Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





You ready? You look ready.
In the case of a single action revolver such as the one used in this incident, you’d need to pull the trigger to release the hammer if it was cocked. You can hold the hammer as you pull the trigger and then slowly lower it on a round, but that is a big no no. However, a long time ago that was the only way you could render a gun “safe” when cocked.

Modern guns have more advance systems in place to prevent accidental discharges. Searing/hammer blocks prevent hammer drops firing if the trigger wasn’t pulled. Those do not exist on period pieces such as a Colt Single Action.

Modern guns also have systems designed to lower the hammer on a live round which is know as a decocker. That could result in a discharge if the searing/hammer block mentioned above was defective, and it has been known to happen.

And of course truly modern guns (polymer based) don’t even have hammers. They use a firing pin that is known as a striker fire. But once again, there are safety blocks to prevent accidental discharges in events where triggers are not pulled (for instance, dropping a gun). And the only way to render them inert is to remove magazine, rack the slide to clear, and then pull the trigger on an empty chamber. Or depending on the manufacturer they may provide a decocker mechanism for take down.

Contrary to what Baldwin said it’s perfectly acceptable to dry fire (no round) a gun, and there are many cases in which you’d need to do it. Dry fire training for instance.
The only thing you can’t dry fire is rimfire calibers (such as .22) because it will indeed damage the firing mechanism.



For anyone who knows guns - I'm still wondering: is a hammer drop from just slightly less-than halfcocked (where halfcocked would be hammer's next locking position) enough to fire a bullet?
I believe that this is the key question. See the GIF I posted upthread that shows the release of a hammer without depressing the trigger. I believe that the answer to your question is that, yes, this is indeed possible.

I suspect that Mr. Baldwin may have been briefed by his lawyers to do this interview and to state this (whether or not the statement is true or false is a different question) in order to plant the seeds for the defense strategy, as follows:

  • Hutchins asked him to point the gun at her.
  • He partially pulled back the hammer, as she requested.
  • He did not pull the trigger.
  • He did release the hammer, which was not quite pulled back far enough to engage the half-cock.
  • When the hammer fell, it had enough force to ignite the primer.
By getting his assertion of "the facts" out to the public in advance of the trial, this lets the defense team frame the defense strategy in the court of public opinion before going to trial (and as much as juries are not supposed to poke around into facts, everyone has an internet connection, don't they?).

We should note, however, that there are some inconsistent elements emerging in the statements Mr. Baldwin is making to the public which could back to haunt him. He said to reporters at his roadside interview, for example, that Hutchins was his friend and he shamed the reporters for not knowing her name. In his more recent comments, however, he has stated that he just met her on this set. Also, when Baldwin claims that he "cocked" the gun in is follow up comment, this statement indicates hammer back, ready to fire. If his positive defense is going to be a "slip of the hammer" he is going to need to be careful in discussing the position of the hammer and whether or not it clicked into the half-cocked or fully cocked position.

P.S. If a hammer is fully cocked or halfcocked is there any way to get it back into closed position without pulling the trigger?
Only if the gun is defective. If his defense is going to be that the sear just released itself, that is going to be MUCH more difficult to prove in court. This claim will be open to empirical scrutiny (e.g., how single action revolvers are designed, how they actually function, and the condition of the gun in question). And if an examination of the gun shows that it is in proper working order, this could hang him.

Or is the method to hold the hammer with your thumb, pull the trigger, and lower the hammer gently back to closed position with the strength of your thumb?
You pull the trigger and gently lower the hammer. If your thumb slips, then BOOM! This danger is why, for example, Beretta would feature a mechanical decocker on their 92 model series of pistol (the gun Jon McClane uses in Die Hard and that Riggs uses in Lethal Weapon). Use the decocker and the hammer goes down with no risk of a boom. Old revolvers don't have this feature, so you have to point in a safe direction anytime you are operating the trigger (even to decock the weapon).



You ready? You look ready.
Good basic history of the half cock feature is a wiki away.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-cock

As for M9/92FS platform here’s a good write up of the decocker feature:

“The Beretta 92 decocking function is pretty nearly bulletproof. The firing pin is a multi-piece part and the decocking lever actually rotates the back portion of the firing pin by about 90 degrees, making it completely impossible for the hammer to strike it.“

So in order for one of those to discharge from the decocker being used is if the back portion that rotates broke, and the hammer block was also broke. It’s possible. But extremely rare.



This interview doesn’t make me see things much better for Baldwin.

He says he knows about safe gun handling, but then takes directions which result in unsafe gun handling. If he knew not to point it at someone then why is he letting someone direct him to point it in an unsafe direction?

The operability of the gun is inconsequential to the above.

Good point. He seems to think that what matters is that you don't pull the trigger when pointing a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot, right?



I think the defense strategy is to try to play it both ways as much as they can - splitting the difference and place him in the muddled middle (culpability falling through the cracks); He kind of pointed the gun at her a little bit, he sort of pulled back the hammer, he knew the rules but he was also following orders, he was a producer but not really in charge, etc. If this isn't the strategy, then he must be going against the advice of his attorneys to just keep his mouth shut (regardless of whether what he is saying is true). If I were his attorney, I would be begging him to shut up.



You ready? You look ready.
All I know is this interview begs more questions than it answers. Things are far muddier now, so you’re probably right about defense trying to get ahead of everything by stirring it up



Corax thanks for posting that gif of the gun. Question: in that gif if that gun was loaded could what the person is doing with the hammer cause it to fire?
More information appears to have emerged identifying the gun on the set as a Pietta reproduction of a Colt SAA. I've heard this from a few sources, however, I must emphasize that don't have inside baseball on any of this stuff. See the video below which offers skepticism of this particular reproduction revolver going off.


Here is another video that offers a rejoinder to Mr. Baldwin's claim.



Once again, I think a lot is going to depend on a professional examination of the actual gun that was involved in this incident. It must be stressed that different manufacturers produce different items, even when these items are "reproductions" of a standardized design, and the condition of a gun, regardless of design, can vary depending on assembly, use, maintenance, smithing, etc.



I now realize I know a little more about guns (well, six-shooters at least) than I thought.
I had a couple toy six shooters as a kid and they actually worked the same way - only difference is they didn't shoot bullets and were probably a lot lighter than real guns (but the half-cock / full-cock and trigger action were the same). I think the barrels spun as well.



I now realize I know a little more about guns (well, six-shooters at least) than I thought.
I had a couple toy six shooters as a kid and they actually worked the same way - only difference is they didn't shoot bullets and were probably a lot lighter than real guns (but the half-cock / full-cock and trigger action were the same). I think the barrels spun as well.

If the gun in question is indeed a Pietta reproduction, this news (for the time being) sounds very bad for Mr. Baldwin. That model has a safety notch, half-cock, and full cock position -- that gun is not going to fire without your finger on the trigger. The safety notch engages very early.



On the other hand, if this was some other Colt-style revolver, matters may be different. At least some Ruger Blackhawks, for example, do not feature a safety notch or half-cock position. These Ruger Blackhawks, however, have a safety transfer bar which prevents the firing pin from being engaged if the trigger is not pulled (e.g. the gun industry is an industry and they take pains to avoid class-action law suits).



If the gun is a Pietta reproduction, he's going to be in a tighter box as he is going to have to prove that the particular gun is defective (as this model will not fire with pulling the trigger). And if the gun is proved to be in good working order that will be really bad news.



It will be much better for his case (assuming he wasn't handed a loaded and broken gun, which is starting to assume a lot) if it turns out that the model he was handling will indeed fire with a partial pull of the hammer. That is, if it was "design not bug," he will not have to prove that there was anything "wrong" with this particular gun (apart from it being loaded).



Well, Baldwin just deleted his Twitter account.



https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021...lyna-hutchins/



This would suggest that his lawyers have finally got through to him, or perhaps that they want the focus of inquiry to be on the ABC interview. If it is the former, they're doing damage control after Alec's seemingly ill-advised interviews. If it is the latter it is perhaps the strategy of a big public statement to set the narrative (a friendly softball interview with George Stephanopoulos) and then deleting every stupid thing your client ever Tweeted.


I have the sneaking suspicion that his lawyers have been having some "Jerry MacGuire" moments with him, pleading for him to shut up "Help me help YOU!" and insisting that he not talk anymore.



That interview was so cringe. It was like watching a movie 'cause looks like he's acting.

Good videos about the gun:



__________________
"Some people just doesn't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance."



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
This is another good video from John Schneider about the difference between the sound of "click" vs. "bang", and Alec Baldwin's immediate reaction to what happened after the gun went off.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



You ready? You look ready.
This is another good video from John Schneider about the difference between the sound of "click" vs. "bang", and Alec Baldwin's immediate reaction to what happened after the gun went off.

And this is the real reason Baldwin went on national TV and said the things he said. No jury pool is going to go into this case clean. And I suspect that is the true motive. Hollywood is not know for accepting blame. It’s all about sowing the mitigating circumstances that result in probation and financial settlements for charges that would put the average citizen in jail.



And this is the real reason Baldwin went on national TV and said the things he said. No jury pool is going to go into this case clean. And I suspect that is the true motive. Hollywood is not know for accepting blame. It’s all about sowing the mitigating circumstances that result in probation and financial settlements for charges that would put the average citizen in jail.

Media outlets have the ability to engage in low-key jury tampering by muddying the waters containing potential jurors before a trial. The media is so ubiquitous and fast and when a story goes viral they all focus on one target, buzzing around incessantly. How do you get a fair trial in a high-profile case, especially if the media is leading the narrative for (Smollett, Baldwin) or against (Sandman, Rittenhouse) you? Just about all journalist is advocacy now, the "news" now operating at the level of Op-Ed pieces. Baldwin was gifted a softball interview from Stephanopoulos in which he could preframe the "facts" in the minds of the public well before a jury is ever selected.


Imagine you're a juror. You want to do your job and get on with your life. You're given the O.J. Simpson trial or Derek Chauvin trial. If you find the wrong way, there will be riots, and your life may be at risk. Say, is that MSNBC following jury bus? How the hell do you do your job?



This is a real problem. Everyone is connected to social media. Everyone talks to people connected to social media. How do you get unbiased/untampered/unmanipulated jury in a case like this?



The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...eath-gjpf9krrj

“The father of the cinematographer accidentally shot by Alec Baldwin insisted that the actor was “partially guilty” for his daughter’s death on set.

Anatoly Androsovych rejected Baldwin’s claim that he did not even pull the trigger to fire the fatal shot at Halyna Hutchins, 42, while rehearsing with a gun he was told was “cold”, meaning it contained no live rounds.

Androsovych had said shortly after the accident that he did not hold Baldwin responsible but blamed “the props people who handle the guns”.”



Look to the Amish.

Indeed, we almost need to have stochastic sequestering of citizens for 6 months to 12 months at a time to serve as potential jurors on such cases. Maybe there is some water-bubble city we could send them too or some renovated cave. Where is the villain's lair when you need one.



My inclination for most of this has been to apologize for Baldwin a bit, but I've been genuinely surprised to hear other movie stars come out and criticize him so openly on this.

Sadly this seems very much like one of those situations where things sound worse and worse the more that comes out about it. Makes me wonder how many people are being careless industry wide but, like most people being careless in most situations, it just doesn't result in tragedy and so continues until something awful like this happens.