289
submitted 4 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Fewer than three weeks before actor Alec Baldwin is due to go on trial in Santa Fe, New Mexico, prosecutors have said that he “engaged in horseplay with the revolver”, including firing a blank round at a crew member on the set of Rust before the tragic accident occurred.

Baldwin is facing involuntary manslaughter charges in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

In new court documents, prosecutors said they plan to bring new evidence to support their case that the 66-year-old actor and producer was reckless with firearms while filming on the set and displayed “erratic and aggressive behavior during the filming” that created potential safety concerns.

Prosecutors in the case, which is due to go to trial on 10 July, have previously alleged that to watch Baldwin’s conduct on the set of Rust “is to witness a man who has absolutely no control of his own emotions and absolutely no concern for how his conduct affects those around him”.

In the latest filing, special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Erlinda Johnson allege that Baldwin pointed his gun and fired “a blank round at a crew member while using that crew member as a line of site as his perceived target”.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 162 points 4 months ago

There's no good reason to use a functional gun in film and theater, change my mind.

[-] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago

The only reason to do it is verisimilitude, and that's not compelling because a fake is easy enough to acquire/create.

[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 4 months ago

In 2024 having a real firearm on set is unconscionable. Especially without a proper armorist. This was not only avoidable, but the situation shouldn’t have even presented itself.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

It also only matters at all because of people banging on about "this movie was set in 1935, but the down-bent charging handle on gun X wasn't introduced until 1941". Which will still happen, anyway, and it's not a good enough reason to have real firearms on set.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 26 points 4 months ago

Actors miming shooting looks ridiculous. Like laser tag guns. Actual recoil looks much more realistic.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

❌When the recoil looks fake

✔️Action hero only ever gets shot in shoulder despite thousands of rounds shot at them, bullets used by bad guys never hollow point

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fillicia@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

The must be a way to create "false" gun in the sense that they only takes blanks and have nonfunctional barrels. Or I'm I too optimistic?

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

Unfortunately, guns are deceptively simple. Just about anything that can detonate a realistic looking blank is capable of firing an actual bullet. And even if it's just a blank, any obstruction in the barrel can end up becoming an ad-hoc projectile by the force. Every once in a while, you have that happen in Civil War re-enactments.

[-] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Thats also how Brandon Lee died. Iirc there was a squib malfunction that they didn't notice so when they shot a blank, the round was pushed out and killed him.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

We could get around this by having specific calibers that only come in blanks.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Not really though because still, if anything is in the barrel, it becomes a projectile.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago

Ok but that's a separate issue and something that can happen with a regular gun loaded with a regular caliber blank, what they're saying is fake guns for movies should use a caliber for which no bullets exist, solving the main part of the issue, i.e. the fact that someone can load a normal bullet in a gun that is to be used as a prop.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 months ago

This would help avoid this specific death, but not most others where the projectile wasn't an actual bullet from a live round, but something stuck in the barrel, like the other person says.

This situation was unusual in the sense that an incompetent armorer had live rounds on set, and the gun was loaded with one.

What I mean is that the main part of the issue is exactly not this.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

If the armorer wasn't willfully negligent it wouldn't be a problem. Not a problem for the vast majority of film sets. Just pure lack of professionalism from the armorer whose sole core responsibility is to ensure safety.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

if Baldwin wasn't waiving a gun around like a moron, a negligent armorer wouldn't have been a problem, either.

the armorer being negligent (and she was), doesn't mean that Baldwin wasn't also being negligent. and lets be perfectly clear: the reason Gutierrez-Reed was hired over other more professional armorers is precisely because she was "less professional"- or more bluntly, because she was willing to not insist on proper safety protocols that caused delays in shooting.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Woah woah woah. Baldwin should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants with a prop gun. If an armorer gives him a gun on a set, why would he reasonably believe it was able to hurt or kill someone?

If an actor is given a prop pipe bomb, and he throws it at a cast member in jest and it explodes...because the explosive expert gave him a live explosive why the fuck is that the actors fault?

Why is is Alec's fault he was horsing around with what effectively should have been a toy. It should have been a fancy cap gun at worst.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Woah woah woah. Baldwin should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants with a prop gun. If an armorer gives him a gun on a set, why would he reasonably believe it was able to hurt or kill someone?

because it's a fucking weapon. he knew it was a weapon.

secondly, it was Hall (another producer) that gave him the weapon, not HGR.

thirdly, you don't fuck around with even the non-firing propguns precisely because of how easy it is to mistake them. He fucked around, and Alyna Hutchins found out. Ergo, it's negligent homicide

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Hate to say it, but I agree here.

This is the price paid for not treating real guns with respect. Prop bullets or otherwise.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

Wouldn't the live round have shot someone no matter what? The point of a blank round is so you can aim a gun at someone and not kill them.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

HGR definitely didn't do right here but a lot more went wrong. This was a perfect storm of negligence. Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale. So many people spoke out and zero action was taken to address their concerns.

A layered safety approach is a great idea. But it only works when at least one person in a position to do so does what's right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Wasn't Baldwin at some level responsible for the armorer though too? Was he the producer or something?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

In Blade Runner 2049, Weta Workshop had their laser pistols set up with a solenoid that moved back and forth with a trigger pull. Adam Savage looked at them in a Tested video. I don't know if it's cost prohibitive, but it sure seemed like the right way to do it.

However, you don't get smoke with that. You can definitely rig something up as they did it with a knock off nerf blaster in the 80's or even a cap gun, but at some point I assume the level of complexity makes modifying a real gun cheaper.

You could weld shut the barrel of a gun, which is what a lot of them do, but it seems like it's a cost cutting measure when they used real guns that would retain their value. Alec (as a producer) used a cheap setup with a cheap armorer that didn't know what they were doing. It's both of their faults.

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

Man, I am a cinema buff and I just really don't think I care if the smoke is there at all, much less just right. Obviously botched attempts at realism are another matter entirely but this just seems like an area ripe for creativity and artistic reinterpretation.

Point is, we cede ground to the theater of the mind all the time, I don't know why realistic gunfire can't be treated similarly, and I think the lack of verisimilitude itself could be approached many different ways and that's even kind of exciting.

[-] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Smoke is easy to add in post. Muzzle flash is a little bit harder but also of course very possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

A blank killed Brandon Lee while filming The Crow.

Although I don't know the details admittedly.

[-] RacerX@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago

It was a blank that was fired, but there was a bullet lodged in the barrel from a previous firing they had done using improperly handled prop rounds.

The force from the blank ejected the round into him. :(

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

Modify the dang things so they can’t take real ammo. Make it keyed somehow or odd shaped. Problem solved.

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

This particular gun was an actual period gun, so it could prevent the use of the gun if it needed to be modified. But honestly, just like there wasn't a real helicopter in films besides stock footage or military footage the production company didn't film, because accidentally killing three actors two of whom were children being illegally treated, was enough for studios to forbid it, the people who've been shot accidentally on film should really make everyone unwilling to use anything but a prop that is explicitly and legally not at all a gun in any way.

[-] Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

But we all know the old adage:

Guns don't kill people, helicopters do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

It’s funny I recently bumped into a guy who is a gunsmith and worked in Hollywood sets before so we talked about this. There are reasons to have a fully functional gun on set and the different rounds they use on set because there are a bunch of different types depending on the scene and lighting. They use different charges for different shots and a bunch of other things. Especially if it’s a practical effects movie.

The issue is making sure live ammo is not on set or around the guns on set. If you have access to these guns you can use them after filming is done with live rounds.

Alex trusted the people around him to do their jobs and they didn’t make it a safe set. This is like flipping the keys to Dodge Hellcat to your 15 1/2 year old son with a learners driving permit and his 18 year old friend riding shotgun. It’s not a good idea. They should be driving Kia Sportage.

[-] PancakeTrebuchet@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

With all the money spent on films, I'm amazed there isn't regulated "Hollywood" caliber firearms. Something incapable of chambering anything on the market, and only functions with the certified blanks.

Something akin to the way fake currency is controlled.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 69 points 4 months ago

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-politics-new-mexico-state-government-clovis-prop-gun-shooting-4318dd3bce9974099a8cdb599264f876

This was always a political bag of bullshit. They even had to fund it as a special prosecution with legislation, going so far as to assign a special prosecutor that happened to also be a state Republican legislator.

The gymnastics people keep using to align blame for manslaughter onto Bladwin have slowly become accepted as if it is factual like propaganda is meant to do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 67 points 4 months ago

Yeah been following the rust cases closely.

Kari Morrissey was the one who secured the conviction for Hannah Gutierrez Reid.

Important things to note for Alec Baldwin's case: he's got more money and resources for his defense. There's a bunch of high class attorneys that entered appearance for Baldwin. But he has 2 major problems: those attorneys are not from new Mexico. A good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the judge. Additionally, he is known for being bad at safety and security. That was already becoming clear in HGR's trial. But legally things are bad as well: he held the weapon. Now in other states that doesn't make him more culpable than HGR, but in new Mexico basically everyone holding a weapon is held accountable for the consequences of whatever they do while holding the weapon. This, together with what I would predict are looking like pretty bad facts for him rn, is an indication that he has a steep climb to make, unless Morrissey fucks up in a major way.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

Pretty solid summarization of the situation. I definitely think that Baldwin's on site safety problems and the seemingly rushed nature of production are going to bite him.

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

I think lying about pulling the trigger will become an issue as well.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 18 points 4 months ago

but in new Mexico basically everyone holding a weapon is held accountable for the consequences of whatever they do while holding the weapon

Which is how it should be.

[-] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 34 points 4 months ago

Remember that this occured during a strike, and Baldwin brought in scabs to fill the positions, and then pushed one of those scabs to be the fallguy, despite baldwin being both the one in the position of power, and the one who fired the gun without checking it was loaded.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 51 points 4 months ago

It's not the actor's job to check if a prop is a functional weapon. They have other things to be focusing on.

But since he hired the people and set the policies, he's still responsible.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

It is the job of anyone handling a firearm to handle it in a safe and responsible manner.

You don’t get to pull “not my job” when you were holding the firearm that killed someone.

Especially since the normal on set was so far below the industry standard - a fact I would expect somebody with is broad and extensive experience to know as a qualified actor.

He had a duty of care to check the weapon and to handle it safely and he didn’t.

He had a duty of care to not point a fucking lethal weapon at people, and he did.

(This is in addition to potential liability as a producer and a duty of care to ensure workplace safety.)

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
289 points (92.6% liked)

News

23267 readers
3164 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS