Alec Baldwin shoots and kills film crew member, injures another 'didnt know it was loaded'

Flashpoint said:
I agree, but I think you made two unintentional mistakes. It sounds plausible to me.
Click to expand...
That's what i assumed was meant.
seems people zero in on that trigger in the first place. they they pull back the hammer, they gotta tighten up the other fingers on the grip and the trigger finger goes along with it. accidentally let the hammer slip, and it's the same thing as messing up a decock and popping one off
 
Baldwin is absolutely a douche of the highest order. Self-serving, remorseless prick. Obviously shares blame for what happened.

That said, I would not be at all surprised if the live round was intentionally loaded by some disgruntled crew member that had his panties in a twist over something.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
I think he cocked gun, pointed at lady, then pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

I think him having the gun in his hand makes him responsible for everything that happened involving the gun in his hand.

Even if it was an honest Accidental Discharge (as opposed to a Negligent Discharge), the person with the gun in their possession is responsible for what happens before, during, and after the event.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I think him having the gun in his hand makes him responsible for everything that happened involving the gun in his hand.

Even if it was an honest Accidental Discharge (as opposed to a Negligent Discharge), the person with the gun in their possession is responsible for what happens before, during, and after the event.
Click to expand...
Imagine this awful thing happening to one of us…

“Hey guys, what do you think? @RetiredUSNChief handed me a gun, told me it was cold and I killed someone with it. I have no responsibility, right?”
 
This goes way beyond Alex B was holding the revolver and someone was shot. This was Alex's show, his production. He is ultimately responsible for the whole thing devolving into an unsafe s***show. The union guys left because safety protocols weren't being followed. There should not have been any live ammo near the set. Period.

If this is properly investigated and prosecuted Alex is in deep doo-doo.
 
Krusty said:
This was Alex's show, his production.
Click to expand...
He even tried denying this aspect in the interview. He essentially said he was the “creative” producer, that someone else, another producer, was actually in charge of hiring, logistics, etc.
 
Tim said:
He even tried denying this aspect in the interview. He essentially said he was the “creative” producer, that someone else, another producer, was actually in charge of hiring, logistics, etc.
Click to expand...

That sounds right - Baldwin would have fun with the storyline and let somebody else deal with the icky details of running a movie set.
 
GeorgeBush said:
The gun had a transfer bar, yes?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Pietta's 1873 model has had a transfer bar system since at least 2014 (I found it shown in a SHOT Show video from January 2014), although I don't know when Pietta first used the system. Older Piettas have the firing pin on the hammer.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Maybe. Pietta's 1873 model has had a transfer bar system since at least 2014 (I found it shown in a SHOT Show video from January 2014), although I don't know when Pietta first used the system. Older Piettas have the firing pin on the hammer.
Click to expand...
did somebody disable the half cock?
i'd honestly be surprised if he was able to pull the hammer back far enough, get the cylinder aligned so as not to blow the gun up, was NOT touching the trigger when he let the hammer slip, and somehow had halfcock fail to catch the hammer when it slips.
I'm no expert on SA revolvers... but i feel all of those things would have to happen at once - but that would still not absolve him of pointing it at 2 people when screwing around with it.
 
Because we are dealing with a bunch of Hollywood dipshit morons: we can assume even a perfectly serviceable pistol/revo is going to be in the hands of an incompetent idiot. In view of that we can conclude that gun mechanics don’t matter much. Put a round in a gun and these delta bravos will shoot somebody.
So the meat of the meal is how the live round found it’s way into the gun.

They always find their way into the gun. History has shown us this.
And hence the four rules were created.

But these people are apparently going to ignore those rules and use real guns for this, but pretend like they aren’t real guns. They do this with a lot of stuff not even related to guns. Hollywood is all about pretending. It’s what they do. In movies and in life. There’s what I feel is an obvious solution. Painfully obvious.
Don’t use REAL GUNS AND PRETEND THEY ARE NOT REAL GUNS BY USING THE WORD “PROPS”.

Imagine if you went to the zoo and they took down all the fences around the lion cages and said “its all good. They’re stuffed animals. They’re safe I promise”. Saying it doesn’t make it true. They are indeed real effing lions. No matter what you want them to be.

This whole thing is so stupid. Use a gun that it is impossible to shoot a projectile out of. Period full stop. Do this and this stuff will never happen. Like if you built a car with no engine: you couldn’t run over a parade of people with it. But you could with a real car, even if you called it a “prop”.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
did somebody disable the half cock?
i'd honestly be surprised if he was able to pull the hammer back far enough, get the cylinder aligned so as not to blow the gun up, was NOT touching the trigger when he let the hammer slip, and somehow had halfcock fail to catch the hammer when it slips.
I'm no expert on SA revolvers... but i feel all of those things would have to happen at once - but that would still not absolve him of pointing it at 2 people when screwing around with it.
Click to expand...

The hammer at half cock is the loading position.
 
Glocker said:
This….
Click to expand...
Or,
Maybe this:
Do not be a rabid anti gun and freedom advocate (in a country that was LITERALLY founded on guns and freedom) who insists that you know better than the legal geniuses who created the country and also insist that you are a gun expert except for that one time…
 
Glocker said:
Were they literally in the old west? Is AB literally a cowboy? It’s pretend and it’s a make believe story. Use a pretend gun and CGI and Halyna Hutchins wouldn’t LITERALLY wouldn’t be dead..this has nothing to do with our founding
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I utterly disagree.
This country was founded on freedom and guns.
Alec Baldwin is worthless (see Team America) and would happily trade away all of our gun rights to further his communist socialist agenda because he thinks he knows better than you what is best for all of us. Typical hollyweird delusions- thinks that because they are good at make believe they actually have some value.
 
Spartan01 said:
Respectfully, I utterly disagree.
This country was founded on freedom and guns.
Click to expand...
I have no desire to see Team America. No more than my desire to have ever seen Rust. Not really a pretend type of guy, couldn’t even tell you the most recent movie I have seen.Truth is I don’t think most Americans give a rat’s ass what people in Hollywood think or do. Their numbers are few, ours are many.

I was taught that this country was founded in God, family, and free will. The gun was but a tool along with the sabre, pitchfork, and scythe with which brave men pursued an honorable endeavor . The result was a country based in freedom the likes of which has yet to be equaled. Please feel free to disagree.
 
From a recent, Vanity Fair article:

That caught the attention of D.A. Carmack-Altwies. “I didn’t know too much about guns, certainly not about 1850s-era revolvers. So when I first heard that, I was like, ‘Oh, that’s crazy,’ ” she says.

“One of the investigators in my office happens to have a very old type revolver, and so he brought it, at my request, so that we could look at it and see if that was at all possible,” she says.

They cleared a room in the office, and two investigators inspected the gun—the one who had supplied it, then a second officer who verified that it was empty. “Then they visually showed me,” says Carmack-Altwies. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”
 
SquirrelHunter2291 said:
“One of the investigators in my office happens to have a very old type revolver, and so he brought it, at my request, so that we could look at it and see if that was at all possible,” she says.

They cleared a room in the office, and two investigators inspected the gun—the one who had supplied it, then a second officer who verified that it was empty. “Then they visually showed me,” says Carmack-Altwies. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”
Click to expand...
all old style revolvers work the same.
also, i have serious questions about their investigation techniques...

bending over backward to defend our betters.
 
SquirrelHunter2291 said:
From a recent, Vanity Fair article:

They cleared a room in the office, and two investigators inspected the gun—the one who had supplied it, then a second officer who verified that it was empty. “Then they visually showed me,” says Carmack-Altwies. “You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.”
Click to expand...

Somebody is trying very, very hard to convince the D.A. that the shooting is not Baldwin's fault.
 
rdinatal said:
Who pulled the hammer back? Casper...
Click to expand...

It's about misdirection. Focus attention on Baldwin claiming he did not pull the trigger and then demonstrate that the hammer could fall without pulling the trigger.
"Look! See! The hammer fell without pulling the trigger, just like Baldwin said."
But keep the focus away from the question of who pulled the hammer back. All somebody has to do is get the DA's attention focused on a shiny object and persuade her that Baldwin didn't really do anything.
 
Prosecution opening remarks- The defense is going to try to convince you that negligently pulling back a hammer and letting it go is somehow less deadly than correctly pulling back a hammer and then negligently pulling the trigger. I am not going to waste your time hashing out this minutia with them throughout the trial. I will remind you of all of this again in my closing arguments when we determine that a woman is still dead because Mr. Baldwin negligently pointed a firearm at her and then negligently discharged that firearm into her person.
 
Ferrisfan said:
Prosecution opening remarks- The defense is going to try to convince you that negligently pulling back a hammer and letting it go is somehow less deadly than correctly pulling back a hammer and then negligently pulling the trigger. I am not going to waste your time hashing out this minutia with them throughout the trial. I will remind you of all of this again in my closing arguments when we determine that a woman is still dead because Mr. Baldwin negligently pointed a firearm at her and then negligently discharged that firearm into her person.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors are at their best when they are knowledgeable about the topics in a case. @Ferrisfan would be a good prosecutor for this case; the actual DA, possibly not so much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom