Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
to simplify the re: reloaded ammo stuff...
think of that small, aluminum foil tray that sometimes comes with Mexican takeout orders. The store put food in the container, sealed it, then sold you the package. You take it home, use the food contents then maybe you decide to keep the tray to recycle as storage for other food or leftovers. That's it. You just recycle the case with the remaining ingredients you have that can be cheaper to buy in bulk rather than premade from the store each time you want to eat.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



What I'm getting from all this (so far) is there is no way Baldwin could NOT have pulled the trigger and NOT have pointed the gun at the lady but still killed her... UNLESS the gun (which fired at less-than halfcocked position, where the hammer's slipping out from under one's thumb could cause the gun to shoot without pressing the trigger) shot a bullet that ricocheted.

Unless the bullet ricocheted, then it seems he would have had to be pointing it at her under any circumstances where the hammer fell and made the gun go off.

I'm pretty sure ballistics can determine if someone was hit by a bullet that ricocheted or a straight shot... and I haven't seen any reports that say she was killed by a ricochet.



"Baldwin claims gun fired itself."

I can't believe no one has said this yet: BUT it's highly, highly provably Baldwin made that claim on advice from his lawyer. Of course the gun can't fire itself, but it helps put Badwin in a better line of defense from civil lawsuits.



Wasn't the gun hundreds of years old? Things malfunction.
We don't know how old the gun is or what its condition was when it discharged. Guns are very durable, simple, machines. An old gun can turn out to be in excellent order. A new gun that has been abused can be in terrible condition.

The hammer should NOT drop if the hammer drawn to half-cock (and no finger on the trigger), but if he did not quite draw it to half-cock, something like this might have happened






Again, I think the condition of the weapon is going to matter crucially given Baldwin's claims.

Whoever brought in this bullet and put it in the chamber should feel guilty.
True. You know else should feel guilty? Alec Baldwin. And yet he has denied any and all responsibility for his actions.



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?
I was wondering the same thing.
A less-than halfcocked hammer dropping doesn't seem to be enough force to ignite the bullet. But I know very little about guns, so I don't know.



This is not substantively different from the question of whether factor ammunition would ever be considered safe for a movie set.
Coitus etiam.



We've already argued every possible angle/abstract argument of culpability and responsibility. It is pointless to continue to do so. It's only happening because people, as they do with any long thread, like to drop in, skim (if that) and drop their two cents in, at which point everyone rushes to repeat their position for the umpteenth time.

This thread, going forward, should contain only news updates or, perhaps, new discussions resulting from those updates. If it continues to repeat the same arguments and go through the same motions it'll simply be closed.



This thread, going forward, should contain only news updates or, perhaps, new discussions resulting from those updates. If it continues to repeat the same arguments and go through the same motions it'll simply be closed.
Did and done, thanks. Surprised no one else did, frankly.



The transcript of the interview is available here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ing-transcript

We should note that the central stasis of the debate about Mr. Baldwin's personal responsibility has shifted. Our original controversy was about whether Mr. Baldwin broke rules of safe handling and about whether the relevant rule set was local (industry rules) or global (the rules that apply to hunters, sport shooters, collectors, cops, etc.). Baldwin's recent comments have offered a positive defense (his public comments can and will be applicable to him in court) which shifts the question to that of the functionality of the gun itself. In short, we were exclusively discussing whether this was a negligent discharge and now we're discussing whether this was, at least in part, an accidental discharge.

By his own comments in this interview, Baldwin has acknowledged that safe-handling rules were known to him and respected by him. Going forward, this will limit his ability to credibly claim that he was just handed "cold gun" and cannot be blamed for anything that happened downstream of that hand-off. He now claims that he did not pull the trigger, which will throw scrutiny on the condition of the weapon itself.

No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never. Never. That was the training that I had. You don’t point a gun at me and pull the trigger. On day one of my instruction in this business, people said to me, “Never take a gun and go click, click, click, click, click. Because even though it’s incremental, you damage the firing pin on the gun if you do that, don’t do that.”
If the gun is inspected and found to be defective, this will certainly help him. At this point, it obvious that experts will need to assess the functionality of the gun at trial as the gun is literally being blamed.

In addition, Mr. Baldwin is asserting that Hutchins told him to point the weapon at her and handle it in a certain way, which shifts the blame (rightly or wrongly) to the victim. So blame has been shifted to both the firearm and the decedant. If his lawyers did not carefully brief him to say this, he is potentially skating out onto thin ice.

Alec Baldwin : (01:36)
This is a marking rehearsal where I’m going to show her, she’s standing next to the camera. She’s like this, you are me. She’s got a monitor here. The camera is here filming that way. She takes a monitor that is his monitor the operator and turns it toward her. It swivels and she says to me, “Hold the gun lower, go to your right. Okay, right there. All right, do that. Now, show it a little bit lower.” And she’s getting me to position the gun. Everything is in her direction. She’s guiding me through how she wants me to hold the gun for this angle. And I draw the gun out and I find a mark, I draw the gun out, cut. And what’s really urgent is the gun wasn’t meant to be fired in that angle.


George Stephanopoulos: (02:13)
So if you’re shooting directly into the camera lens, you’re not aiming.


Alec Baldwin : (02:17)
I’m not shooting into the camera lens, I’m shooting just off.


George Stephanopoulos: (02:19)
Just off?


Alec Baldwin : (02:20)
Right. In her direction. I’m holding the gun where she told me to hold it, which ended up being aimed right below her armpit is what I was told. I don’t know. This was a completely incidental shot, an angle that may not have ended up in the film at all, but we kept doing this. So then I said to her, “Now in this scene, I’m going to the gun.” And I said, “Do you want to see that?” And she said, “Yes.” So I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I’m not going to pull the trigger.


Alec Baldwin : (02:45)
I said, “Do you see that?” She goes, “Well, just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that.” And I cock the gun, I go, “Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that? 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.
That last statement may prove crucial to his defense. He claims that he cocked the gun. This means pulling the hammer back to a point where gun clicks into the engagement of the sear. If he did this and if he did not pull the trigger, then the only way the gun could go off would be if the gun was broken. And (again) this means that his claim "Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled, I didn’t pull the trigger" is going to have to be proved by establishing that the gun was not in good working order.



That's not an update, is it?



The transcript and commentary on legal implications? Seems pretty news-focused to me. Definitely doesn't seem to be a totally pointless relitigation of old arguments like I was talking about above.

Wasn't soliciting help policing this, though.



The trick is not minding
The transcript of the interview is available here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ing-transcript

We should note that the central stasis of the debate about Mr. Baldwin's personal responsibility has shifted. Our original controversy was about whether Mr. Baldwin broke rules of safe handling and about whether the relevant rule set was local (industry rules) or global (the rules that apply to hunters, sport shooters, collectors, cops, etc.). Baldwin's recent comments have offered a positive defense (his public comments can and will be applicable to him in court) which shifts the question to that of the functionality of the gun itself. In short, we were exclusively discussing whether this was a negligent discharge and now we're discussing whether this was, at least in part, an accidental discharge.

By his own comments in this interview, Baldwin has acknowledged that safe-handling rules were known to him and respected by him. Going forward, this will limit his ability to credibly claim that he was just handed "cold gun" and cannot be blamed for anything that happened downstream of that hand-off. He now claims that he did not pull the trigger, which will through scrutiny on the condition of the weapon itself.

If the gun is inspected and found to be defective, this will certainly help him. At this point, it obvious that experts will need to assess the functionality of the gun at trial as the gun is literally being blamed.

In addition, Mr. Baldwin is asserting that Hutchins told him to point the weapon at her and handle it in a certain way, which shifts the blame (rightly or wrongly) to the victim. So blame has been shifted to both the firearm and the decedant. If his lawyers did not carefully brief him to say this, he is potentially skating out onto thin ice.

That last statement may prove crucial to his defense. He claims that he cocked the gun. This means pulling the hammer back to a point where gun clicks into the engagement of the sear. If he did this and if he did not pull the trigger, then the only way the gun could go off would be if the gun was broken. And (again) this means that his claim "Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled, I didn’t pull the trigger" is going to have to be proved by establishing that the gun was not in good working order.
The more I have read, taken with the above, the more I’m sure more could have been done to prevent this, but blame doesn’t solely lay with Baldwin, if any. It’s evident there were many mitigating factors to this, and I’m sure more will come to light as the investigation continues.



You ready? You look ready.
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.



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?

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? 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?