Recently, I noted the curious scene of actor Alec Baldwin insisting with reporters that he has been given clear legal instructions not to discuss the shooting of Halyna Hutchins at the set of the movie “Rust” . . . and then making detailed statements about the shooting. Now, with an ongoing criminal investigation and various civil lawsuits expected to be filed, Baldwin has given a detailed statement to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, including a surprising claim that he never pointed the gun or pulled the trigger. That interview may be one of his most watched scenes, particularly if he is charged criminally or sued civilly.[Update: Santa Fe’s Democrat D.A. Mary Carmack-Altwies has stated that it is possible that Baldwin didn’t pull the trigger on the gun].
In the interview, Baldwin clearly and expressly denies ever pulling the trigger or even pointing the gun at Hutchins: “The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger. I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger on them, never.”
That is a bold statement to be sure and it locks in Baldwin’s defense for better or worse. It would seem that he will be arguing that the gun discharged on its own. As an antique Colt 45, it may be argued that the weapon discharged without the conscious pulling of the trigger. That would make the gun defective. Baldwin also added “Someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet that wasn’t even supposed to be on the property.”
As noted earlier, the problem is that Baldwin was not just an actor but a producer on the set. He was arguably responsible for the set itself and the props.
What is most striking about the new claim is that it is subject to physical testing and even a demonstrative exhibit before the jury. If experts report that the gun did not have a “hair trigger” or some defect, it would greatly erode Baldwin’s credibility. It is very unlikely that his counsel has had access to the gun or even any film evidence from the scene. Notably, however, they do have the statement of an assistant director that he thought the shooting was a “misfire.”
Moreover, I am surprised that Baldwin claims that he would never point even a prop gun at someone and pull the trigger. Given his many shooting scenes, that would be disprovable.
The defense certainly could argue that, as an actor, Baldwin is unfamiliar with guns and did not “mean to pull the trigger.” However, this interview locks him into an absolute denial of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. That is a considerable risk when the investigation is not complete and Baldwin’s counsel does not know what the forensic and eyewitness testimony will say.
Baldwin has also called for police officers to be assigned to movie sets to control the use of prop guns — a remarkably dim proposal. Police departments are not designed to be prop managers for Hollywood.
Baldwin’s worlds — cinematic and actual — appear to be merging in this scandal. In The Hunt for Red October, Baldwin (as Jack Ryan) objected “I don’t react well to bullets.” This is not a particularly good reaction to the investigation into this shooting. The police have not issued a report on how this bullet found its way to the site or how it was discharged. Pending the release of such evidence, Baldwin’s decision to give an interview on the details of the incident was highly ill-advised.
Joe Biden should sell his own blue caps that say RAGA: Ruin American Greatness Again.
The people who wear them can be called Ragamuffins.
Alec Baldwin on firearm handling, “I am not responsible.”
Feminazis on abortion, “We are not responsible.”
These are statements of fact.
These are extremely irresponsible people.
_________________________________
On abortion:
And now we fully grasp the profundity, cogency and nature of responsibility.
That one is egocentric and reckless, does not absolve one of her obligation and duty.
The singularly important act human beings can undertake is the perpetuation of the species.
The survivors of World War III will know that well by orders of magnitude.
I wonder when Alec will resume shooting his movie.
The dead woman’s husband works for a law firm which is currently under investigation by John Durham (the S.I. which was tasked to investigate the ‘Russia-gate’ hoax).
This ‘accident’ was at the least a warning for him to keep quiet, and at the worst a ritual murder.
The gun is an Italian replica made by Pietta. The model may or may not have a hammer block. I have two and they don’t, just like the original Colt. The number of clicks in the hammer is irrelevant. Old timers would say it spells C-O-L-T with the clicks. The gun doesn’t fire on its own. Either the hammer is back far enough to pop a primer without locking back, the gun is cocked and hammer pulled or the gun is dropped with a round in the chamber. We know Baldwin is an idiot, but some of the commenters are demonstrating the same about a topic they know little about.
John: “The number of clicks in the hammer is irrelevant.”
+++
Probably not. When the hammer is down the cylinder is locked in place. Pull the hammer back a click or two and the hammer will be in half-cock and the cylinder will be unlocked and can be spun freely with one’s fingers. This is the position for loading live rounds and for ejecting spent cartridges and the hammer will not come down when the trigger is pulled in half-cock. Of course, that is to be expected when the cylinder is not locked and when you are trying to load the weapon. More clicks pulls the hammer back to the fully cocked position, locks the cylinder again, and it will fire when the trigger is pulled.
Any time one hears hammer clicks the gun is either being prepped for loading/ejecting or for shooting. My hair would stand on end if anyone pointed a single action revolver in my direction and I heard the hammer clicking back. It is not irrelevant.
I should add that the half-cock position is also the position for removing the cylinder for cleaning. It is not a firing position.
Thank you John (@4.02pm), that is the precise answer to the question I asked. It also seems it is hard to make one go bang inadvertently. Back in the days when most handguns were revolvers it was common to carry with an empty cylinder under the hammer to prevent accidental discharges if dropped. That made them 5/6th shooters:)
FWIW the Wash Post has a Baldwin story up that suggests PDQ Arm & Prop, the company that provided the guns and ammunition may have had reloads supplied by the Rust armorers father for a previous movie. They may have been mixed in with the “dummy” rounds according to the prop master’s affidavit “some of the cartridges would rattle, which signified them being ‘dummy rounds’, [while] others did not rattle.” That is a simple explanation of how the live round may have gotten into the gun, but does nothing to explain why Baldwin pointed it at the cinematographer.
Regarding Alec Baldwin’s suggestion that police officers become propmasters for Hollywood productions: Does he know that ALL sets that have guns require an expert in firearms safety to be on set at all times?
I may have blurred distinctions among actual titles within the industry, especially since I have absolutely zero film production experience. But I know that there is someone on the set that is required to be an expert in the handling of firearms to be on set at all times when there are firearms on the set.
And I also know not to ever point a gun at someone or something unless I intend to fire it at that object.
And I also know to treat every gun that I handle with the respect that it might be loaded. And even if I believe it is not loaded, I should still treat it as if it is.
Because bad things can happen when we don’t respect what may be a loaded weapon.
Anthropomorphization, negligent behavior, and shared/shifted responsibility.
Alec Baldwin needs a Russian drone named Charlene with a machine gun on the set. Then the alibi might work for the defense attorneys.
Assumption is one of the causes for unwanted discharge from a gun> When handed a gun Pistol or Rifle one should never assume anything. The old saying ‘Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to use it”, why then did Baldwin point the gun at the victim, taken aim and pull the trigger. What was the purpose of pointing the gun at the victim? Was the camera rolling?
This tragedy may be indicative of his being a jerk, or just plain stupidly, in either case guilty of reckless behavior.
Lock, Crock, and Barrel
And with Baldwin the Crock appears to be full.
I wonder if his lawyers are fantasizing shooting him now?
Alec needs to hire an attorney who is a ‘C**K SUCKING F@G!’ to prove he has Tourettes, and a tricky finger
“The gun did it! All by itself!!”
Much like the driverless SUV which randomly and without purpose managed to mow down more than a score of people, killing 6. Just another sad accident.
Has the homidicdal SUV been charged with intentional homicide yet?
Fake News headline: Homicidal SUV commits murder during Christmas parade
Fake News headline: Gun held by Alec Baldwin accidentally shoots and kills cinematographer and wounds another. Gun takes full responsibility and maintains that Baldwin had nothing to do with the accidental homicide.
It was, indeed, fake news, and The Washington Post later deleted the tweet which said the “tragedy was caused by an SUV:”
https://www.thewrap.com/washington-post-waukesha-tweet/
Darrell Brooks, who has a history of violent anti-white social media posts, plowed deliberately into a crown of Christmas celebrants. The MSM has maintained Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer, on no evidence – as the jury saw and adjudged. But this tragedy, deliberate murder of people who posed no threat to Brooks, is not of any real interest, because it doesn’t fit with the Holy Narrative of “all evils in the world are caused by white supremacy.”
Only by the mainstream media.
Alec Baldwin blaming the gun for killing the cinematographer is akin to my son blaming his pencil for failing his math test.
The revolver pictured is without doubt a single action replica. As such, the hammer must first be drawn and locked back before it can be released by a trigger pull. Unless the hammer is first drawn back, pulling the trigger will have no effect. The hammer will simply remain in the uncocked position.
Such a revolver can be discharged by a strong blow to the hammer, such as dropping the gun might produce. It would be nearly impossible to generate enough force against the hammer with one’s hand, unless done intentionally.
But that is only if it was designed without a hammer block. If it has a hammer block, you could hit the hammer with a hammer and it would not go off.
They should get the Rittenhouse prosecutor to discharge one live round in open court from a weapon that is supposed to be checked beforehand and contain no live ammo, verify that everyone in the courtroom clearly heard a gunshot, then ask how it is possible to accidentally discharge another live round from said weapon.
Obviously I’m joking but prosecutors have to be salivating over this one.
Baldwin locked himself into an absurd and losing argument.
The pistol is a single-action, Italian replica of a frontier Colt .45.
Being single-action the gun could not be fired by simply pulling the trigger. The person holding the gun would first have to manually pull the hammer back with his thumb or web of hand and then pull the trigger to shoot. It is hard to accidentally pull the hammer back. The spring is stiff and cocking makes a distinctive noise, clicking twice, first at half cock and again at full cock.. I have never heard of it happening by accident but if it did you wouldn’t next pull the trigger.
If there is a trial it would be useful to have the jury pass the gun around (preferably empty) and see how it works for themselves. Everyone would know Baldwin’s story is b.s.
By the way, pulling the trigger when the hammer is at half cock will not fire the gun.
By the way, Baldwin should have listened to his lawyers and kept his big, fat mouth shut–hard to do for someone like him but this time it could be critical.
Perhaps he prefers being jailed for gun crime/manslaughter than for pedophilia.
Enter witnesses who were plinking around with this pistol during their lunch hour. What did they observe? Did they feel a pistol with a “hair” trigger? A few witnesses might satisfy inquiring minds. We all can agree Baldwin is a fool for making comments during an investigation where he is a person of interest holding a smoking gun. That Baldwin is an avowed critic of guns adds a dash of seasoning to this cooked goose recipe.
They should get the Rittenhouse prosecutor to discharge one live round in open court from a weapon that is supposed to be checked beforehand and contain no live ammo, verify that everyone in the courtroom clearly heard a gunshot, then ask how it is possible to accidentally discharge another live round from said weapon.
Obviously I’m joking, but this is my basis for prosecution and I would love to eviscerate whoever is defending him with it.
What was the gun? Was it an actual antique curio and relic well over 120 years old? Was it a modern reproduction? Was it some other kind of ‘prop’ gun? There were reports from early on that there had been other “misfires” on the set.
Whatever, there is no doubt that Baldwin was holding the gun and pointing it at the cinematographer and director when it went off. The chain of negligence that resulted in this killing is mind boggling. Baldwin cannot escape his culpability in this death both as the actor perp and as a producer.
Aside from it not being their job, anyone who thinks that cops should be firearms prop masters might do well to recall that year in year out more police are shot while handling their own guns than by hostile actions.
Baldwin’s got all the charm and authority of this “federale”!
Proof yet again that the best gun control is a steady hand and a clear mind. Alex appears to have neither. Mocking Trump? Karma, baby. Karma!
Sorry, Alec.
Hmmm. Better call Saul
As others have pointed out, the gun in question is a single-action gun. It is almost certainly not, as JT suggested, an antique. It is far more likely that it is a replica built with modern safety features (for legal reasons).
If so, it would almost certainly have a hammer-block of some sort to prevent a heavy blow on it’s uncocked hammer from discharging a cartridge in the hammer’s chamber.
I have guns dating back to the mid-80s (a DA/SA semiautomatic SIG P6) and even the 1931 design of a PPK (DA/SA) features a hammer block.
The idea that any manufacturer of handguns in the last 50 years would design a gun without such a hammer block is exdtremely remote, given the liability they would incur.