NM v Alec Baldwin 7/8/2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
We do. But its also in a vastly differently structured environment. Also keep in mind that in the military, if an officer orders it done (rightly or wrongly) it generally gets done. And, if/when something goes wrong, they figure it out afterwards.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to argue that anyone under 26 is not legally responsible for their actions? If so, we need to raise the drinking age, the age at which people can be in the military, the age at which people can drive, or be police officers.

She was old enough to do the job. I can't believe I'm even having to argue such a ridiculous point.
No way to know if its correct or not, but what I heard was that she got the job because a friend recommended her to the Rust production. Not her dad. I'm sure she was properly trained, BUT.....
Click to expand...
I really hope you're being intentionally obtuse. She got the job because she is related to Thell Reed and because he claims he trained her and she is competent. Nobody is going to hire someone off the street to be an armorer unless there's some reason to believe they are capable of doing the job. Because if they aren't capable of doing the job, people die.
They say she had illegal drugs, was she ever charged with having them? Just curious...
Click to expand...
Not very curious. It's not like I've memorized the entire trial transcript--I do simple internet searches to get information.

The information regarding drug use (including witness statements and text messages on her own phone) was admitted as evidence in her trial. You'd have to ask a juror how much that information influenced their decision to declare her guilty.
Right now, she's not on trial.
Click to expand...
Apparently someone mistakenly believes that if they repeatedly claim she's a scapegoat (the failed strategy her defense attorneys used in the trial) often enough, it will make Baldwin look more guilty.
Someone else UNLOADED the gun, after the shooting and BEFORE the police arrived. Resulting in no clear chain of custody between the accident and the time the authorities arrived and took possession.

And, it appears that someone is still unknown.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can say it was someone "else", only that it was someone.

So someone may have altered the scene to try to hide guilt. Would that be sort of like destroying a baggie full of a white powdery substance before it could be tested? Because we know who did that.
 
JohnKSa said:
You are essentially claiming Thell Reed lied about his daughter's competence but you still won't countenance any responsibility on his part even though no one would have hired her if it weren't for his endorsement.
Click to expand...
What?

I didn't claim that, "essentially" or otherwise.

Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his endorsement.

It was her second job--did he also get her her first job?

Your snarky attacks on me and your fantasies about my motivations are getting old.

Improve your behavior or get ignored.
 
What?

I didn't claim that, "essentially" or otherwise.
Click to expand...
"Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case."
"The view of an unbiased source trumps her dad's bragging."
Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his endorsement.
Click to expand...
:D You know, I believe you actually think that makes sense.
...your fantasies about my motivations...
Click to expand...
Ok. here's your chance.

You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument. Calling evidence leading to conviction and sentencing into question because you don't like the outcome.

So given that you aren't making your decision based on facts (or at least based on selectively choosing which facts to believe and which to disregard which amounts to the same thing from a practical perspective), what is your motivation for deciding who's guilty and who isn't? How do you pick which facts to believe and which ones to disbelieve?

I've been using your own statement to divine your motivation, but maybe you would like to rephrase:

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."
 
JohnKSa said:
You are essentially claiming Thell Reed lied about his daughter's competence but you still won't countenance any responsibility on his part even though no one would have hired her if it weren't for his endorsement.
Click to expand...
I don't think Thell Reed lied, but I do think he had an incorrect understanding of his daughter's knowledge and capabilities. We also don't know if HE knew she was a druggie.

For example, it was widely reported in the aftermath of the incident that Hannah had to call her father to ask how to load dummy rounds into a firearm. That does not suggest professional competence of a very high level.

It was also widely reported that on her previous film as an armorer, many cast members and members of the production team thought she was dangerous. We don't know if her father was aware of those reports. (At least, I don't know -- maybe some of you know.)

In reality, her lack of competence almost certainly played into her hiring. I'm not saying the producers hired her because she was incompetent. They hired her because all the more experienced, better-known Hollywood armorers had already turned them down. At least one of them told the producers outright that for the number of guns and the number of cast members who would be handling (or at least wearing) guns they needed two full-time armorers.

Instead, they hired Guttierez-Reed, and then made her a part-time armorer and part-time props assistant. They didn't hire her specifically because she was incompetent -- they hired her because she was cheap. But she was cheap because she wasn't competent enough to have been smart enough to walk away from the job.

Does that excuse her for having drugs and live ammo on the set? Not in my opinion. On the other hand, the SAG rules for firearms (as they existed at the time of the incident) set up a redundant system, specifically to avoid exactly what happened. Under the SAG, whenever a gun is loaded there were supposed to be THREE people present -- the armorer (who should have done the actual loading, physically shaking each dummy round), the safety director (typically the person in Hall's position), and the actor himself/herself.

How long has Baldwin been a Hollywood actor? How many films has he made that involved guns? He had to have known (or known of) the SAG rules but, being the arrogant blowhard he is, he considered himself exempt from following the rules, and now his defense is that he relied on others to tell him the gun wasn't loaded.
 
JohnKSa said:
"Her dad bragging about her is truly irrelevant........and not helpful in this case."
"The view of an unbiased source trumps her dad's bragging.":D You know, I believe you actually think that makes sense.Ok. here's your chance.

You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument. Calling evidence leading to conviction and sentencing into question because you don't like the outcome.

So given that you aren't making your decision based on facts (or at least based on selectively choosing which facts to believe and which to disregard which amounts to the same thing from a practical perspective), what is your motivation for deciding who's guilty and who isn't? How do you pick which facts to believe and which ones to disbelieve?

I've been using your own statement to divine your motivation, but maybe you would like to rephrase:

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."
Click to expand...
I'll ask again:
Please provide a link to back up your claim that nobody would have hired her without his (her father's) endorsement.

That's not such a hard question. If you can't provide a link we'll have to assume your claim is false.

You continue to use unproven allegations by prosecutors of drug use, etc. as if they are facts.

That's simply prevarication.

And you continue with really insulting personal characterizations of me:

You say:

"You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument."

Seems like you WANT to get ignored.
 
Meanwhile, back at the trial, the judge sent the jury home today while the court ponders a motion by the defense to dismiss the case. The defense motion is claiming that the state has withheld information regarding ammunition found on the set. More here.
 
I don't think Thell Reed lied...
...
For example, it was widely reported in the aftermath of the incident that Hannah had to call her father to ask how to load dummy rounds into a firearm.
Click to expand...
After that he made the claims I quoted.

""She knows what to do," he added. "She does the job as good as I do now.""

"She didn't need anymore training, she's got me," Reed told ABC News​

We're obviously not talking about the normal definition of "lied". What's the personal definition that you are using?
You continue to use unproven allegations by prosecutors of drug use, etc. as if they are facts.

That's simply prevarication.
Click to expand...
Some of that evidence was based on text messages from her own phone. If she's such a good person, why don't you believe her own words?

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When it suits your purpose, you just dismiss hard evidence. Or maybe you just haven't bothered to even look into the facts of the case and yet are absolutely convinced that you know the truth. Either way, it's equally damning.
That's not such a hard question. If you can't provide a link we'll have to assume your claim is false.
Click to expand...
You crack me up. You dismiss facts you don't like, ignore (or can't understand) reasoning that doesn't fit with your preconceptions, but then when it suits your purpose, you pretend like they actually mean something.

Because you clearly are unused to bothering with facts and coherent debate, you don't understand that there are two ways to support a claim. One way is with facts, another way is with logic and reasoning.

What's not hard is understanding why a person with no experience as an armorer but who has a father who is a famous armorer gets hired. I am pretty sure you can understand that even though you are going to do your best to pretend you don't. And we all know why you are going to maintain that pretense.
"You've made it plain you disregard facts when it suits your argument."
Click to expand...
I did say that because it's true. You dismissed facts introduced as evidence leading to Gutierrez-Reed's conviction and sentencing simply because they didn't fit with your idea of who she was.

And what is your idea of who she is?

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."

Perhaps you could tell us all how much time you have spent with Hannah and those who know her personally, learning what a good person she is. Tell us some of the things you have seen her do that were good and that led to your forming your opinion of her that is so strong it makes you confident enough to disregard the facts.

The bottom line is you know nothing about what kind of a person she is except from press coverage and the trial. The problem is that when it suits your purposes, you can selectively choose to dismiss or accept any of that information, as you have explicitly done on this thread. Which means that you have formed a picture of her in your mind that is driven by your preconceptions--the preconception that made you dismiss some facts and accept others.
Seems like you WANT to get ignored.
Click to expand...
:D Sure. I'd love it. Let's see how that works. You can start now, if you like but by now everyone can tell that you are not capable of doing so.
 
It sounds like the prosecution wanted a conviction badly enough that they bent the rules so severely that the judge was left with no other option.

The judge's ruling stated, with citations, that there was no other course of action available given the circumstances.

'With prejudice' means that he can't be tried again on these charges.

That's why facts are so important. When people decide ahead of time that they know how the case should turn out and then work the facts toward that end instead of letting the facts show the way to the truth, the outcome is never good.
 
JohnKSa said:
After that he made the claims I quoted.

""She knows what to do," he added. "She does the job as good as I do now.""

"She didn't need anymore training, she's got me," Reed told ABC News​

We're obviously not talking about the normal definition of "lied". What's the personal definition that you are using?Some of that evidence was based on text messages from her own phone. If she's such a good person, why don't you believe her own words?

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When it suits your purpose, you just dismiss hard evidence. Or maybe you just haven't bothered to even look into the facts of the case and yet are absolutely convinced that you know the truth. Either way, it's equally damning.You crack me up. You dismiss facts you don't like, ignore (or can't understand) reasoning that doesn't fit with your preconceptions, but then when it suits your purpose, you pretend like they actually mean something.

Because you clearly are unused to bothering with facts and coherent debate, you don't understand that there are two ways to support a claim. One way is with facts, another way is with logic and reasoning.

What's not hard is understanding why a person with no experience as an armorer but who has a father who is a famous armorer gets hired. I am pretty sure you can understand that even though you are going to do your best to pretend you don't. And we all know why you are going to maintain that pretense.I did say that because it's true. You dismissed facts introduced as evidence leading to Gutierrez-Reed's conviction and sentencing simply because they didn't fit with your idea of who she was.

And what is your idea of who she is?

"She's a good person........the daughter of one of America's great pistol experts..."

Perhaps you could tell us all how much time you have spent with Hannah and those who know her personally, learning what a good person she is. Tell us some of the things you have seen her do that were good and that led to your forming your opinion of her that is so strong it makes you confident enough to disregard the facts.

The bottom line is you know nothing about what kind of a person she is except from press coverage and the trial. The problem is that when it suits your purposes, you can selectively choose to dismiss or accept any of that information, as you have explicitly done on this thread. Which means that you have formed a picture of her in your mind that is driven by your preconceptions--the preconception that made you dismiss some facts and accept others. :D Sure. I'd love it. Let's see how that works. You can start now, if you like but by now everyone can tell that you are not capable of doing so.
Click to expand...
Oh, you'll be easy to ignore.

:)
 
I only have one question in two parts. Who put the live round in the gun and who removed the cartridges from the gun after the "accident"? I also should probably add,"Why"?
Paul B.
 
As far as I can tell, they don't know who did it for certain. Reed claims sabotage (a third party did it intentionally), but then that's the only defense that had a chance of working given her situation.

The jury either didn't buy her story or decided that even if there had been sabotage, she should have been able to detect it and prevent the death if she hadn't been criminally negligent.

BUT, all she needed to do for acquittal was raise a reasonable doubt that she didn't violate the law, and if the prosecution had evidence that would help provide that reasonable doubt, they are obligated to provide it to the defense before trial. They are supposed to provide ALL their evidence to the defense before the trial.

It will be interesting to see if the circumstances that led to dismissal in this case will be useful to Reed. It seems very likely that there will be some fallout in that case as well.
 
> ...could see incarcerated Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed released from state prison in the Land of Enchantment.
>
> Gutierrez-Reed’s lawyers plan to file a motion for her release asap, I hear. Judge Sommer was also the judge in
> the armorer’s trial. In Santa Fe right now, Gutierrez-Reed had been brought into the city earlier this week from her
> prison, where she is serving an 18 months sentence out of her own Rust trial, in the assumption she would be a
> witness possibly today in Baldwin’s trial
https://deadline.com/2024/07/alec-baldwin-trial-dismissed-rust-1236008918/

IMHO that would far more just than Baldwin skating scot free.

I'm still a bit in the dark as to why the recently revealed ammunition had anything of consequence to do with the facts of the case.
 
Withholding potentially exculpatory evidence? That is definitely grounds for dismissal (a 'Brady violation'). It is also potential prosecutorial misconduct. Expect the armorer's attorneys to file for her conviction to be vacated as well. The prosecutor really screwed the pooch on this one. This will effect careers in the prosecutor's office. As it should.
 
Last edited:
It means the prosecutor's office wasn't keeping track of the rounds. The question of which were live and which were blanks, and if they could be distinguished by Baldwin, was obviously materially relevant to his culpability. I don't know the specifics of the defense, but you could certainly present the rounds to a jury to argue that he couldn't have known which were live.

But I don't think any of those things are necessary for a 'Brady' dismissal. All the defense has to show is that the prosecution withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. It's like when the police acquire evidence from an unlawful search and seizure. Once they do that, all the evidence resulting from the search is thrown out, even evidence that wasn't acquired in the search, but as a consequence of information acquired during the unlawful search - 'fruit of the poisoned tree'. Given the enormous power the prosecutor has, integrity is paramount, and is really one of the foundations of our trust in the judicial system.

My reading of the story is that the prosecutor's office screwed this up from the get-go: the investigation, prosecution, etc. The chain of custody for evidence is literally Cop 101. A former chief of the New Mexico State Police, who worked on the investigation, has publicly criticized the whole thing. Not good for the prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
As (admittedly sloppily) "explained" in the courtroom....it was pretty clear that the cartridges had zero value as evidence.

But, as I said before, the fix was in.

The judge thought she could get away with it.

Meaning the judge is pretty stupid as well as paid off.
 
I don't think this indicates that a fix was in. I think this indicates that the prosecution was so intent on obtaining a conviction that they were willing to dismiss and conceal potentially exculpatory evidence. I don't like this result, because I believe Baldwin bears a LOT more responsibility for Ms. Hutchins' death than Gutierrez-Reed, but this is the right call by the judge.

The prosecution must NEVER withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense. If the evidence has no value, then turning it over to the defense wouldn't make any difference to the outcome of the case. So why hide it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top