Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was ‘engaged in horseplay’ with gun before fatal shooting
Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was ‘engaged in horseplay’ with gun before fatal shooting
Actor is due to go to trial over death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who was killed on set of Rust
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”.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.)
It is the job of anyone handling a dangerous object to handle it safely. If they can't, they shouldn't.
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.
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.
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.
Guns used on film sets are real guns. They're simply loaded with blanks. Basically every movie and television show you've ever seen involved people breaking the "safety rules" of firearms. Every time you see a gun pointed at "you," i.e. the camera, an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.
When you see people "shooting" at each other, they're firing real guns loaded with blanks at each other. You can certainly remove all realistic gunplay from movies and TV, and I'm fine with that, but it's absurd to think that the same rules of firearm safety apply equally in the context of filmmaking.
an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.
which proves it I not safe? yes that's the point, something dangerous was done, maybe normalized in the industry but still dangerous. a boom or tripod can always be used to not have someone behind the camera on the other end of a gun
Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.
There's very obviously all sorts of ways to make Hollywood safer, but the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood. If you're interested in making the industry less dangerous, I would suggest reviewing how "acceptable risk" is determined when it comes to stunts.
Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.
I love strawmanning something nobody said, it's not dishonest at all.
the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood.
A rare risk, that's easy to avoid. why not just avoid it when possible? A camera operator rarely needs to be in front of a gun, so try to avoid it when it's not absolutely necessary? This seems like basic risk minimization
If that's the norm then it needs to change. If actors truly don't have time to take safety courses to learn then have stunt doubles stand in for scenes where they hold firearms.
If you have a gun in your hand, then the safety of that gun is your responsibility. You cannot delegate that responsibility, morally or legally.
Or maybe it is the job of any actor pulling the trigger on a gun to check whether it is a real or prop gun and to never do so while there is another person in the line of fire.
It is not. That is why they have a prop master and a master at arms. That person is the one who fucked up.
Iirc hadn't the staff responsible for that walked off the set three days earlier because of gross negligence (including two previous on set negligent discharges without injury) after the producer, Alec Baldwin, refused to heed their safety warnings?
Hadn't heard that detail but it wouldn't surprise me.
Is carbonated pasta sauce good? I’ve tried carbonated salad dressing. Are you a marinara sauce?