Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[steeltowngirl]

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins' parents, sister sue Alec Baldwin over 'Rust' shooting

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer killed in the "Rust" on-set shooting, have filed a new lawsuit against Alec Baldwin and the film's producers, according to the family's attorney. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges negligence...

www.yahoo.com

Halyna Hutchins‘ Parents and Sister Sue Alec Baldwin and ‘Rust’ Producers

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins have sued Alec Baldwin for his part in her death on the set of "Rust" in October 2021.

variety.com

Feb 9, 2023 12:14pm PT

The Ukrainian parents and sister of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Alec Baldwin and the producers of “Rust” in connection with her death in October 2021.

Attorney Gloria Allred announced the lawsuit at a press conference at her office on Thursday morning.

Wait, what? Didn’t Alec settle with Halyna’s husband? Other family members can come forward with individual lawsuits?

 

[deugirtni]

Wait, what? Didn’t Alec settle with Halyna’s husband? Other family members can come forward with individual lawsuits?

I was wondering same..... as in... where does it end? What if HH was my best friend? Could I also make a claim?

 

[Zella]

What if HH was my best friend? Could I also make a claim?

Wait, what? Didn’t Alec settle with Halyna’s husband? Other family members can come forward with individual lawsuits?

Who can file a wrongful death lawsuit is governed by individual states, but in general, you need to be a member of the immediate family. Spouses, parents, and children are usually who can file, not friends.

When my uncle was killed by someone who was driving while high, his parents, daughter, and widow were all eligible to file. My dad as his sibling was also eligible to file in that particular state (which is not a given everywhere), though he and my grandparents waived their right to sue to ensure any settlement went to my cousin and aunt. My brother and I as nephew and niece were not eligible to file.

So, no, you can't file if HH is your best friend. I imagine any other family members who were eligible to sue would have had theirs as part of the suit with her husband. Whether or not they can file their own separate suit is something I'll have to let our resident lawyers answer, but I am pretty sure that was not possible with my uncle's case. They either filed together or not at all.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

All dummies have no primer. There are two main ways of marking them: a hole drilled in the side OR a BB inside that rattles. Also

There are three types of ammo that could have gone in the revolver:

Live ammo (we all know what that is)

Blanks (half or quarter charge of gunpowder/primer; contains no projectile but can emit gasses - makes a bang and emits smoke; the place where the bullet would have gone is crimped - very hard to confuse for live ammo)

Dummies (no primer/gunpowder; has a dimple where the primer would have gone; contains no projectile; most common in use; makes no bang and emits no smoke; not crimped).

(not a news source, just a little tutorial on ammo)

Dummies can be further subdivided into fake looking ones (plastic, purple, etc) and ones that are cosmetically identical from the outside of the gun to live ammo or blanks.

So she needed to deal with three types.

Dummies have a cosmetic top that resembles a bullet, but it is not actually a slug, it's usually plastic.

I listened to Hannah trying to explain some of her work on a podcast (Voices of the American West) and found her confusing.

All dummies don't have a live primer! If you want them to look authentic then you can use an intert primer.

Large Brass Inert Primers (Pkt.100)

Large Brass Inert Primers Pack 100. Suitable for large pistol and large rifle. No license required for the purchase of inert primers.Not sure what primer size to choose? Click to view our primer size chart.

www.henrykrank.com

Dummies will use a real bullet (projectile), usually made of lead, but there is no primer or propellant under it. That's exactly what SW was demonstrating in that video.

Interestingly, in his police interview, AB mentioned a type of blank ammo which used a clay projectile which was painted to mimic the look of a real one. This means you could show it being loaded into a gun and shoot said gun in one take for authenticity and the bullet simply didinterlgrates when fired. I have to admit that I'd never heard of this type of blank but it sounds similar to something the military used to use called a "bulleted blank". Without getting too technical, it's so that blanks can operate automatic weapons without needing a blank firing adapter. Bulleted blanks had their "bullets" made of balsa wood and used a shredder device on the muzzle to destroy it.

I have some somewhere so I'll try to post a pic.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I disagree that an actor "must" point a real gun at someone when filming.

I watched a Tom Selleck Jesse Stone movie last night. In one scene Tom Selleck shoots a bad guy. You never see TS point the gun at the camera, they used a side angle. You see TS fire the gun and then the view switches to seeing only the bad guy getting shot in the chest. Looked totally realistic to me.

If a view of someone from the rear pointing a gun at someone is desired just use a non-firing replica. Totally safe that way.

AB didn't need to remove the "dummies" from the gun to see if it was safe. Since this was only a rehearsal it should have been empty. He doesn't have to be a gun expert to check for that, a child could do it. JMO.

It's a great pity that Tom Selleck wasn't in this move because I think it's running certainty that he would never have shot anyone. Being a guy who knows guns I also think it's a running certainty that he would have put up with such ridiculous gun handling on that set!

I totally agree with your last point; someone up the thread said that AB checking the rounds would have created a dangerous situation. I disagree. Guns are not some mystical object that can only be safely handled and loaded by some sort of gun deiety. Checking ammo in a gun is no more complicated or dangerous than putting fuel in your car. If you are not capable of doing that, or don't feel confident enough in your ability, then you have no business handling guns, especially in a professional capacity.

 

[Cool Cats]

It's a great pity that Tom Selleck wasn't in this move because I think it's running certainty that he would never have shot anyone. Being a guy who knows guns I also think it's a running certainty that he would have put up with such ridiculous gun handling on that set!

I totally agree with your last point; someone up the thread said that AB checking the rounds would have created a dangerous situation. I disagree. Guns are not some mystical object that can only be safely handled and loaded by some sort of gun deiety. Checking ammo in a gun is no more complicated or dangerous than putting fuel in your car. If you are not capable of doing that, or don't feel confident enough in your ability, then you have no business handling guns, especially in a professional capacity.

If an actor doesn't know anything about guns, never handled them, how could they check them?

it would be like handing them some "mystical object."

The armorer needs to walk the actor through it, show the actor the gun is safe. Not hand the gun over and say "here check it yourself."

Even Tom Selleck would expect the armorer to take charge and make sure that an actor is only handed a safe gun.

The actor is responsible to take any gun safety classes that the armorer is offering on the set. The actor needs to make sure to get the armorer's OK before firing any gun.

 

[PrairieWind]

I would expect the prosecution to seek to elicit far more damaging testimony than an idle opinion.

I see them getting Halls and others on the stand who can testify to the behavioral norms on a movie set with guns and ammo (including the ones put in place for this one) to ensure the safety of Hutchins and others. Then, from one point to another in meticulous style, have the witnesses relate how the safeguards were this and this and this, whereas AB and HGR did that, that, and that, and completely disregarded safeguard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on.

We have already heard both AB and HGR make statements to demonstrate they KNEW those safeguards and their importance. Either they violated them (and from what I have read, did so over and over) or they did not.

I don't think this case will be that hard to win IF the prosecution has the mindset and testimony to do that. I also think that it's a foolish (and perhaps significant) mistake for AB and HGR to take this to trial, because frankly, there's a dead woman who shouldn't be dead, and I don't think the jury will set a high bar for prosecution to leap by asking the people who did it to bear some personal culpability.

Oh they will get a lot of testimony from Hall I am sure. But my point was they can't get him to say AB or HGR were negligent. But they can question him to supply all the facts and observations he made to build the case for negligence.

I think the situations are different for AB and HGR. I don't know how HGR's defense will proceed (I just don't know enough of those facts). But I think AB has a very defensible case so far.

 

[PrairieWind]

Wait, what? Didn’t Alec settle with Halyna’s husband? Other family members can come forward with individual lawsuits?

Wrongful death type suits vary widely from state to state in regards to who can bring them and the procedures. In my state, only one can be brought. That representative must be appointed and bring claims. I have no idea what the situation is in California. I am guessing that maybe Helyna's family must not have been close to her husband or that there was perhaps some discord there on how to proceed. It would seem to have been a much better idea to bring a united case

 

[SteveS]

Oh they will get a lot of testimony from Hall I am sure. But my point was they can't get him to say AB or HGR were negligent. But they can question him to supply all the facts and observations he made to build the case for negligence.

I think the situations are different for AB and HGR. I don't know how HGR's defense will proceed (I just don't know enough of those facts). But I think AB has a very defensible case so far.

I think AB's case depends entirely on whether his story is to be believed.

His own words may hang him.

His own public words state that he was fully aware of what careful prudent actions were, and his own necessary personal standard of care for the safety of others in such a gun-laced setting. His assertions of course say he did those very things. But those claims appear to be contradicted by others, as well as the physical evidence, and therefore not to be believed at all. And since he can't argue there was no standard, nor that he didn't know what he needed to do (and not do!), then it all comes down to what he did. Did he follow the rules he clearly knew, or did he ignore them?

I think he is likely to also encounter a problem with believability, when things he claimed about his actions (that were self-serving to make him look innocent) can be proven untrue by physical evidence/testing. If he demonstrably and definitely lied about one thing, he's less likely to be believed when we can't be 100% sure and have to make a judgment call.

 

[Betty P]

If an actor doesn't know anything about guns, never handled them, how could they check them?

it would be like handing them some "mystical object."

The armorer needs to walk the actor through it, show the actor the gun is safe. Not hand the gun over and say "here check it yourself."

Even Tom Selleck would expect the armorer to take charge and make sure that an actor is only handed a safe gun.

The actor is responsible to take any gun safety classes that the armorer is offering on the set. The actor needs to make sure to get the armorer's OK before firing any gun.

So the armourer needs to be present, demonstrating the empty gun to the actor instead of leaving the gun on a table outside the set.

 

[Cool Cats]

So the armourer needs to be present, demonstrating the empty gun to the actor instead of leaving the gun on a table outside the set.

According to George Clooney.

Point was, the armourer checks the gun not the actor. Posters were saying the actor checks the gun but not all actors would know how to do that, it's the armourer's job.

 

[Laughing]

So the armourer needs to be present, demonstrating the empty gun to the actor instead of leaving the gun on a table outside the set.

Seems to me that the Assistant Director was the highest ranking person on that set, and the Assistant Director prevented the Armorer from being present.

imho among the reasons that AD accepted a plea deal...jmho.

I wanna type something else, but hey our Mods are overworked.

So, I'll ask if anyone remembers the Funky Winkerbean cartoon strip. This happened in a high school, complete with marching band. Lots of jokes at the band director's expense -- arguing with the football coach that the field was for band practice, practice more important than tests, & the like. This character rather resembled my high school marching band director so I loved the whole thing.

There was a week-long series about the state music conference. In one cartoon, two conference organizers are comparing notes on their clipboards. One says, "Oh, this must be a mistake! The band directors meeting is in the Great Hall! That's a small group, can't we move them to a smaller room?"

The other replies, "That's the only room big enough to hold their egos."

Was the movie-set church too small for anyone's ego that day?

Hypothetically, of course.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I think AB's case depends entirely on whether his story is to be believed.

His own words may hang him.

His own public words state that he was fully aware of what careful prudent actions were, and his own necessary personal standard of care for the safety of others in such a gun-laced setting. His assertions of course say he did those very things. But those claims appear to be contradicted by others, as well as the physical evidence, and therefore not to be believed at all. And since he can't argue there was no standard, nor that he didn't know what he needed to do (and not do!), then it all comes down to what he did. Did he follow the rules he clearly knew, or did he ignore them?

I think he is likely to also encounter a problem with believability, when things he claimed about his actions (that were self-serving to make him look innocent) can be proven untrue by physical evidence/testing. If he demonstrably and definitely lied about one thing, he's less likely to be believed when we can't be 100% sure and have to make a judgment call.

Let’s say the prosecution can show that Baldwin pointed the gun at Hutchins and pulled the trigger, even though he claimed he would never do that. He believed (without checking this for himself) that it was unloaded.

The prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was aware of the danger: that he actually thought about the possibility that the gun might be loaded, and proceeded to point it and pull the trigger. That's much harder to prove than just show he pulled the trigger. Of course, there may be more evidence brought in by the prosecution.

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Alec Baldwin's fatal 'Rust' shooting: The options left for actor amid possible jail time, new lawsuit​

Alec Baldwin's fatal 'Rust' shooting: The options left for actor amid possible jail time, new lawsuit

Alec Baldwin is facing criminal charges and a new civil lawsuit in connection to the death of Halyna Hutchins. Fox News Digital spoke to legal experts about his options.

www.yahoo.com

Fox News Digital spoke to legal experts who explained the pros and cons of Baldwin taking a plea deal, going to trial and his other options.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If an actor doesn't know anything about guns, never handled them, how could they check them?

it would be like handing them some "mystical object."

The armorer needs to walk the actor through it, show the actor the gun is safe. Not hand the gun over and say "here check it yourself."

Even Tom Selleck would expect the armorer to take charge and make sure that an actor is only handed a safe gun.

The actor is responsible to take any gun safety classes that the armorer is offering on the set. The actor needs to make sure to get the armorer's OK before firing any gun.

Good points but AB most certainly does know how to handle guns as he has used them extensively. His police interviews show that he is perfectly well aware of the safety rules and procedures yet didn't following them. The Probably Cause filing contains numerous allegations of AB not adhering to the rules despite him know what they are.

My comments were in response to a statement that HH would have felt uneasy with an actor checking a gun as it may have made the situation more dangerous after the armourer had set it up. That could never be the case. Removing snd replacing the ammo in a gun cannot possibly make it less safe. It can only make the situation more safe as there is a chance you'd spot a faulty or inappropriate round in there.

 

[Marantz4250b]

So the armourer needs to be present, demonstrating the empty gun to the actor instead of leaving the gun on a table outside the set.

She does need to be present but she didn't leave it on a table unattended, according to her evidence. She handed it to Halls.

 

[Marantz4250b]

According to George Clooney.

Point was, the armourer checks the gun not the actor. Posters were saying the actor checks the gun but not all actors would know how to do that, it's the armourer's job.

According to the PC document, and AB himself, they BOTH were supposed to check it. The reason for that is that the actor is supposed to satisfy himself that it is safe which obvious from his police interview.

Also, if actors don't know how to do that then it behoves them to learn or not to use firearms. Guns, especially this one, are very simple mechanical devices. This particular design was adopted 150 years ago as the standard side arm of the US army. It is simple enough to be issued to thousands of troops, many of whom will have had rudimentary levels of general education by the standards of today and certainly by the standard of AB. They weren't egularly accidentally shooting one another, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Let’s say the prosecution can show that Baldwin pointed the gun at Hutchins and pulled the trigger, even though he claimed he would never do that. He believed (without checking this for himself) that it was unloaded.

The prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was aware of the danger: that he actually thought about the possibility that the gun might be loaded, and proceeded to point it and pull the trigger. That's much harder to prove than just show he pulled the trigger. Of course, there may be more evidence brought in by the prosecution.

jmo

On the contrary, it seems simple to prove, in my opinion.

He KNOWS that there are safety procedures to be gone through when working with firearms; from checking the ammo type, to locking them away between takes, to checking for barrel obstructions, to using replica or rubber guns when real ones are not required.

There is one sole reason for this - because the guns may be loaded and someone might get shot!

How can they fail prove that he was aware of the potential danger? He has even explained the safety proculedures in great detail to the police. He's even talked about types of dummy ammo I never knew existed, even explaining its composition and why its less dangerous than live ammo!

He is more than aware of all the dangers, IMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

On the contrary, it seems simple to prove, in my opinion.

He KNOWS that there are safety procedures to be gone through when working with firearms; from checking the ammo type, to locking them away between takes, to checking for barrel obstructions, to using replica or rubber guns when real ones are not required.

There is one sole reason for this - because the guns may be loaded and someone might get shot!

How can they fail prove that he was aware of the potential danger? He has even explained the safety proculedures in great detail to the police. He's even talked about types of dummy ammo I never knew existed, even explaining its composition and why its less dangerous than live ammo!

He is more than aware of all the dangers, IMO

He is aware of the dangers of not following the safety protocol. If I were on the jury, I would want to know if AB followed the same protocol that day that he had historically done on movie sets. Did he always open and check the gun and ammo? If yes, then he had knowledge that step should have been taken on the Rust set, and he negligently skipped it the day of the fatality.

I would want prosecution to demonstrate that on the day of the Rust tragedy, he was specifically aware that he needed to, (and had done so previously), take certain steps to ensure safety, but failed to do so that day. If the steps included looking at the ammo, and he didn’t, then yes, I would likely find him guilty.

If he was aware that he needed to follow protocol and trust the armorer to do their part of the safety handoff, and if the final step was for an announcement of a “cold gun” being handed to him, and those steps were all followed, I would likely acquit.

jmo

 

[Dotta]

"Alec Baldwin claims he's facing bogus weapons charge:​

Lawyers argue state legislature didn't pass law he allegedly violated until 7 months AFTER he accidentally shot Halyna Hutchins dead."​

Alec Baldwin claims he's facing bogus weapons charge

Alec Baldwin and his lawyers are fighting a portion of his involuntary manslaughter charge in the death of 'Rust' cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

www.dailymail.co.uk