A brash statement like that really needs some backing evidence.
The statements that he has made definitely have some holes that can be easily discredited by lawyers and anyone familiar with how these firearms function. Lying…not sure, but his representation of the facts is highly questionable.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
You can pull the hammer back and release it before it's cocked without pulling the trigger though.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
You can pull the hammer back and release it before it's cocked without pulling the trigger though.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
You can pull the hammer back and release it before it's cocked without pulling the trigger though.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
He said he remembered pulling the hammer back, so that most likely means he pulled it back more than the couple millimeters to fit that scenario. It’s pretty easy to see that he just plans on using the “I do not recall pulling the trigger” defense. Still, he engaged a firing mechanism simply by pulling the hammer at all. Facts: He engaged the firing mechanism and pointed a loaded gun at someone and shot them. “Unwittingly” can be added to any of those sentences, but so could “recklessly”, which is what the court of law usually puts more weight on.
I’m sure there are plenty of people behind bars that would love to have used the “I was just acting like I was going to shoot and it just went off” excuse. Bottom line, do not point any real firearm in the direction of anyone in any setting where you do not intend to actually shoot the person you are pointing it at…regardless of whether or not “someone else” says it is okay. On the bright side, firearm safety instructors have a new real world example of why the “never point at anyone” rule should ALWAYS be followed.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
You can pull the hammer back and release it before it's cocked without pulling the trigger though.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Exactly, and what must you do in order to “ease it back”? Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
You can pull the hammer back and release it before it's cocked without pulling the trigger though.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
Judge OKs regulators' subpoena for 'Rust' assistant director
46 mins ago
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin a prop gun that killed a cinematographer on a New Mexico film set must make himself available for an interview with state workplace safety regulators, a judge has decided.
District Judge Bryan Biedscheid on Friday granted a request by the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau of the state Environment Department to issue a subpoena to Dave Halls, assistant director for the movie “Rust,” local news outlets reported.
Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza was wounded in the Oct. 21 shooting on the Bonanza Creek Ranch film set near Santa Fe.
Safety officials tried twice since Nov. 2 to interview Halls for their investigation but he declined both times through his attorney and said he wouldn't agree to an interview until a criminal investigation into the shooting is complete, a compliance officer wrote Wednesday in an affidavit in support of the subpoena request.
The interview with Halls is needed because he had responsibilities for set safety, knew who was present during the shooting and had handled the gun, the application said.
Rebecca Roose, deputy cabinet secretary of the Environment Department, told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the department proposed a Tuesday interview but that the judge could set another date or Halls' attorney could fight the subpoena.
Halls' attorney, Lisa Torracco, on Saturday did not immediately respond to a voicemail left by The Associated Press seeking comment.
However, KOB-TV reported that Torraco told the station that Halls will cooperate with state investigators.
Baldwin has said he didn't know the gun contained a live round and that investigators must find out who put it in the weapon.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Film armorer blames ammo supplier in deadly 'Rust' shooting
By MORGAN LEE
33 mins ago
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A new lawsuit accused an ammunition supplier Wednesday of creating dangerous conditions on a movie set where a gun held by actor Alec Baldwin killed a cinematographer, by including live ammunition in a box that was supposed to include only dummy rounds.
The lawsuit was filed in New Mexico state district court by Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer who oversaw firearms, ammunition and related training on the set of “Rust" along with two colleagues. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on Oct. 21 from a gunshot wound during a “Rust” rehearsal at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe in northern New Mexico.
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office that is leading an investigation into the cause of the death has said it is too soon to determine whether charges will be filed. Investigators have described “some complacency” in how weapons were handled on set.
The lawsuit from Gutierrez Reed places blame on ammunition supplier Seth Kenney and his company PDQ Arm & Prop for introducing live rounds to the set where only blanks and dummies were supposed to be present.
“The introduction of live rounds onto the set, which no one anticipated, combined with the rushed and chaotic atmosphere, created a perfect storm for a safety incident," the lawsuit states.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So he pulled the hammer half back and let it go and that fired the gun? I've never tried that nor did I think it was possible.
That is very “implausible”. There is a very slight chance that that if type of gun was hit hard enough on the hammer that it may be enough force to activate the bullet’s primer, but even that would be extremely rare. Once cocked, there are mechanisms that prevent the hammer from being dropped without a trigger pull. He may not be aware he pulled the trigger, but he most likely did. He’s pretty stupid for saying some of these things as they are fairly easily disproven and self-incriminating. Here is a great little write up on this by people that know how guns work: https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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 cock 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 cock. 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 cocking 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.
Your last sentence I can see.
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Wasn’t this gun a single action? Every SA I’ve used has 4 clicks when cocking. It locks at each click. You actually half cock it so you can rotate the cylinder in order to load it. So if I’m right in that it was a SA, the half cocked thing makes no sense to me. If it’s a double action, then worst western prop ever.
Film armorer blames ammo supplier in deadly 'Rust' shooting
By MORGAN LEE
33 mins ago
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A new lawsuit accused an ammunition supplier Wednesday of creating dangerous conditions on a movie set where a gun held by actor Alec Baldwin killed a cinematographer, by including live ammunition in a box that was supposed to include only dummy rounds.
The lawsuit was filed in New Mexico state district court by Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer who oversaw firearms, ammunition and related training on the set of “Rust" along with two colleagues. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on Oct. 21 from a gunshot wound during a “Rust” rehearsal at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe in northern New Mexico.
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office that is leading an investigation into the cause of the death has said it is too soon to determine whether charges will be filed. Investigators have described “some complacency” in how weapons were handled on set.
The lawsuit from Gutierrez Reed places blame on ammunition supplier Seth Kenney and his company PDQ Arm & Prop for introducing live rounds to the set where only blanks and dummies were supposed to be present.
“The introduction of live rounds onto the set, which no one anticipated, combined with the rushed and chaotic atmosphere, created a perfect storm for a safety incident," the lawsuit states.
continues.....
So much blame passing when only one person was responsible for where it was pointed and where their finger was…
One, ive read numerous reports that some staff were target shooting during down time. So the ammo supplier wasn’t the only one introducing live rounds to the set, if they did at all. And even if they did, the armorer wants me to believe that it is acceptable to purchase dummy rounds, don’t bother checking if they are in fact actually dummies, load them into a real gun, and direct someone to aim it at someone else and pull the trigger with only assuming that the correct ammo was ordered and then delivered without any double safety checks beyond ordering? That’s ridiculous. His responsibility goes way beyond just ordering dummy rounds and simply just washing his hands of it from there.
One, ive read numerous reports that some staff were target shooting during down time. So the ammo supplier wasn’t the only one introducing live rounds to the set, if they did at all. And even if they did, the armorer wants me to believe that it is acceptable to purchase dummy rounds, don’t bother checking if they are in fact actually dummies, load them into a real gun, and direct someone to aim it at someone else and pull the trigger with only assuming that the correct ammo was ordered and then delivered without any double safety checks beyond ordering? That’s ridiculous. His responsibility goes way beyond just ordering dummy rounds and simply just washing his hands of it from there.
her. first time as armorer as I understand it. daughter of one or something?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
One, ive read numerous reports that some staff were target shooting during down time. So the ammo supplier wasn’t the only one introducing live rounds to the set, if they did at all. And even if they did, the armorer wants me to believe that it is acceptable to purchase dummy rounds, don’t bother checking if they are in fact actually dummies, load them into a real gun, and direct someone to aim it at someone else and pull the trigger with only assuming that the correct ammo was ordered and then delivered without any double safety checks beyond ordering? That’s ridiculous. His responsibility goes way beyond just ordering dummy rounds and simply just washing his hands of it from there.
her. first time as armorer as I understand it. daughter of one or something?
Last time as armorer too I’d think. That whole lawsuit smells like a tactics of go after someone else before I get charged and maybe it won’t look like my fault.
Official: Alec Baldwin surrenders phone for shooting probe
Yesterday
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Alec Baldwin has surrendered his cellphone to authorities as part of the investigation into a fatal shooting on a New Mexico film set last fall, a law enforcement official said.
Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office spokesman Juan Rios said Baldwin's phone was turned over Friday to law enforcement officials in Suffolk County, New York, who will gather the information from the phone and provide it to Santa Fe County investigators, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.
Sheriff's office investigators in December obtained a search warrant for the phone's contents in their investigation into the Oct. 21 shooting on the “Rust” film set at Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe.
Baldwin was an actor and co-producer, and the search warrant for his phone sought text messages, images, videos, calls or any other information related to the movie.
Authorities have said Baldwin’s prop revolver discharged a live round during a rehearsal, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
Baldwin’s lawyer, Aaron Dyer, said his client had been cooperating with authorities throughout the course of the investigation, and the delay in providing information from the phone was no indication otherwise.
“Alec voluntarily provided his phone to the authorities this morning so they can finish their investigation,” Dyer said Friday in a statement. “But this matter isn’t about his phone, and there are no answers on his phone.”
Baldwin, who has denied any wrongdoing in the shooting, and said in an Instagram message on Jan. 8 that New Mexico needed to go through New York law enforcement and that the process of specifying exactly what is needed took time.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Alec Baldwin and others are being sued…Here is a link with the details as well as a video re-creation: https://amp.marca.com/en/lifestyle/movies/2022/02/16/620d4a51e2704e5e868b45a7.html "There are many people at fault, but Mr Baldwin was the person holding the gun... if he hadn't fired, she wouldn't have died," lawyer Brian Panish alleged.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the re-creation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”. This situation is more like a car driver recklessly driving and then blaming an accident on failed breaks.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this.
as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this.
Because, as stated in the video, industry standards (and general firearm safety standards) are that you should never point a real firearm at anyone. No exceptions for movie sets. The safety standards were ignored by Baldwin as well as others.
Plainly, you should “treat every firearm as if it were loaded (with a live round). And you should never point a firearm at something you do not wish to destroy.
Even the most basic firearm safety courses cover this in depth.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this.
Because, as stated in the video, industry standards (and general firearm safety standards) are that you should never point a real firearm at anyone. The safety standards were ignored by Baldwin as well as others.
Plainly, you should “treat every firearm as if it were loaded (with a live round). And you should never point a firearm at something you do not wish to destroy.
Even the most basic firearm safety courses cover this in depth.
so the person who was shot told him to point the gun at her.
I've seen countless movies where guns are held to people's heads. in their mouths. or pointed in their general direction. are you saying they weren't supposed to do that in these thousands of movies/tv shows?
as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe.
So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone? “NEVER” Very basic firearm safety….
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this.
Because, as stated in the video, industry standards (and general firearm safety standards) are that you should never point a real firearm at anyone. The safety standards were ignored by Baldwin as well as others.
Plainly, you should “treat every firearm as if it were loaded (with a live round). And you should never point a firearm at something you do not wish to destroy.
Even the most basic firearm safety courses cover this in depth.
so the person who was shot told him to point the gun at her.
I've seen countless movies where guns are held to people's heads. in their mouths. or pointed in their general direction. are you saying they weren't supposed to do that in these thousands of movies/tv shows?
If it were a real firearm being used, that is exactly what I’m saying.
as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe.
So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone? “NEVER” Very basic firearm safety….
yes, but if you are told it was checked and verified as empty, and the cinematographer instructs you to point it at her, you'd logically assume all the protections needed were in place.
personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs.
so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver.
Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault.
And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”. It operated exactly as a gun should have. The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this.
Because, as stated in the video, industry standards (and general firearm safety standards) are that you should never point a real firearm at anyone. The safety standards were ignored by Baldwin as well as others.
Plainly, you should “treat every firearm as if it were loaded (with a live round). And you should never point a firearm at something you do not wish to destroy.
Even the most basic firearm safety courses cover this in depth.
so the person who was shot told him to point the gun at her.
I've seen countless movies where guns are held to people's heads. in their mouths. or pointed in their general direction. are you saying they weren't supposed to do that in these thousands of movies/tv shows?
If it were a real firearm being used, that is exactly what I’m saying.
but in reality, do you think that's what happened? or every time a gun was pointed at someone, it was a fake firearm?
as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe.
So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone? “NEVER” Very basic firearm safety….
yes, but if you are told it was checked and verified as empty, and the cinematographer instructs you to point it at her, you'd logically assume all the protections needed were in place.
personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs.
So, if I’m at a gun range and I have several professional people say a gun is unloaded and someone tells me to point it at them, would that be logical or safe to do so? If it were a plastic or fake gun, sure, but NEVER a real one. General safety standards apply whether you are on a movie set or at a gun range or anywhere else for that matter.
The video above really spells this all out pretty well.
Comments
There is a safety where the hammer goes that should not disengage unless that trigger is pulled.
Again, I have never pulled a hammer halfway back before it locks and let go. I've always eased it back.
Personally, I think he is full of shit. But he is a hell of a talented actor when spewing it.
Another thread I need to stay away from.
Only way to really tell is to test that gun and see if it's at all possible to go off by what he said.
unloaded of course
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
On the bright side, firearm safety instructors have a new real world example of why the “never point at anyone” rule should ALWAYS be followed.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin a prop gun that killed a cinematographer on a New Mexico film set must make himself available for an interview with state workplace safety regulators, a judge has decided.
District Judge Bryan Biedscheid on Friday granted a request by the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau of the state Environment Department to issue a subpoena to Dave Halls, assistant director for the movie “Rust,” local news outlets reported.
Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza was wounded in the Oct. 21 shooting on the Bonanza Creek Ranch film set near Santa Fe.
Safety officials tried twice since Nov. 2 to interview Halls for their investigation but he declined both times through his attorney and said he wouldn't agree to an interview until a criminal investigation into the shooting is complete, a compliance officer wrote Wednesday in an affidavit in support of the subpoena request.
The interview with Halls is needed because he had responsibilities for set safety, knew who was present during the shooting and had handled the gun, the application said.
Rebecca Roose, deputy cabinet secretary of the Environment Department, told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the department proposed a Tuesday interview but that the judge could set another date or Halls' attorney could fight the subpoena.
Halls' attorney, Lisa Torracco, on Saturday did not immediately respond to a voicemail left by The Associated Press seeking comment.
However, KOB-TV reported that Torraco told the station that Halls will cooperate with state investigators.
Baldwin has said he didn't know the gun contained a live round and that investigators must find out who put it in the weapon.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-search-warrant/index.html
(CNN)A search warrant has been issued for actor Alec Baldwin's cell phone in connection with the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film "Rust," according to court documents released Thursday from Santa Fe County, New Mexico.
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A new lawsuit accused an ammunition supplier Wednesday of creating dangerous conditions on a movie set where a gun held by actor Alec Baldwin killed a cinematographer, by including live ammunition in a box that was supposed to include only dummy rounds.
The lawsuit was filed in New Mexico state district court by Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer who oversaw firearms, ammunition and related training on the set of “Rust" along with two colleagues. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on Oct. 21 from a gunshot wound during a “Rust” rehearsal at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe in northern New Mexico.
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office that is leading an investigation into the cause of the death has said it is too soon to determine whether charges will be filed. Investigators have described “some complacency” in how weapons were handled on set.
The lawsuit from Gutierrez Reed places blame on ammunition supplier Seth Kenney and his company PDQ Arm & Prop for introducing live rounds to the set where only blanks and dummies were supposed to be present.
“The introduction of live rounds onto the set, which no one anticipated, combined with the rushed and chaotic atmosphere, created a perfect storm for a safety incident," the lawsuit states.
continues.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If it’s a double action, then worst western prop ever.
And even if they did, the armorer wants me to believe that it is acceptable to purchase dummy rounds, don’t bother checking if they are in fact actually dummies, load them into a real gun, and direct someone to aim it at someone else and pull the trigger with only assuming that the correct ammo was ordered and then delivered without any double safety checks beyond ordering? That’s ridiculous.
His responsibility goes way beyond just ordering dummy rounds and simply just washing his hands of it from there.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Alec Baldwin has surrendered his cellphone to authorities as part of the investigation into a fatal shooting on a New Mexico film set last fall, a law enforcement official said.
Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office spokesman Juan Rios said Baldwin's phone was turned over Friday to law enforcement officials in Suffolk County, New York, who will gather the information from the phone and provide it to Santa Fe County investigators, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.
Sheriff's office investigators in December obtained a search warrant for the phone's contents in their investigation into the Oct. 21 shooting on the “Rust” film set at Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe.
Baldwin was an actor and co-producer, and the search warrant for his phone sought text messages, images, videos, calls or any other information related to the movie.
Authorities have said Baldwin’s prop revolver discharged a live round during a rehearsal, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
Baldwin’s lawyer, Aaron Dyer, said his client had been cooperating with authorities throughout the course of the investigation, and the delay in providing information from the phone was no indication otherwise.
“Alec voluntarily provided his phone to the authorities this morning so they can finish their investigation,” Dyer said Friday in a statement. “But this matter isn’t about his phone, and there are no answers on his phone.”
Baldwin, who has denied any wrongdoing in the shooting, and said in an Instagram message on Jan. 8 that New Mexico needed to go through New York law enforcement and that the process of specifying exactly what is needed took time.
continues...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://amp.marca.com/en/lifestyle/movies/2022/02/16/620d4a51e2704e5e868b45a7.html
"There are many people at fault, but Mr Baldwin was the person holding the gun... if he hadn't fired, she wouldn't have died," lawyer Brian Panish alleged.
I agree with this lawyer.
www.headstonesband.com
This situation is more like a car driver recklessly driving and then blaming an accident on failed breaks.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I've seen countless movies where guns are held to people's heads. in their mouths. or pointed in their general direction. are you saying they weren't supposed to do that in these thousands of movies/tv shows?
www.headstonesband.com
“NEVER”
Very basic firearm safety….
personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
General safety standards apply whether you are on a movie set or at a gun range or anywhere else for that matter.