Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #7

[Dotta]

Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's ​

maximum sentence of 18 months ​

is 'a bad sign for Alec Baldwin'​

expert warns - ​

as the actor's trial draws near.​

The expert said that Baldwin's best bet is taking a plea deal - but doubts that will be the actor's legal strategy.

'[It] shows the court is taking this fatal shooting seriously and that it's not just for show as his defenders claim,'
Custodio said.

'A plea deal would be the best strategy for him right now, considering today's sentencing,
and the information the prosecution has about the chaos on the set and Baldwin's failure to do anything about it.
But I don't see that happening,'
he added.

Baldwin has consistently maintained his innocence, but Guttierez-Reed's attorneys claim the environment he created on set led to Hutchins' death.

'He may think that he will have an easier time if he believes that his team can convince a jury to see that the only culpable party has already been convicted,'
Custodio added.

'That's a risky proposition, given Baldwin's role as a producer actually involves him in all aspects of the production.

Potential jurors will clearly know what went on with Gutierrez-Reed and will really scrutinize Baldwin's lack of responsibility for the chaos on the set'."

Maximum sentence for 'Rust' armorer is a bad sign for Alec Baldwin

Alec Baldwin may be sweating heavily after Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's maximum sentence Monday ahead of the star and producer's criminal trial in July.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

Under federal law, she is prohibited from possessing a firearm because she is a felon. So as long as that felony remains on her record she is a prohibited person. She could later petition to reduce that felony but that is extremely unlikely to be granted and even if it is, the BATFE still may consider her prohibited.

Thanks for that. I had a feeling that that was the case.

To be honest, when you look at this from the general point of US gun ownership rights and suchlike, it actually seems surprisingly harsh. Being a convicted felon doesn't necessarily mean you are violent or committed a crime of violence and, from the below link, you only need to be sentenced to one year on imprisonment. Over here you have to have been sentenced to at least three years to be lifetime prohibited.

I'm quite frankly amazed that something like that hasn't been challenged to death by the likes of the NRA. Or maybe it has?

Firearms Restrictions | U.S. Probation Office, District of Nevada.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing "any firearm or ammunition." Specifically a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home.

 

[PrairieWind]

Thanks for that. I had a feeling that that was the case.

To be honest, when you look at this from the general point of US gun ownership rights and suchlike, it actually seems surprisingly harsh. Being a convicted felon doesn't necessarily mean you are violent or committed a crime of violence and, from the below link, you only need to be sentenced to one year on imprisonment. Over here you have to have been sentenced to at least three years to be lifetime prohibited.

I'm quite frankly amazed that something like that hasn't been challenged to death by the likes of the NRA. Or maybe it has?

Firearms Restrictions | U.S. Probation Office, District of Nevada.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing "any firearm or ammunition." Specifically a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home.

The NRA has supported felons being restricted persons but supported programs where non-violent offenders can apply for reinstatement of those rights.

 

[mickey2942]

I wonder if HGR was also offered a plea? Roll of the dice.

If AB is offered a plea, I doubt he will take it. He will see the conviction of HGR as a way of blaming her for everything and he walks away.

As a juror, I wouldn't see it that way, I would see a set, that hired the cheapest armor possible, and ignored basic safety. So, movie stars don't have to know about guns or loaded, but producers, who hire people and are responsible for safety, that is where AB has a problem in my opinion.

 

[PrairieWind]

I wonder if HGR was also offered a plea? Roll of the dice.

If AB is offered a plea, I doubt he will take it. He will see the conviction of HGR as a way of blaming her for everything and he walks away.

As a juror, I wouldn't see it that way, I would see a set, that hired the cheapest armor possible, and ignored basic safety. So, movie stars don't have to know about guns or loaded, but producers, who hire people and are responsible for safety, that is where AB has a problem in my opinion.

AB was offered a deal and it seems he was going to take it. According to the DA, that was pulled when the didn't like how he was planning to spin it.
My understanding is that while AB was one of the producers, he was not one in charge of hiring the crew. The prosecutions indictment is vague as to what exactly they are alleging but if they are alleging he is criminally liable for hiring, that is going to be a tough case to make.

 

[KSwizzle]

The jail calls were brutal, she obviously has no remorse and doesn't think she did anything wrong

 

[philippa26]

Well, that little bit of sympathy I said I had for her originally has completely gone.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wonder if HGR was also offered a plea? Roll of the dice.

If AB is offered a plea, I doubt he will take it. He will see the conviction of HGR as a way of blaming her for everything and he walks away.

As a juror, I wouldn't see it that way, I would see a set, that hired the cheapest armor possible, and ignored basic safety. So, movie stars don't have to know about guns or loaded, but producers, who hire people and are responsible for safety, that is where AB has a problem in my opinion.

Didn't they already offer him one and then rescind it?

This whole thing about plea deals being so prevalent in the US system has always struck me as strange. Now, I get that you'd get offered a lighter sentence for pleading guilty at an early point, but the whole idea of pleading to an entirely different, and lesser, crime seems bizarre and somewhat logically dishonest.

I mean, if you are rightfully guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and there is sufficient evidence to charge that, then why should you be offered an opportunity to plead to, say, assault or similar? Offering plea deals seems to be extremely common and gives the impression - to me at least - that it's mostly used because either the prosecution don't want to put the work in or don't actually believe the strength of their case. In some cases I get the impression that they perhaps think they can't get a conviction on any offence so dangle the threat of decades incarceration in front of the accused or a couple of years if you sign a bit of paper. The whole system seems ripe for some pretty horrendous abuse, tbh.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well, that little bit of sympathy I said I had for her originally has completely gone.

My feelings as well.

Don't get me wrong, having heard it all now she was definitely let down by the production in general - she shouldn't have been in the position she was and she shouldn't have being doing multiple roles. From what she said in that podcast before all this and her descriptions of what went on on set, I do think that she was actually trying to be safe but couldn't manage it.

None of that counteracts her obvious complete and utter lack of remorse or empathy for the family of the woman who died. Those jail phone calls were just off the charts. She clearly doesn't give a toss about anyone other than herself.

Also, if it's true about her antics with the gun in the bar then she's clearly unhinged. That's a serious offence which can result in significant jail time so if she's not concerned about her own wellbeing then how can she be expected to look out for anyone else's?

 

[stripehaven2]

It's not about the fact that he was a producer, to my mind. It's about the fact that he was using a firearm which ended up killing someone and seriously injuring another.

If you are using a firearm it is up to YOU to check it and satisfy yourself that what you are doing is safe. Actors should not operate under a different safety standard and duty of care than every other firearm user in the world.

The principle is simple - firearms can kill people. If you aren't prepared to carry that burden and take the consequences when something goes wrong then don't use firearms.

Certainly, everyone knows that’s proper practice in normal life. But even the judge yesterday said Hannah, and Hannah alone, was responsible for this tragedy. Which says to me that in the case of a movie set, where a specific person is charged with the responsibility of guaranteeing the safety of those handling firearms, people have an expectation of being able to trust the armorer.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, or that I’m making excuses for Baldwin. I’m wondering if in the eyes of the law, he had the right to expect the armorer to have done her job. Based on the judge’s statement yesterday, I’m thinking he may not receive the same kind of verdict or sentence.

 

[PrairieWind]

Didn't they already offer him one and then rescind it?

This whole thing about plea deals being so prevalent in the US system has always struck me as strange. Now, I get that you'd get offered a lighter sentence for pleading guilty at an early point, but the whole idea of pleading to an entirely different, and lesser, crime seems bizarre and somewhat logically dishonest.

I mean, if you are rightfully guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and there is sufficient evidence to charge that, then why should you be offered an opportunity to plead to, say, assault or similar? Offering plea deals seems to be extremely common and gives the impression - to me at least - that it's mostly used because either the prosecution don't want to put the work in or don't actually believe the strength of their case. In some cases I get the impression that they perhaps think they can't get a conviction on any offence so dangle the threat of decades incarceration in front of the accused or a couple of years if you sign a bit of paper. The whole system seems ripe for some pretty horrendous abuse, tbh.

Plea deals are offered for lots of reasons, but the primary one is efficiency. It allows the case to be cleared quickly. A district attorney or other prosecutor simply cannot take all their cases to trial. Honestly they probably can't take more than about 25% to trial at most, otherwise it simply overwhelms their resources and the resources of the courts. They have to plead out cases. So often a DA will charge very high and then plea it down from there. Is that system ripe for abuse? You bet it is.

 

[everlearning]

Why, oh why, do people make jail calls? It's good for us and good for law enforcement. We get to see her heart, which directs her actions. Hopefully, she is not beyond change. May her incarceration be the catalyst for her to be a better person. I believe it can if she admits that her choices got her where she is (stop shifting blame) and commits to being better when she walks back into freedom.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Certainly, everyone knows that’s proper practice in normal life. But even the judge yesterday said Hannah, and Hannah alone, was responsible for this tragedy. Which says to me that in the case of a movie set, where a specific person is charged with the responsibility of guaranteeing the safety of those handling firearms, people have an expectation of being able to trust the armorer.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, or that I’m making excuses for Baldwin. I’m wondering if in the eyes of the law, he had the right to expect the armorer to have done her job. Based on the judge’s statement yesterday, I’m thinking he may not receive the same kind of verdict or sentence.

The judge said You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon, that's not the same as her alone being responsible for the tragedy. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. One person has already pleaded guilty to his part in this affair and AB is going to be tried in a few months.

A person died and another was seriously wounded as the end result of a chain of events, a chain of blatant disregard for the rules of safe gun handling committed by multiple people. People don't get unintentionally shot because one thing was missed or forgotten about. The rules of safe gun handling are designed so that multiple things need to be omitted or done that should not be done for people to get shot.

Hanna didn't check the rounds properly; she handed the gun off to DH when she should not have done; DH didn't check the rounds before giving it to AB; AB didn't check the gun or have Hanna demonstrate to him that it was safe; AB should not have pointed it at another person; AB had no need to *advertiser censored* the hammer; there wasn't even any need to have anything at all in the chambers or even to use a real firearm for that rehearsal.

If any single one of those things had not have been done or omitted then no one would have been shot. Even if AB weren't pointing it at HH - the single most fundamental rule of safe gun handling, after all - then even with everything else having been missed up to that point she'd still be alive, Hanna would have been fired and AB would have a scary story to put in his biography and roll out on the talk shows.

If AB is convicted then I think he'll get a very similar sentence; he has shown a similar lack of remorse, in my view, and has played the exact same it was everyone's fault but mine.. game as HGR. Moreover, he's much older and far more experienced as regards the movie industry and it's use of firearms. Add to that his years and years of espousing the dangers of firearms in the wrong hands (or any hands, for that matter) and I think that he won't be given an easy ride as regards sentencing. If convicted, obviously!

 

[SteveS]

The judge said You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon, that's not the same as her alone being responsible for the tragedy. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. One person has already pleaded guilty to his part in this affair and AB is going to be tried in a few months.

A person died and another was seriously wounded as the end result of a chain of events, a chain of blatant disregard for the rules of safe gun handling committed by multiple people. People don't get unintentionally shot because one thing was missed or forgotten about. The rules of safe gun handling are designed so that multiple things need to be omitted or done that should not be done for people to get shot.

Hanna didn't check the rounds properly; she handed the gun off to DH when she should not have done; DH didn't check the rounds before giving it to AB; AB didn't check the gun or have Hanna demonstrate to him that it was safe; AB should not have pointed it at another person; AB had no need to *advertiser censored* the hammer; there wasn't even any need to have anything at all in the chambers or even to use a real firearm for that rehearsal.

If any single one of those things had not have been done or omitted then no one would have been shot. Even if AB weren't pointing it at HH - the single most fundamental rule of safe gun handling, after all - then even with everything else having been missed up to that point she'd still be alive, Hanna would have been fired and AB would have a scary story to put in his biography and roll out on the talk shows.

If AB is convicted then I think he'll get a very similar sentence; he has shown a similar lack of remorse, in my view, and has played the exact same it was everyone's fault but mine.. game as HGR. Moreover, he's much older and far more experienced as regards the movie industry and it's use of firearms. Add to that his years and years of espousing the dangers of firearms in the wrong hands (or any hands, for that matter) and I think that he won't be given an easy ride as regards sentencing. If convicted, obviously!

This ^ is a great summary of why MULTIPLE people are being charged and all should be found liable. None of them did all of the things that caused the death of HH, but each and every one did acts that caused her death -- and most importantly, she would be alive and well if any one of those had followed the safety steps that were proper.

Baldwin is no exception. He did what he wanted, not what he was required to do, and in so doing was a participant in HH's death. He was the one who SHOT her! And he used a lethal gun when none was required. He did NOT ask the gun to be checked as he watched. He did not double check it himself. He did not keep from pointing it at another person. And he pulled the trigger, probably because he was treating a lethal gun like a toy and wanted to hear it go boom.

In fact, HGR and AB are peas in a pod, in their mindset. Each assumed they didn't need to follow all the required steps of safety, because someone else would make sure it was done (making their steps needless). And after it was over, neither has been willing to admit their personal failure to exercise the required safety steps required of them, in a process where multiple people are double-checks for each other. They just did as they pleased, because surely someone else would cover for their laxity and recklessness. And together, they killed HH.

 

[Weki]

Will she be banned for life from using/possessing firearms or for a set amount of years?

The way it works here is that if you are sentenced to a term of between three months and three years you are prohibited from using or handling firearms or ammunition for five years from your date of release and if you get sentenced to more than three years it's a lifetime ban. That's for any offence, not just ones involving violence or injury.

Good question. I found this on Google:

Under state law, New Mexico prohibits people who have been convicted of felonies from receiving, possessing or transporting a firearm within ten years of completing a sentence or probation.1 New Mexico also prohibits any person under age 19 from knowingly possessing or transporting a handgun.

Firearm Prohibitions in New Mexico

Research New Mexico state laws on firearm prohibitions, including what is regulated and what's not. Find related gun law details from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence today.

giffords.org

But she doesn't live in New Mexico, right? Once her sentence is up I expect she will move back to CA. At that point, I believe she will not be allowed to possess weapons since she's a felon.

 

[PrairieWind]

Good question. I found this on Google:

Under state law, New Mexico prohibits people who have been convicted of felonies from receiving, possessing or transporting a firearm within ten years of completing a sentence or probation.1 New Mexico also prohibits any person under age 19 from knowingly possessing or transporting a handgun.

Firearm Prohibitions in New Mexico

Research New Mexico state laws on firearm prohibitions, including what is regulated and what's not. Find related gun law details from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence today.

giffords.org

But she doesn't live in New Mexico, right? Once her sentence is up I expect she will move back to CA. At that point, I believe she will not be allowed to possess weapons since she's a felon.

The main prohibition is federal. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) makes it illegal for any convicted felon to possess a firearm.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Good question. I found this on Google:

Under state law, New Mexico prohibits people who have been convicted of felonies from receiving, possessing or transporting a firearm within ten years of completing a sentence or probation.1 New Mexico also prohibits any person under age 19 from knowingly possessing or transporting a handgun.

Firearm Prohibitions in New Mexico

Research New Mexico state laws on firearm prohibitions, including what is regulated and what's not. Find related gun law details from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence today.

giffords.org

But she doesn't live in New Mexico, right? Once her sentence is up I expect she will move back to CA. At that point, I believe she will not be allowed to possess weapons since she's a felon.

I thought she lived in Arizona?

 

[Slick762]

The NRA has supported felons being restricted persons but supported programs where non-violent offenders can apply for reinstatement of those rights.

Something else to keep in mind is that the NRA really doesn't like to rock the boat and risk losing big 2A court cases. Especially cases with unsympathetic subjects, like restoring gun rights for nonviolent felons who turn their life around. Almost all the major 2A court wins in the past 15 years have been originally brought by other 2A groups. Some cases, Heller vs DC IIRC, the NRA actually opposed until it became apparent that they were going to win, then jumped on the bandwagon to claim credit and fundraise.

 

[mickey2942]

The main prohibition is federal. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) makes it illegal for any convicted felon to possess a firearm.

I believe that Montana has considered that federal law to be a "guideline", subject to "interpretation " by individual states. Montana has narrowed the definition to only include individuals who committed a felony using a weapon.

And that people who have felonies can appeal to the local court for a waiver. Now, as for HGR, now considered, "Extremely Violent". I don't know.

I think that if HGR moved to Montana, she could probably own as many guns as she wanted to...

 

[PrairieWind]

I believe that Montana has considered that federal law to be a "guideline", subject to "interpretation " by individual states. Montana has narrowed the definition to only include individuals who committed a felony using a weapon.

And that people who have felonies can appeal to the local court for a waiver. Now, as for HGR, now considered, "Extremely Violent". I don't know.

I think that if HGR moved to Montana, she could probably own as many guns as she wanted to...

It is up to federal authorities to enforce it. She could move to Montana, get whatever state court to decide she can possess a gun. But if she possessed a gun, federal authorities could arrest her and charge with possession by a prohibited person. That is 10 years in prison.