Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Which would fully put the blame on the woman (forgot her name) who was the armorer on the set & who they had doing props also.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Not necessarily.

pounced on that like a kitty-ca....WAIT JUST A MINUTE!

__________________
"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

Oh, boy, you can go all night!

This debate regarding the innocence or criminal guilt of Alec Baldwinregarding his actions as an actor in the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins...will be resolved one way or another....By if Alec Baldwin is charged and found guilty of negligent manslaughter...Or if he's not charged criminally.

That won't decide the 'he should've, could've done' stuff. It won't decide what film crews should do in the future either. But most of us are talking about if Baldwin is criminally responsible? or not? and that will be decided by the courts.

That's a bit of a cheat, I think. People here are sincerely expressing their belief that Baldwin did not wrong, morally. That's part of the reason that the debate has been so heated. People deeply feel it would be unfair to hold him responsible for such expertise, as it would allegedly be akin to holding him responsible for a pyrotechnics accident on the set (Not his job!). And it is a nice question.



The courts will decide the issue, true. But if we should stand mute until the court decides, then no one should be posting anything in this thread, a checkmate for both sides. And yet evidence has emerged suggesting the Baldwin may have had moral and legal responsibility in this case (depending on how you interpret Clooney).

Unrelated, but it seems related somehow. https://www.bolde.com/webcam-model-s...vgina-handgun/

Horrible!
(Not you or the post, just the incident itself.)

The casual contempt that people show for weapons handling is quite staggering. God help us if power tool memes ever start going viral.

Baldwin claims gun fired itself, somehow?



https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/01/alec...tographer.html

Is it possible the trigger was just a really sensitive hair trigger and a slight shake could cause it to pull back?

In a more interesting, possibly more relevant, update, a search warrant was released describing someone listed as an "armorer mentor" named Seth Kenney (who has denied having this position, calling his listing in the production credits "a mistake").

I suppose it's a mighty good question whether or not this "reloaded ammunition" would ever be considered safe for a movie set. I have no idea what reloaded ammunition looks like, or whether Hannah Reed knew what it looks like, but I have to imagine that if the prop manager could tell live ammo by seeing if they "rattle" or not, then the professional armorer should be able to do the same. So the next question is how did these reloaded bullets get mixed in with the rounds provided by Seth Kenney? Reed's father, Thell Reed, may hold the clue.

Again, I'm not familiar enough with reloaded ammo to know the legality around their use or the standards with which they're reassembled. It seems used ammunition would be pretty unreliable from a safety standpoint, and create a ballistic nightmare in tracing them afterwards. Also it's not clear yet whether or not Kenney was ever actually under contract with the production to provide ammo or hired by Reed personally, still making Reed ultimately responsible if she brought them to the set and loaded them into the weapon, even if she were unqualified to identify them. And I would be curious why Thell wouldn't warn her daughter off of getting her supply from a guy who just kinda stole a bunch of bullets from him. And "Billy Ray"? What's his last name? Vanderlay?

I don't know what to think... about the media I mean.

They turn something like this into a "production" complete with previews, teasers and cliff hangers! The clip from ABC really reads like a soap-opera preview (find out who shot J.R.!) or movie trailer or the end of an old movie serial complete with questions where you have to wait until the next episode to get the answers!

So, if he didn't point or pull the trigger then what DID happen?... oh... tune in tomorrow (same Bat-time, same Bat-channel).

It's kind of disgusting the way they are exploiting a horrific real tragedy for ratings.

Anyone watch the interview? (I think it was tonight.)

For those of us who didn't, any answers as to what (Baldwin thinks) DID happen?

Apparently, he thinks that the gun pulled back its own hammer and then depressed it's own trigger. That's not just malfunction. That's demonic possession.



NOTE: Saw a snippet where he said he would never point a gun at a person and pull a trigger. If true, this still breaks the 4 Rules (never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy). Unless that is, he announces that he didn't point the gun either.

George Stephanopoulos: Do you feel guilt?

Alec Baldwin: No. No I feel that there is, I feel that someone is responsible for what happened and I can’t say who that is, but I know it’s not me.

Alec Baldwin: I might have killed myself if I thought I was responsible, and I don’t say that lightly.

In short,

• No lesson learned.
• No responsibility taken.
• No remorse shown.
• And only looking for cameras to "prove" to the court of public opinion that he's a victim.

So... it sounds like a lot of media build up for nothing?
No guesses, no speculation on Baldwin's part as to what actually happened?
Did Stephanopoulos even ask what Baldwin thought had really happened?

You have two perform two actions to fire a single action revolver. '

1. You have to pull the hammer back (this operation usually performed with the thumb).
2. You have to depress the trigger (this operation typically conducted with the index finger).

Baldwin's claim that the gun just went off is implausible because an antique gun isn't like a Glock with a bullet in the chamber.

If as you suggest, he cocked the hammer, then he made the gun ready to fire. Cocking the hammer on an old revolver is basically saying, "I'm ready to rock and roll!" because these guns have light single-action triggers. Thus, cocking the hammer and then pointing the gun at Halyna Hutchins is still gross negligence, at best.

And if a mere shake did make it go off, then the gun would have had to have been mechanically unsound (e.g., a dangerously worn sear). However, it is rather easy to confirm the condition of a firearm by having it inspected by a gunsmith. It is unlikely that the gun was damaged in this manner. If it is, however, damaged in this manner, this is a fact which can be easily settled. And if Baldwin keeps blaming the gun, don't be surprised if the gun's condition is inspected at trial.

The most likely scenario is that he cocked the hammer and depressed the trigger while pointing the gun at Halyna Hutchins.

Caveats:

A period SAA revolver does not have a safety transfer bar. The firing pin rests adjacent to the primer. It is, therefore, possible hit an old revolver with a block of wood or hammer and make it go off by causing the firing pin to connect with the primer. This is why cowboys only loaded 5 bullets into these guns (they call them six shooters, but they only loaded five). For carry, they would have the hammer rest on an empty chamber to prevent an accidental discharge.

You can partially pull back the hammer over a loaded chamber and release it and have it strike the primer with enough force to cause a round to go off. And you can do this without depressing the trigger, but this is unlikely, because when you pull back the trigger it sets to half-cock, before it goes to being fully cocked. My guess is that he was depressing the trigger the whole time (without realizing it) and that when he released the hammer he got a surprise "bang!"

Yes, it is possible that Baldwin could have negligently pointed the gun at Halyna Hutchins without pulling the trigger. However, the strong probability is that he cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger.

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

It looks like regular ammo. Reloaded ammunition is real ammunition that looks like factory ammunition. If you can recognize a real bullet and realize that a real bullet is dangerous, then you know everything you need to know about a reloaded bullet (i.e., it's a real bullet).

You can generally tell the difference by looking at the box (if the ammo came in a box). A sign that ammo is reloaded is if the brass is not perfectly shiny coming out of the box. Dull brass is a sign (not a perfect indicator) of a possible factory reload.

Reloads do not rattle more or less than factory loads. If you see that a cartridge has a primer and a bullet, that's all you need to know.

No, the only question is how "real" bullets got mixed in. Reloaded cartridges are as "real" as factor cartridges. The question is how live rounds got into the mix. There is no special danger posed by reloads.

Reloaded ammo is just ammo. Law enforcement, hunters, and sport shooters shoot reloaded ammunition every day. It is no more or less legal than factory ammunition. Reloaded ammo is just ammo.

If it wasn't safe, you would not be able to by reloaded ammunition at gun stores from manufacturers like Black Hills.

Reloaded ammo is as a safe as the person or company doing the reloading. If you wouldn't trust cousin' Bubba to work on your transmission, you might think twice about letting him reload your ammunition. If you're not an idiot, you're as safe as houses. If you are an idiot (or use ammo reloaded by Bubba), you can have a gun explode in your hand.

No more so than factory ammunition. Crime scene ballistic analysis attempts to make a connection between the bullet and the gun (showing that the person who owns the gun, fired the bullet that was recovered). A fresh bullet loaded onto a recycled cartridge with a fresh primer is still going to have the same unique pattern left on it by the rifling of the gun that fired it (made by the bullet engaging with lands and groves to cause the bullet to spin and stabilize). It will just as easy to connect that bullet to the gun as with a factory load.

Let's not create a boogeyman that doesn't exist.

Oh yes, I see I forgot this was a Western movie setting, and thus single action revolvers. However, what if the gun was already cocked before Baldwin ever picked it up? Is that a possibility?