Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Anyone that would kill someone with a gun is evil, and he's not evil, therefore, he did not kill someone with a gun. He just has to figure out how it wasn't him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPM
PaulS said:
And the defense begins. Defective gun apparently, but it only goes off when it is pointed at someone. Next he'll say it wasn't pointed at her.

BREAKING: Alec Baldwin says he didn't 'pull the trigger' in shooting death of Halyna Hutchins | The Post Millennial
Click to expand...


I suspect this is total crap. The gun magically fired after being pointed at people? This will be easily debunked by examining and testing the gun. At the most, it’s possible he was thumbing back the hammer (single-action revolver, no hammer block) and his thumb slipped before it was fully cocked.

But I’m astonished that Baldwin’s lawyer isn’t telling him to keep his mouth shut and to stay away from the press.
 
PaulS said:
And the defense begins. Defective gun apparently, but it only goes off when it is pointed at someone. Next he'll say it wasn't pointed at her.

BREAKING: Alec Baldwin says he didn't 'pull the trigger' in shooting death of Halyna Hutchins | The Post Millennial
Click to expand...

The famous 'gun violence'. The kind of violence perpetrated by the gun itself, not caused by the hands of the human holding it. I didn't think this was real, but Mr Baldwin has me convinced that this is a thing.
 
Half Fast said:
I At the most, it’s possible he was thumbing back the hammer (single-action revolver, no hammer block) and his thumb slipped before it was fully cocked.
Click to expand...

I can’t imagine any modern SA revolver not having a hammer block, even authentic-looking replicas. They simply can’t fire without the trigger being pulled back - the hammer is physically blocked unless it is.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Then she should have treated it as live ammo and the gun as hot.

Dummy rounds need to have a hole in the wall of the case. A dummy round is not the same as a blank round. There is no reason whatsoever that any firearm on that set needed to be capable of firing live ammunition. Period.
Click to expand...

there is a difference between dummy rounds and theatrical blank rounds. Dummy rounds are inert. Theatrical blanks look like a live round and will shoot, but no projectile, it’s a thin wall. The firearms used in films are almost always real guns. This one was a historic revolver from the 19th century.

from my reading, nobody knew there were live rounds on set. Certainly, that would been an All Stop event.

I agree the gun should have been treated as hot. It should always be treated as loaded.
 
FastEddieB said:
I can’t imagine any modern SA revolver not having a hammer block, even authentic-looking replicas. They simply can’t fire without the trigger being pulled back - the hammer is physically blocked unless it is.
Click to expand...


I quite agree. My only thought is that they could have been using an actual antique revolver rather than a modern replica. Otherwise, Alec pulled the trigger.

Revolvers are pretty simple. I don't see any way for a revolver to malfunction and discharge without the trigger being pulled.
 
Doesn’t matter if he pulled the trigger or not. He pointed the gun at her. This defense won’t hold.
 
Half Fast said:
I quite agree. My only thought is that they could have been using an actual antique revolver rather than a modern replica. Otherwise, Alec pulled the trigger.

Revolvers are pretty simple. I don't see any way for a revolver to malfunction and discharge without the trigger being pulled.
Click to expand...

The thing about a single action revolver, is you have to pull the hammer back in order to fire it. If you pull a Colt Peacemaker out of the holster and squeeze the trigger, ain’t nothing going to happen unless you first pull the hammer back.

Baldwin’s story is pure BS.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The thing about a single action revolver, is you have to pull the hammer back in order to fire it. If you pull a Colt Peacemaker out of the holster and squeeze the trigger, ain’t nothing going to happen unless you first pull the hammer back.

Baldwin’s story is pure BS.
Click to expand...


Yep. Pure BS.

But IF AND ONLY IF it were an antique revolver without a hammer block, it would fire if the thumb were pulling the hammer back and slipped before reaching full cock, without pulling the trigger.

But I’d be astonished if that happened here. I think he cocked it and pulled the trigger.

And about now his lawyer must be screaming at him to shut up.
 
Half Fast said:
But I’d be astonished if that happened here. I think he cocked it and pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly.

I have no particular good or ill will towards Baldwin. But given the malleability and fallibility of human memory, the “Principle of Charity” lets me consider that he may not accurately remember exactly how the shooting occurred. PTSD is a thing, and I don’t doubt this was a traumatic event for Baldwin. Not saying I necessarily believe that’s the case, but it needs to be considered before we label him as a liar.
 
I didn’t slam Baldwin for the event, but I’ll slam him for pretending he had no part in it.
 
So back to the root cause... Now that it's not the 1930's, and studios don't own actors anymore, can't we trade Baldwin for someone in a different country with skills that are more useful to us? Maybe someone that can write software, or design aircraft or something? Apologies if that sounds insensitive.
 
Actually, it's worse than that. I saw a clip of the interview he gave in which he claimed that, not only did he not pull the trigger, he didn't point the gun. Unbelievable.
 
What are the chances a round “cooked off” the same time he pointed the gun at someone…just ridiculous and so sad…Baldwin is a disgrace…his PR advisors are failing him if that’s his new narrative…
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Just to make sure I understand you, Mr. Kenney hand reloaded some ammunition using the same brass as the blanks he supplied? And he brought these live rounds on set?

Did he do this with or without the armorer's knowledge/permission?

Were the people on set only looking at the headstamps to determine if the rounds were blank? Is that the only thing they examined?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Kenney reloaded using the same brass, then mixed the live rounds with blanks. He could have legitimately gotten confused. But very poor judgement to reload these. I'm reminded of the time I put my phone in the pocket of my swim trunks and said "oh, i'll just remember to pull it out before I jump in the water."

I don't know what processes were used to determine live rounds vs blanks. I understand the blanks have a rattle, but if you get ammo all stamped with a brand name you bought to be blanks, you pull some out and shake them, it looks good. I don't know anyone who would go through the entire box and shake each round. Remember, there were never supposed to be live rounds anywhere near this place.

The gun was unloaded, the check is in the mail and I won't...wait, family board.
 
judypilot said:
Actually, it's worse than that. I saw a clip of the interview he gave in which he claimed that, not only did he not pull the trigger, he didn't point the gun. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I just listened to it and I’m going very deaf so not sure what he said but I think he said, “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them,”. But the youtube auto translate is “point a gun at anyone to pull a trigger at them,” which might make more sense. But either way he isn’t claiming he didn’t point the gun, he is claiming he didn’t point the gun and also pull the trigger. But, he didn’t say he wasn’t cocking it while he pointed it. If it was an authentic and not a replica, it could have gone off without him pulling the trigger, so maybe he’s not lying.

He’s still culpable because he shouldn’t have pointed it without there being the protective barrier in front of the camera person, or a robot camera, and as producer shouldn’t have cut corners by hiring a cheaper inexperienced armorer. And if it was an authentic antique he should have KNOWN not to cock it while pointing anywhere not safe, that should have been part of the training that apparently didn’t happen, for which again as producer he is ultimately responsible, even if actors aren’t expected to be experts in firearms.

If anyone has better hearing than I do, how exactly did he phrase that?
 
Ruger single action revolvers have transfer bars, trigger moves the bar up. If the bar is not up the hammer cannot reach the firing pin. Smith and Wesson double action revolvers do not have such a device, the firing "pin" is on the hammer.
Original single action revolvers from the 19th century have no safety device built in, that design carried forward and is still the most common setup. In my opinion anything with an exposed hammer does not need a safety, the safety is the hammer, if it is back, it is off safe, if it is down it is safe. Original colts also have a "half cock" position on the hammer, it allows the hammer to come off the cylinder and allows the cylinder to turn without having the hammer all the way back.
While the Colt single action is the most recognized of 19th century revolvers, there were many others in use.

Basic gun safety, do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, a mechanical safety NEVER negates that rule.
 
judypilot said:
Actually, it's worse than that. I saw a clip of the interview he gave in which he claimed that, not only did he not pull the trigger, he didn't point the gun. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It's like politics. You just say what you want people to believe and keep saying it come hell or high water.
 
Wagondriver said:
Basic gun safety, do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, a mechanical safety NEVER negates that rule.
Click to expand...

Except for the exceptions. I point my gun at my own eyeball when I’m cleaning it and want to inspect the barrel. You bet it’s unloaded! The action is open, I’ve just run swabs through it. I watched a show recently where the “bad guy” stuck the barrel of a gun in the mouth of the actor playing the, well, other bad guy, and pulled the trigger! It went “click”. The first bad guy said, “pay me what you owe or next time it will be loaded.” That gun sure looked real and probably was. I certainly hope the actor that had to eat the muzzle checked the gun himself right before the scene.

However your point stands in the context of what happened. Except for carefully controlled exceptions, which should involve rechecking immediately prior to the pointing, the rule stands and in this case it should have. If the scene called for the gun to be pointed at the camera or another actor, every person involved on both sides of the gun should have rechecked it once more, rather than what happened which was to take the word of some one who took the word of someone else, who maybe had checked it “not too thoroughly” back before lunch.
 
I think it's clear by this point that there was a complete lack of respect for firearms on this set by everyone involved. The supplier's response to learning there was live ammo on set was basically, "Oops." The armorer is trying to claim she isn't responsible. And now, ab is claiming he didn't pull the trigger, and therefore should not be held responsible.

I think they all should be charged. This is a farce. Their lack of care has resulted in the death of another human being. This level of negligence is inexcusable.
 
Wagondriver said:
Ruger single action revolvers have transfer bars, trigger moves the bar up. If the bar is not up the hammer cannot reach the firing pin. Smith and Wesson double action revolvers do not have such a device, the firing "pin" is on the hammer.
Original single action revolvers from the 19th century have no safety device built in, that design carried forward and is still the most common setup. In my opinion anything with an exposed hammer does not need a safety, the safety is the hammer, if it is back, it is off safe, if it is down it is safe. Original colts also have a "half cock" position on the hammer, it allows the hammer to come off the cylinder and allows the cylinder to turn without having the hammer all the way back.
While the Colt single action is the most recognized of 19th century revolvers, there were many others in use.

Basic gun safety, do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, a mechanical safety NEVER negates that rule.
Click to expand...

I think modern S&W (and Colt, I believe) revolvers use a hammer block that drops only when the trigger is pulled. Same purposed as the Ruger transfer bar, but works in reverse.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I think modern S&W (and Colt, I believe) revolvers use a hammer block that drops only when the trigger is pulled. Same purposed as the Ruger transfer bar, but works in reverse.
Click to expand...

…and modern sandwich bags use a ziplock instead of a folded flap like the old ones had.
 
Genuine antique Colt single action function. There are several features, mentioned singly above.

There is a "Half Cock" position on the hammer that allows raising the hammer a short distance, it clicks, and you lower the hammer into a notch that traps the hammer, allowing the Colt to be carried with a live round in the chamber. Although called the half cock, it is less than a quarter of the way up to full.

This is engineered such that if you pull hard enough to break something, the trigger itself breaks, not the notch. Few men are strong enough to break the trigger in this manner.

Pulling the hammer back with the finger off the trigger, and releasing it before the full cock position, the hammer falls to the half cock notch, and stops.

If the hammer is pulled half way back, the trigger is held, and the thumb slips off the hammer, it falls between the cylinders, and does not fire.

This has been repeatedly reported to be a real early Colt single action, and the features that I have described are included on all the Colt single actions that I have handled. Percussion Colts were not designed in this manner, but they lowered the hammer between cylinders for safety, a position which could break the firing pin on cartridge revolvers such as used in this movie.

Baldwin would have us believe that the hammer fell off the full cock position, and fired the weapon. No, it would have been caught on the half cock notch.

Perhaps since guns still find ways to kill people in movies, we need a law forbidding movies to be made with anything that even appears to be a gun.

The real problem on the set is that there are industry standard procedures that Baldwin has complied with on higher budget movies, that were skipped in this production. He had been taught the rules, and complied, on other peoples dime, but skipped them on his dime.

The gun did not kill the video operator, the people in the chain of custody of ammunition and inspections killed her. Baldwin was just the last in the chain of careless people. He also broke numerous rules, failing to personally check empty (there was no need for any blanks to be in the revolver at that time), pulling the hammer back (single action revolvers are not holstered with the hammer back), pointing the revolver at a human being, and pulling the trigger, whether he remembers that step or not.

Since this event, I have watched a large number of various quality western movies, paying attention to the practices on those sets, and find that when an actor pulls the trigger while pointing the gun, rifle or pistol, at another actor, there is no recoil. The BANG and smoke are added in the lab. Firing from horseback is the same, the horse never flinches, or even twitches its ears. The exception is movies made in the '30's or '20's.

A lot of rules have been created to make movies safe since those early day.
 
judypilot said:
Actually, it's worse than that. I saw a clip of the interview he gave in which he claimed that, not only did he not pull the trigger, he didn't point the gun. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Just saw the interview again, and I was wrong and Rushie was right--he did not say that he didn't point the gun, he said he wouldn't point a gun and pull the trigger.
 
judypilot said:
--he did not say that he didn't point the gun, he said he wouldn't point a gun and pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the man is guilty but guns generally, as a rule, (there may be an exception I'm unaware of) do not load, aim, and discharge themselves. There are witnesses that seen the firearm discharge while in his hand and pointed at the deceased. No, I don't believe he meant to do it at all and it's a quite horrible tragedy.
 
geezer said:
Firing from horseback is the same, the horse never flinches, or even twitches its ears.
Click to expand...

When I was 12 I tried firing my .22 pistol while sitting on my horse. When I fired, I'm gonna tell you he did more than twitch an ear.... I had a pretty good hang time before gravity took over and I tasted dirt...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top