Tragic event in which Alec Baldwin 'discharged' prop gun that left cinematographer dead.

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

Baldwin is a lying douche.  He should be charged…

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.  

tempo_n_groove

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

PJPOWER

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

brianlux

The PJ judges here have spoken. 
Another thread I need to stay away from.

tempo_n_groove

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

unloaded of course

PJPOWER

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

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.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

unloaded of course

If you are pointing down range it can be loaded.  

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

unloaded of course

If you are pointing down range it can be loaded.  

Just down range? Or down an empty range?

mickeyrat

 

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-entertainment-business-movies-santa-fe-26b8c9b7494b1431d1ba4916b56ad86e

Alec Baldwin Workplace safety Movies Santa Fe Subpoenas Arts and entertainment New Mexico

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.

PJPOWER

Search warrant issued for Baldwin’s phone.  Sounds like they are trying to build a case against him?:

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.

mickeyrat

 https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-entertainment-business-shootings-new-mexico-6ace3bc1be762ecc8d2f10210659855f

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.....

mace1229

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

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.

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

 https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-entertainment-business-shootings-new-mexico-6ace3bc1be762ecc8d2f10210659855f

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…

mace1229

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.

mickeyrat

mace1229 said:

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?

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

mickeyrat

 https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-new-york-new-mexico-1e593978d08df74192f7f3610a94bcc2

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.

continues...

PJPOWER

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.

I agree with this lawyer.

HughFreakingDillon

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.