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”.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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

      • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 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.

          • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 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.

            • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Frist off, it is also the actors’ job to ensure the gun is safe. He should have been there when the gun was checked and verified it for himself especially when he purposely hired a fuck around and find out armourer.

              Secondly, how were they supposed to know your level of knowledge about firearms and ammunition? With them explaining stuff in a simple and quick manner, we are all now operating on the same level of basic knowledge about this, so there should not be any miscommunications going on.