my thoughts on how I view Baldwin's actions and responsibility in this circumstance. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally letting emotion get in the way of rational thinking. Just not this time.

I'm sorry you see this case as a miscarriage of justice, but we simply disagree on that point. There's no need to make it personal.

[CraigC]

Jul 21, 2024 20:56:00 GMT -5 eisenhower said:

No, CraigC, I'm not "his biggest fan," and the fact that you're turning this into that kind of argument gets right at the heart of what I've been saying. This is more about heat than light. More about emotion than law.

I'm simply attempting to apply legal rigor to the facts of the case in the face of a lot of ad hominem blustering against Alec Baldwin, who it is fair to say is a reviled person in the context of an internet gun forum. Doesn't matter.

A jury of Ms. Gutierrez-Reed's peers (not "Hollywood elites" - her peers), after digesting and contemplating the details of this case, found her guilty. They did not care who her father is, his reputation, whether she has handled guns all her life, what "team" she's on, etc. - they only cared that she loaded a live round into a gun that was her responsibility, handed it to an assistant director who then handed it to an actor who, having been told clearly by the AD that it was a "cold gun," then accidentally shot and killed a person with it in the process of doing his job. The jury determined that in so doing, she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's a tragedy, as any case of involuntary manslaughter would be. She has every right to appeal, and I wish her the best if she does.

Because someone posted on the matter, I have simply offered my thoughts on how I view Baldwin's actions and responsibility in this circumstance. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally letting emotion get in the way of rational thinking. Just not this time.

I'm sorry you see this case as a miscarriage of justice, but we simply disagree on that point. There's no need to make it personal.

It's not personal and I have no dog in this fight. It just seems you are trying awfully hard to be the devil's advocate here. I think you are trying to make it more emotional than it needs to be. Yeah, he's a douchebag but that has nothing to do with it. Dude ignored the safety rules and someone got killed. HE fired the shot. HE was the producer and responsible for what happened on the set. She wasn't present. That's all the matters. Change the context, remove the famous people and the movie set, make it a trip to the range where someone died due to negligence and there would be a conviction. Why is this different?

Not to mention that you seem to overlook that important evidence was concealed from both Baldwin's and Reed's defense. Her conviction of "her peers" will probably get overturned on appeal.

Sorry but there are too many unanswered questions. The whole thing just smells way too fishy in a time where you can't trust anything you hear in the media and the judicial system has been flooded with activist judges and prosecutors that use the law to further their career.

[parallaxbill]

Jul 22, 2024 0:33:13 GMT -5 CraigC said:

Jul 21, 2024 20:56:00 GMT -5 eisenhower said:

No, CraigC, I'm not "his biggest fan," and the fact that you're turning this into that kind of argument gets right at the heart of what I've been saying. This is more about heat than light. More about emotion than law.

I'm simply attempting to apply legal rigor to the facts of the case in the face of a lot of ad hominem blustering against Alec Baldwin, who it is fair to say is a reviled person in the context of an internet gun forum. Doesn't matter.

A jury of Ms. Gutierrez-Reed's peers (not "Hollywood elites" - her peers), after digesting and contemplating the details of this case, found her guilty. They did not care who her father is, his reputation, whether she has handled guns all her life, what "team" she's on, etc. - they only cared that she loaded a live round into a gun that was her responsibility, handed it to an assistant director who then handed it to an actor who, having been told clearly by the AD that it was a "cold gun," then accidentally shot and killed a person with it in the process of doing his job. The jury determined that in so doing, she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's a tragedy, as any case of involuntary manslaughter would be. She has every right to appeal, and I wish her the best if she does.

Because someone posted on the matter, I have simply offered my thoughts on how I view Baldwin's actions and responsibility in this circumstance. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally letting emotion get in the way of rational thinking. Just not this time.

I'm sorry you see this case as a miscarriage of justice, but we simply disagree on that point. There's no need to make it personal.

It's not personal and I have no dog in this fight. It just seems you are trying awfully hard to be the devil's advocate here. I think you are trying to make it more emotional than it needs to be. Yeah, he's a douchebag but that has nothing to do with it. Dude ignored the safety rules and someone got killed. HE fired the shot. HE was the producer and responsible for what happened on the set. She wasn't present. That's all the matters. Change the context, remove the famous people and the movie set, make it a trip to the range where someone died due to negligence and there would be a conviction. Why is this different?

Not to mention that you seem to overlook that important evidence was concealed from both Baldwin's and Reed's defense. Her conviction of "her peers" will probably get overturned on appeal.

Sorry but there are too many unanswered questions. The whole thing just smells way too fishy in a time where you can't trust anything you hear in the media and the judicial system has been flooded with activist judges and prosecutors that use the law to further their career.

This^

[eisenhower]

[/quote]It's not personal and I have no dog in this fight. (Actually, you make it personal when you characterize my motives, and clearly you have a dog in this fight.)

It just seems you are trying awfully hard to be the devil's advocate here. (Very appropriate choice of words given your feelings toward Baldwin. What I'm doing is looking at this dispassionately.)

I think you are trying to make it more emotional than it needs to be. Yeah, he's a douchebag but that has nothing to do with it. Dude ignored the safety rules and someone got killed. HE fired the shot. HE was the producer and responsible for what happened on the set. She wasn't present. That's all the matters. (Not according to a jury of her peers.)

Change the context, remove the famous people and the movie set, make it a trip to the range where someone died due to negligence and there would be a conviction. Why is this different? (Because you don't get to change the context - the jury decides based on what actually happened.)

Not to mention that you seem to overlook that important evidence was concealed from both Baldwin's and Reed's defense. Her conviction of "her peers" will probably get overturned on appeal. (I am proud to live in a country where appeals of a conviction are possible - more power to her.)

Sorry but there are too many unanswered questions. The whole thing just smells way too fishy in a time where you can't trust anything you hear in the media and the judicial system has been flooded with activist judges and prosecutors that use the law to further their career. (So ... the whole system is rigged. That's not a legal argument, it's a conspiracy theory.) [/quote]

[bigbore5]

If someone else loaded a gun and handed it to me then it went off by any means and killed someone, I would have been charged. Probably the only one charged. And I would be guilty.

He's no different. Period