Saturday, December 18, 2021



Just Like We've Told You All Along Department:

Turns out PropTwat, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, future felon for manslaughter on Rust, comes by her ineptitude and total incompetence naturally, as the stories flow in from her prior gig, on The Old Way with Nicolas Cage.

(Getarope News)'You just blew my f**king eardrums out!' Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed 'discharged weapons without warning and infuriated star Nicolas Cage' on her previous film

  • Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was the subject of numerous complaints while working as the armorer on her previous, and first ever, movie The Old Way
  • Nicolas Cage, the star of the film, reportedly yelled at her after she fired a gun without warning for the second time: 'You just blew my f**king eardrums out!'
  • A crew member from the The Old Way said she 'put the cast and crew in several unnecessary and dangerous situations'  before he reported she should be fired
  • In a podcast interview after filming ended, she said she wasn't sure if she was ready to be a head armorer on a movie set
  • Two production sources claim Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed previously gave a child actor a gun without checking it on set of the The Old Way film
  • The rookie armorer was named as the person who loaded Alec Baldwin's prop gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Gutierrez-Reed on the set of Rust 

Word To Your Lawyer, PropTwat:

End the farce. Cut a deal and plead out, while you still have a shot at some leniency for killing someone. You'll be out in 12-18 months, tops, and thankfully, never be legally allowed to touch a firearm the rest of your adult life, which will save as many lives as a cancer cure at this point, based solely on your demonstrated performance on one and a half movies.

So, total shocker, untrained and incompetent non-union PropTwat was a walking disaster with weaponry, and only by some miracle took until her second movie gig to kill someone, in a way no one has done in Hollywood in...lemme see, carry the zero...ever. (Neither Brandon Lee nor John Eric Hexum were killed by live rounds on set. Gutierrez-Reed is thus the only propmaster/armorer in recorded cinematic history, AFAIK, to screw that pooch right out of the gate, and managed it on her sophomore film, which was yet another low-budget piece of crap.)


And for those spring-loaded to the stupid position, there were multiple producers on Rust, and she wasn't hired by Baldwin (who had no such hire/fire authority), but rather by line producer Gabrielle Pickle (who has a documented history of firing camera crews when they complained that safety corners were being cut), and/or by Unit Production Manager Katherine Walters.

The locus of stupid on this disastrous film aren't Hollywood people at all, but in fact a bunch of cut-rate indy film bumpkins from Georgia, trying to do everything on the cheap, and think of themselves as scrappy, but are in fact crappy, right up until they killed someone. These cheapskates are working overtime to live up to ever stereotype about producers that exists, and bringing them to life before your very eyes. Wannabes will get you killed every time, even in movie-making.

Gutierrez-Reed, total newb to guns, and yet serial fuck-up armorer

Dave Halls, 2d AD, the guy supposedly double-checking Guttierez-Reed, and previously caught violating weapon safety rules on another production (and as a member of the production department, not the prop department, he should never have anything to do with weapons on any set, yet here he was screwing that pooch again too)

Gabrielle Pickle, line producer, already found guilty of violating federal labor laws for firing a previous camera crew on another production when they complained about unsafe practices on-set 

This movie was being made by a complete rogue's gallery of incompetent assholes, and for the motion picture budget equivalent of peanuts.

"When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys." - Aesop 


*{Hot tip, kids, when I use "non-union" derogatorily in the context of movie and TV productions, that's because it's true. I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into two unions over two decades in Hollyweird film production. The point isn't, as you imagine, because union membership confers infallibility. Anything but. As an elected officer and member of my union's executive board, we spent 90% of our time on the 5% of our union members who were nonetheless stone-cold f**k-ups. The point, in Hollywood, is that getting union membership for behind-the-scenes crafts and guilds is that it takes 30 days working on either a union show, or non-union show that organizes, to get it. And getting that, usually takes 1-3 years, on average, meaning no one on a union show with their shiny paid-up AFL-CIO card is a freaking incompetent rookie, because they'd never last. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed never got those 30 days, nor 1-3 years, nor took the week's worth of mandatory union classes the producers - that would be Universal, Fox, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Disney, Sony, et al - require before you can be in your job. Which, in Gutierrez-Reed's case, would have included not just general set safety classes, but for propmasters and armorers, she would have had an entire class devoted solely and entirely to firearms and ammunition safety. She would have had to pass at least a basic test, before being allowed near any set, to do the sort of f**k-ups she did on both of the one and a half movies she worked on, right up until her multi-incompetence manifested itself in killing someone - by deliberately violating 50 or 60 of the most basic on-set rules for the job for which she was hired, after representing herself as an expert, rather than a farking novice and junior moron, which is what she was and is. A non-union member in Hollywood is one step above an absolute rookie level moron, whereas anyone with a union membership card has at least enough acquaintance with their job to not do anything as stupid as the plethora of screw-ups she pulled off, let alone killing people. Which exact lack is why she took on too much job, for too little money, with too few brains, and committed career-ending manslaughter. People on set sound like the kid in The Sandlot - "You're killing me, Smalls!" , and they say that to their co-workers all the time, usually jokingly, for making their job harder. When they say that to Gutierrez-Reed, they mean it literally.}


Jonathan H said...

Was she a diversity hire too?

Anonymous said...

A search warrant was issued for Baldwins phone because he wouldnt voluntarily give it to police, which is his right, but it isn't a good look for someone so eager to give interviews.

Stealth Spaniel said...

Oh Yes.....say what you will about the "Hollywood Folks"; at least the professionals can read, write, and follow rules. It's the cast party that gets a little wonky.....This double stupid (but I repeat myself) wanna-be actress/gun slinger had no more business handling guns and ammo than one of my cocker spaniels; and my spaniels are very bright, much prettier, and will work for catered food. The other dweebs want all the money and glory without paying their dues. Hollywood is many things, but paying your dues is time honored and necessary for beating how things work into your head-casting couch be damned. This is a tragedy for the camerawoman's family that did not need to happen. Get top people-Get Top Results. And everyone unionized for reasons other than money.

Aesop said...


Baldwin's attorney was the one who rightfully requested a warrant before the phone handover, because such specifically outlines the scope of information being hoovered out of the phone.

Given that the warrant wasn't issued until two months after the event, by which time the whole thing could have been scrubbed without penalty, it's not exactly a ringing indictment of Baldwin, just a quest to sew down all the loose ends.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan H: yes, she probably was a diversity hire, being a non-union member. They're all honest, clean-cut upright people, who would never cover for the weakest idiots, and they certainly wouldn't have corrupt leadership. Union members are one step below getting their angels' wings. She was a result of the capitalist idea that an employer should examine candidates and choose the best from among them, poor choices being a risk. When we unionize all employment, no such things will happen anymore.
--Tennessee Budd

Linda S Fox said...

And, what would you bet that the WOMYN will escape their justly-earned judicial punishment for this debacle?
The odds are REALLY low that they'll even see a day in jail.

Anonymous said...

I am not a lawyer, but new Mexico law says "Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another."
Between that and the examples of convictions in the state for tampering, there is no time gap provision for when his phone could be " scrubbed without penalty." It seems that if he deleted anything relevant to the investigation he is up shit creek.

Aesop said...

I am not a lawyer, but until there's a subpoena, it's not "evidence", is it?
He could have deleted everything on his phone anytime he wanted to before it was under subpoena, by this freakishly simple doctrine of "it's my damned phone, and I can do any fucking thing I want with it 24/7/365/forever, because of this thing called private property rights."
Which would leave the D.A. there to jump through her own ass to try and prove, based on the lack of any evidence, that anything incriminating was tampered with, since it no longer existed, and that any deletions of something that wasn't evidence when it was deleted constituted anything beyond simple electronic housekeeping.

If you want a phone as evidence in a wrongful homicide, as a general rule, you don't wait two months after the event transpired to ask for it.
And anything transmitted to or from his lawyer(s) is privileged, and can't be touched anyway.

The whole subpoena is a fishing expedition weeks after the fact, not an evidence quest.
And I suspect most of anything they want could be obtained by simply getting it from the carrier, not the phone itself.

Roy said...

I never thought I would see myself defending a putz like Alec Baldwin, but here we are. Aesop is right and that's all there is to it.

Until the subpoena or warrant was issued, he could have dropped it in the shitter and been done with it. But I doubt there is anything on the phone even if it's all there. Like Aesop said, anything between him and his lawyers is privileged. What else could there possibly be? Do they think he took a video the incident? Yeah, fishing expedition.

What really disappoints me is the number of folks on our side of the great divide who want to hang-him-high, just because he is a leftist. That's kind of like a reverse Kyle Rittenhouse.

Anonymous said...

If memory serves, the examples of convictions in NM for tampering that I read included some guy washing off his car immediately after hitting someone and another person on video taken by his wife claiming that this computer has child porn on it and he didn't want the police getting it so that's why he is destroying it. The first of these events occured before the cops even had a person of interest in mind so they couldn't possibly issue a subpoena, yet when the investigation led to the driver and they impounded the suspiciously clean car, they pursued tampering charges and won in court. The logic is apparently that he knew his xar (private property) would be of interest in an active criminal investigation and by cleaning it, he tried to avoid apprehension and prosecution.

So if washing off the car or destroying a computer well before the cops either a) have any idea that you are even a suspect such as the hit and run or b) to prevent accessing incriminating info in a current investigation as with the child porn is prosecutable as evidence tampering, then it seems like Alec deleting phone records when he knows the cops are still investigating would certainly be considered as such.
Note: I think those two cases I mentioned are in the link I provided earlier.

Anonymous said...

As for the priveleged info, they assign a special master to make sure only non-priveleged communication are presented for review by law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

"Where defendant drove a pickup toward a group of children who were trick-or-treating on Halloween; the chaperone pushed the children out of the way but was struck and killed; and after the accident, defendant removed decals on the truck and cleaned the front of the truck, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of tampering with evidence. State v. Melendrez, 2014-NMCA-062, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT-006."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No. Tampering requires proof of intent.
"The crime of tampering with evidence is complete when the accused commits an act of tampering with the requisite specific intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person, regardless of whether the accused's objective is a separate crime or whether a separate criminal investigation ever exists or could exist. State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032, 148 N.M. 452, 237 P.3d 754, rev'g 2009-NMCA-068, 146 N.M. 563, 212 P.3d 1117, overruled by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028.

"Sufficient evidence of intent. — Where defendant, charged with second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, testified that after he stabbed the victim, he threw the knife out the car window as he drove away from the crime scene, defendant's specific intent to prevent his apprehension or prosecution can be inferred from his overt act of disposing of the murder weapon; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence. State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMCA-077, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-006."

" Since defendant merely dropped some items from his hand to the ground upon the officers' announcement of police presence, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of either element of intent or action under this section. State v. Roybal, 1992-NMCA-114, 115 N.M. 27, 846 P.2d 333, cert. denied, 114 N.M. 550, 844 P.2d 130."

Aesop said...

You just argued conviction doesn't require proof of intent, then quoted a statute that explicitly states that very fact as an essential element of the crime.
"with the requisite specific intent"

Everything you're saying could be true, if a crime is actually alleged, if it can be proven, if you can establish intent to tamper with actual evidence, and ifyou can recover the evidence in the first place.

That's four Ifs from reality in Baldwin's case, at this point.

You should research mens rea, which is requisite for a tampering charge.

Baldwin, under indictment for nothing, and arguably unaware of any crime, evidence of same, and absent any provable guilty motive, is at zero peril. Unless a prosecutor can activate God Mode, they have to prove all the things you're assuming, because everyone washing their clothes isn't Lady Macbeth trying to get incriminating blood stains out, they simply want clean underwear next week.

So just for S&G, explain what they could possibly find on the phone that would in any way incriminate Baldwin, short of him admitting he deliberately loaded and fired the offending round of ammunition, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, something at this point beyond recockulous? There were twenty or more witnesses to who held the gun when it went off, and physics alone demonstrates where it was pointed at that moment, which in this circumstance still attaches no culpability to Baldwin, somethings which blows the minds (and I use that term loosely) of people with tiny ones.

An actor was handed a live, loaded weapon by two prop buffoons, one of whose entire employment raison d'etre was to prevent that exact circumstance from happening, ever, in perpetuity, for the duration of the movie, and was told by them it was "cold", i.e. not loaded with anything that would go bang, not a blank, and certainly not a live round, (which is done never in motion picture history, going back to before he was even born). {It never meant there were no dummy rounds in the cylinders, which was the whole point of the camera shot being rehearsed, which undoes all the jackassical "he shoulda looked!" arguments of the production-ignorant fucktards from Hell to breakfast.}

This is the shortest chain of custody and culpability in criminal history, short of finding the perp with the bloody dagger clutched in their own hand, sitting on top of the dead body, covered in the victim's blood. The only reason there has been any discussion of Baldwin as a suspect is because people are idiots, in this situation because of the politics of the would-be accused, which is so far beyond the bounds of common sense and rational jurisprudence as to bring up the ghost of Mssr. Dreyfus.

PropTwat Gutierrz-Reed, and 2d AD Halls (who put the "ass" in assistant) own 100% of all possible criminal negligence for this incident, since ever, beyond all rational dispute.

Aesop said...

If that weren't obvious to even Stevie Wonder, from space, the D.A. would have indicted Baldwin within hours, and presented the rationale for that to the grand jury. All she's doing, at this point, is getting her legal ducks in a row before announcing her actual charges. If she throws Baldwin in that pot, for political reasons, she gets her ass handed to her in open court, looks like a gelatinous blob of incompetence, and cancels her own legal career, in perpetuity, in about 90 days.

The only people frothing to proclaim Baldwin's guilt don't have those brakes on their ignorance, and no competence or intelligence to defend, and so persist in salivating for what will, by all accounts and evidence revealed to date, likely never be, nor ever should.

And it really, really pisses the jackhole mob off.

They should get over it.

Antibubba said...

Jonathan H, She wasn't hired for diversity. She was a legacy hire--her dad has been a master movie armorer for decades. Were she not his kid she'd never have been on that set in any leadership capability.

What Aesop says about the Hollywood unions is correct: if you get your union card, it's because you've proven you aren't a complete fuckup. If you're technical and you do screw up after you get your card, you end up blacklisted, officially or otherwise. I have friends who work on the tech side who have gotten their membership, and they worked damn hard to get there.

The dirty secret of low-budget shoots is that you may see more minorities on them not because of PC diversity, but because they'll work for less. They'll accept less to get the experience they need to get on union shoots, to get a reputation as someone who gets the job done. Shoots like these are where people start. Hutchins was union; it'd be hard to get funding for a movie with a cinematographer who wasn't in ICG or IATSE. Department heads usually are union, except on the smallest of movies.