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”.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days 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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      13 days ago

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

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days 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

      • Fillicia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          13 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            12 days ago

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

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                12 days 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  12 days 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.

                • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 days ago

                  It’s not a separate issue. It’s exactly how Brandon Lee died. It was just a piece of a bullet, not even a complete one. Lots of hard objects that can get lodged in there that instantly become a lethal projectile.

          • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            12 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          12 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            12 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              12 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                12 days 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  12 days 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.

            • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              12 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                12 days 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.

                • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  12 days 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.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            12 days 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.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale

              Hutchins took one of those stands filing a union complaint about the safety violations, how tinfoily you wanna get?

        • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          12 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            12 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

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

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Having seen Furiosa last night and finding out that they actually digitally manipulated the two actress’ faces playing her so that one aged into the other… there’s nothing not possible for CG at this point.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          If you shot a blank in a gun with a plugged barrel the gun would explode. A blank is just a round minus the projectile, it has just as much “push” from the powder as a real round does.

        • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          I know some pistols have a co2 blow back system that you can install on your gun so you can practice drawing and dry firing without fear of damaging the gun or hurting people. The only one I know of is for glocks but I’m sure a company could make them for more models.

          • justaderp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            At that point one should should buy the gas blowback replica that the manufacturer licensed for airsoft. It’ll have identical wright and balance, the trigger can usually be tuned to match, and it’ll dry fire with about half recoil. It’ll plink on target at 40’ once the hop-up is calibrated. Should be a modest $150-250 for common Glock, Sig, etc.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Yeah, you would think you could just change the chambers and bullets so only a certain standard of blanks would fit in it, although I guess those guns would become more expensive than the real mass produced ones.

          Either way, this is all the result of Baldwin as executive producer cheaping out on every aspect of this shoot, causing this to happen.

        • HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I know there at least used to be gas powered airsoft guns that had minor ‘recoil.’ I don’t know if there’s anything particular about them that makes them bad for filming, maybe just the lack of real force on the shooters wrist/shoulder.

          • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 days ago

            Yeah the recoil is much weaker on those and there’s no muzzle flash, and certain cinematic shots just can’t be done with them like they could with an actual gun.

          • RacerX@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            12 days 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. :(

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Some guns are modified in that way for movies. They are still potentially dangerous. Blanks can harm someone close enough or accidentally propel something lodged in the barrel.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        12 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          12 days 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.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            Good points. The gun would have to cycle with CO2 or magnets and feed from a magazine empty casings so that the ejector continues to do its job.

            Yet so many movies just add the sound of casings hitting the ground so I wonder if the hassle is worth it except for some specific shots. I enjoy the realism but I’d rather people not put their lives needlessly at risk.

        • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          12 days 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.

      • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        12 days ago

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

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I’m more than willing to sacrifice some moviepeople if it means we get more realistic action scenes

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days 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.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          I agree Baldwin and the armorer are at fault. There’s no debate there. A non-functional firearm can’t fire blanks though, as you seem to mention (despite starting by seemingly saying they shouldn’t exist). It’s sometimes useful to do that, and it should be handled with extreme care and only in the cases where it’s actually useful.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days 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.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I totally agree with everything you said. This case was handled poorly. I was arguing it can be useful, but should be handled as if it’s a firearm, not a toy, because it is. There should have been no chance (or as close to that as possible) of this happening, but it doesn’t mean there is zero use cases.

  • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days 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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days 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.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days 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.

  • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    12 days 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.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 days 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days 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.

  • Zugyuk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    12 days ago

    Horseplay… With a gun… So he was playing at shooting someone who had broken their leg?