Reply With Quote
people dont kill people, guns kill people.
I'm not an expert but another article says it was a "... long Colt 45 revolver". It's hard to imagine a revolver going off without the trigger being pulled.
people dont kill people, guns kill people.
A single action that's already ed (bend over etc) could discharge if the gun is old and the mechanism is worn, simply by the bump encountered by handing it off.
Well yeah...but it'd have to be ed. So you're saying the gun was ed , Baldwin didn't notice (and anyone handing him the gun didn't notice) but Alec also didn't pull the trigger, and the mechanism failed just when he happened to point it at someone?
His defense seems exactly like what an attorney would advise someone to say.
He’s a typical Hollywood narcissist and is making this about him. I understand he’s in CYA mode but why even do the interview?
To get out in front of it
Those old Colt single actions (and their newer clones) actually can be fired without them being ed or the trigger being pulled. At rest, the firing pin is in contact with the primer of one of the cartridges if fully loaded. These guns were not drop safe, a light bump on the back of the hammer can make them go off. That's why it's always best practice to load them up with 5 rounds instead of 6, with the hammer resting on an empty chamber.
I'm not saying that's what happened though.
That's interesting. Didn't know that. Not that it comes into play in this case like you said. Picking up and aiming a gun shouldn't have been enough force for the firing pin to ignite the primer.
In his first major interview since being involved in a fatal shooting on the set of his latest movie, Alec Baldwin made a surprising new claim about his actions that day.
Baldwin said the gun went off without him ever actually pulling its trigger.
“Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled,” he told ABC News. “I didn’t pull the trigger.”
At first glance, this sounds far-fetched. It is exceedingly rare for a gun to fire without the trigger being depressed. Modern firearms, even replicas of antique guns, have safeties specifically designed to prevent them from firing without the trigger being pulled. It only really happens when the gun’s firing mechanism is damaged, or there is a significant design flaw.
That’s why most gun owners and firearms safety trainers are highly skeptical of any claim a gun just “went off” absent user error.
In Baldwin’s case, though, the claim is at least somewhat more believable. That’s because the gun involved is more prone to firing without the trigger being pulled. And, even though it’s a modern replica of an antique design, it’s possible it did not include modern safety devices.
Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza identified the gun used in the shooting as a modern Pietta replica of a single-action army revolver. Those guns can be bought either with a transfer bar that makes it impossible for the firing pin to strike the primer unless the trigger is pulled or without one. Often, enthusiasts and collectors prefer the models without modern safety devices because it’s more authentic and perfectly safe when handled properly.
A single-action revolver usually requires the hammer to be manually ed, and the trigger be pulled for a shot to be fired. That’s why it’s referred to as a single-action: because the trigger performs just one action. It drops the hammer. In a double-action revolver, on the other hand, the trigger can both and release the hammer.
However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being ed or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.
This is why the “cowboy load” was developed. When carrying an old-style single-action revolver, it’s best practice to leave the chamber underneath the hammer unloaded. That way, a jolt can’t unintentionally set off a round.
None of that means Baldwin’s story is entirely accurate. It’s not clear if drawing a gun from a holster in this state would be enough to set it off. It still seems more plausible Baldwin pulled the trigger. But, the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first.
Police should be able to determine what kind of firing mechanism the gun in question has and whether it could have fired in the way Baldwin described. However, even if the gun did go off without the trigger being pulled, it doesn’t negate the other negligence that contributed to the deadly shooting.
There is a reason the basic gun safety rules are redundant. You’re never supposed to put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire. You’re never supposed to assume a gun is unloaded. You’re never supposed to point a gun at anything you don’t want to shoot.
Had they all been followed, it is unlikely this shooting would have turned deadly. But, as the numerous prior negligent discharges on set and Baldwin’s other comments reveal, basic safety rules were not followed.
“I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them,” Baldwin said.
That sentence went on six words too long. Even on a movie set, you shouldn’t be pointing a gun at anyone. Most sets have protocols in place to avoid scenarios like that. Most also have protocols to ensure a gun is never loaded with any round it isn’t supposed to be. And most would never allow live ammunition on set while filming.
There was a string of negligent acts that led to the death of a colleague, wife, and mother. Even if Baldwin never pulled the trigger, a cascade of avoidable mistakes was necessary for this tragedy to unfold. There remains plenty of blame to go around.
UPDATE 12-2-2021 9:33 PM: Alec Baldwin offered further details on how the deadly shooting occurred in the full ABC News interview. Baldwin claims he acted at the direction of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when he accidentally shot and killed her.
“I the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’” Baldwin told ABC. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”
This version of events is even more difficult to square with the idea that Baldwin never pulled the trigger.
When the hammer is pulled back on a single-action revolver a series of sears on engaged which prevent it from moving back towards the chamber without the trigger being depressed. There are scenarios where the gun might be able to fire after the hammer is pulled back but without the trigger being pulled. However, they’re even more unlikely than a misfire with the hammer all the way down.
The first is that Baldwin managed to pull the hammer back far enough that releasing created a strong enough strike against the primer to set it off, but not far enough to engage the sear at quarter or half . That is, frankly, implausible.
The next possibility is a physical defect with the gun. The sears could have been so worn out they don’t catch the hammer as Baldwin manipulates it. But, that’s not likely either since it would be clear to anyone who handled the gun that it was broken.
What seems far more likely is Baldwin kept the trigger depressed as he pulled the hammer back. Then, when he released the hammer, the trigger kept the sears out of the way, and the gun fired. Perhaps Baldwin is making some kind of semantic argument about pulling a trigger rather than keeping it depressed while ing the hammer, but that’s a distinction without a difference.
The most likely scenario remains that Baldwin had his finger on the trigger when the gun fired. His full comments make that even more likely.
https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-a...g-the-trigger/
^ seems to be a lot of stereotyping and bullyling of the chubby gun girl.
Her atty released a time frame and some possiblities that seem far more reasonable and believable then Baldwin and his defense liarwyer are spinning.
Sure sounds possible that someone with ill intent planted the live rounds between 11 am and 1.
Merely floating this as a possibility.
Baldwin or Dave Halls got rebuffed in advances towards Halyna.
I'm saying it could have been.
Doing the interview was a career move, not a legal one. He wanted to win back some of his audience and he will. It might cost him in court but I highly doubt it.
LMAO I can't wait until AB goes to "pound you in the ass" prison. Let's hope it comes to this because he's no Kenosha Kid tbh; he's a raging lunatic like most re ed "progressives".
LOL, you know damn well he's not going to prison. It took 200 women to come out against Bill Cosby. R. Kelly was allowed to rape and live Fabb's dreams of consequence-free pedophilia for almost 25 years after it was known he was bagging 15 year olds on the regular. OJ cut off his wife's head and some innocent waiter and despite all the physical evidence, he had enough clout and cash to beat the rap. Vince Neil killed a person and did 30 days in the can.
This is Murica. Rich people can go to jail, but rich and famous people don't.
That's probably the case even with AB but none of those mentioned did an incriminating interview right after their debacle and worse as the days have gone on.
Hey at least Smollet will get all the he ever wanted behind bars. Now let's hope the same goes for Baldwin.
Lol at koriwhat calling anyone else a "raging lunatic"
If there was criminal negligence, it probably won't settle on Alec other than him being the producer.
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust’ film shooting (msn.com)
So, with his multi millions to hire defense liarwyers....get ready for a 5 year dog n pony show?
charges dropped
Hopefully, since they're going to start "production" again and not "shooting", someone loads a "prop" gun with some real lead and blasts that puto AB away for good!
Also per CNN: “As part of a wrongful death settlement between Matthew Hutchins, the widower of Halyna Hutchins, Baldwin and “Rust” producers, production on the film has resumed. Matthew Hutchins is now serving as an executive producer on the project.“
angry and unstable poster wishes death on somebody he doesnt know because he made fun of trump
Still crying you ing pussy? Boohoo
Btw, AB making fun of Trump has nothing to do with the disdain I have for elitest Hollyweird types. Your TDS is so out of this world that's all you see. You also think men can be women so taking your word on anything is asinine.
wtf they're still making the movie? It's gonna bomb hard thanks to crap press
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
