300
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 170 points 4 months ago

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

[-] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 44 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 59 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 38 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 14 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.

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

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

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

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

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 14 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 9 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.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 21 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 20 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 19 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 22 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 11 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 8 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.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Uhm.

That’s not how Blanks work

And even if there is some how no wadding They can still be lethal

You cannot render a functional weapon (blank firing or “real” or whatever you want to call it,) totally safe.

Which is why you should always treat them as something that will kill you given half the chance. (It was literally made to do just that.)

And you should always treat look alikes as if they were real because a) they’re easy to mistake for real ones and vice versa and b) the other people may not realize it’s a prop. (On a movie set, unlikely, but you never know who’s around and how they will respond. Or where an active shooter is going to appear.)

As for the cartridges, usually there’s tell tales of one sort or another. For dummy rounds it’s common to press the otherwise empty cartridge with a ball bearing or two so they rattle when shaken. Sometimes they also have a small hole on the wall of the casing

Blanks are, by their nature, lacking the bullet and the top is simply crimped to hold the wadding.

All it would have taken was a proper inspection to verify that it was unloaded/loaded with dummy rounds. Or, alternatively, Baldwin not pointing it at people.

Which leads me to the final thing you should always do: check the damn weapon. Don’t trust armorers. They’re people, too. They make mistakes, they fuck up.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 6 points 4 months ago

Can I ask what the point of this screed was? I'm aware blanks are dangerous. That's irrelevant. There was a real bullet in the chamber. At some point, even if it was a blank, it would have been pointed at someone and the trigger pulled.

The point appears to be "check the damn weapon", which of course you could have said without 'educating' me, and wouldn't have been undercut with going on endlessly about wadding.

That point is a terrible one because the armourer is the expert, and is the one who should be signing the gun off as safe every time it is opened, not an actor who neither is required to have qualifications nor skills in clearing a gun as safe. If an actor interferes with the weapon, the armourer has to check it again.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 11 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)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] ours@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

What recoil? They are shooting blanks. There is no mass leaving the gun. If you want to cycle the gun on trigger pull in a realistic yet safe way, compressed CO2 can be used. Some movie guns are even electrically/magnetically actuated.

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

I mean 5-10 grams of vaporized gunpowder leaves the barrel at fairly high speed. It's not a lead round but it's not nothing. Also the spent brass being ejected is not easy to CGI convincingly.

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

You do know how physics works, right? There is an explosion in the chamber that moves the slide/bolt backward to rack another round of course there will be recoil. Have you ever fired a black powder gun with no bullet in it? There is still a recoil.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

We gotta sometimes kill a bunch of people on set, because americans need their religion represented correctly

[-] apocalypticat@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago
load more comments (5 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 13 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)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 months ago

I'd argue otherwise. Their can be. It's not required, but it's the difference of using CGI or practical effects. John Wick didn't use real guns, but it's the perfect case for that. It's fast action with a lot going on, so you'll never notice that it's fake. I would argue more intimate shots it can make sense to use a real firearm.

They shouldn't be used where it's possible to avoid, and even when it can't be avoided aiming it at someone should be avoided. There should also be checks and double checks to ensure there isn't a live round, and the actor should also be trained to handle the weapon and check there isn't a live round before using it as well. There is no reason something like this should have been possible, but I don't agree there is no use for using a real firearm ever on set.

[-] ninjabard@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago

The key word is functional. Make it physically/mechanically incapable of firing. I've been in stage productions that used non-functioning firearms working on my undergrad. They were still locked away. The professor who was the technical director and armorer was the only one who had a key to that safe. They handed it to the props master who handed it to the actor. When the prop wasn't in use during the run, the props master had it on their person. When the performance was over, it immediately when back into the safe and locked away. If it is absolutely necessary for it to function then only blanks and only in use when needed. Not using it to play a prank. Not using it to fire rounds after the shoot is over. Baldwin and the armorer are absolutely at fault here for failing to maintain safety protocols.

[-] bolexforsoup 14 points 4 months ago

Preach.

If you don’t have an armorer in your production than you shouldn’t have anything remotely akin to a firearm period. If your production is too broke for one, you’re too broke to simulate a firearm practically. Plain and simple.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bolexforsoup 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I work in film. No functional gun is needed on set.

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

There's an entire industry surrounding the production of (often incredibly) realistic not-firing (and blank-firing) prop guns. the only time you'd need a real one, firing real bullets is if you were doing some extremely-close up shots or recording sound. Even then, you'd only need the real bullets for sound effects or close ups of actually firing. The only thing you'd really need CGI for is the muzzle flash. which is so short and so slow most people would barely even notice if it was merely 'realistic'.

All of which, it should be said, could have been shot with no one down range of the weapon at any time, and in any case, there was zero reason to need a functional firearm at the time of the shooting. They were not actually filming. They were setting up the cameras and checking for things like glare and reflections and various other angles. All of that could have done with a non-firing prop with no danger to anyone at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 75 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.

[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 65 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 18 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.

[-] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 48 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 63 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.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 24 points 4 months ago

It is the job of anyone handling a dangerous object to handle it safely. If they can't, they shouldn't.

[-] Midnight@slrpnk.net 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The point of an armorer on set is that they ensure that the guns aren't dangerous. The typical rules about "don't aim at something you don't want to destroy" doesn't apply in a movie because otherwise all the action sequences would look dumb with people firing wildly at the ground. How stupid would it look if John Wick shoots at the floor and blood spurts out of the guys face.

That said, anyone who hires a scab armorer gets what they pay for and deserve to be prosecuted.

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

Safety is the duty of every employee (and employer) on any job site. Film set, factory floor, or office. You have a duty to not unduly endangered your coworkers. If you see something dangerous at your work place speak up. Make your complaint known and make sure there's a paper trail.

The four rules of firearm safety only fail if you break every one at once. And much like punches Hollywood is great at getting camera angles where you really can't tell the difference with gunshots.

[-] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

The rules about don't aim at something you don't want to destroy absolutely apply because it was a real gun. That rule applies even when you know the gun is unloaded because you checked it yourself. Been shooting 45 years (I'm 50) and no problems ever because I was taught and follow the safety rules.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 17 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 (5 replies)
[-] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 months ago

To be fair, I have never seen an American who had a gun not act like a goof.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Guns are deadly. I cannot count the times that I found an "unloaded" gun, both mine and others, that was found to contain a cartridge over the years. People get excited, they forget it was loaded, they get distracted, cartridges can get stuck when unloading. I can tell you stories that will make you cringe.

[-] prole 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I cannot count the times that I found an "unloaded" gun, both mine and others, that was found to contain a cartridge over the years.

You know what's interesting? I can count exactly how many times I've experienced this. It's zero. Zero times.

I mean really, imagine making a statement like that as if it's a normal thing for a private citizen of a modern society to say.

So many insecure people too afraid to face the real world without the ability to end human lives in a split second.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

Please stop doing things that create those stories. For your safety and everyone elses.

Start by having someone that actually knows how to handle firearms take them away from you.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
300 points (100.0% liked)

News

23287 readers
2990 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