Alec Baldwin update

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RickB

New member
That story makes no sense, whatsoever.
The hammer could only ignite the primer, but not fire a bullet?
The gun will not release a primer and bullet simultaneously?
What?
 
H

hikingman

New member
Unfortunately, many articles are written by non-experts, in other words, writers not qualified to safely shoot a gun, or not qualified to fly an aircraft for example, or to relay information in an accurate, thorough manner, when they are expounding about technical subject matter.

We used to often find pieces written where the author's technical field was indicated at the beginning of the article. That could (to the reader) equate to some credibility and/ or technical ability related to a particular subject rather than ghost writing by comparison.
 
Last edited:
J

jmr40

New member
Supposedly the hammer slipped from his thumb as he was trying to lower the hammer. He wasn't pulling the trigger at the moment it fired, but probably had to pull it at some point earlier.

But that is still irrelevant. Actors aren't supposed to be firearms experts. There are other people on set who are supposed to ensure everything is done in a safe manner. Someone else handed him a gun loaded with live ammo that shouldn't have been anywhere near the set.

Actors have been pointing real guns at each other and shooting blanks at each other since the 1st movies were made. To my knowledge this is only the 2nd time when real ammo found its way into a gun. There have been other instances where injuries and at least one death when blanks went off too close to actors.

The closing scene from the very 1st western ever made. The Great Train Robbery from 1903.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hknJkYN5dqQ

The whole movie, all 10 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jrB5ANUUY
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Remebering you're just reading a TMZ interpretation of an interpretation?
Click to expand...

The TMZ report is about the ABC report, and they two are far from identical.

The TMZ report includes information NOT in the ABC report, and attempts to explain the technical function of the gun so badly that it is confusing drivel.

The TMZ report mentions (twice) that they do not know if the FBI tested the gun used in the shooting, or an identical model.

ABC gives all the information about the gun, except for the serial number, and I recall that the gun actually used was sent to the FBI for testing by the Santa Fe Sherrif.

The description of the testing seems reasonable and accurate, just what one would expect when testing to see if the gun could be accidently manipulated to go off. The FBI found that the hammer could not fall from any position without the trigger being pulled. In other words, the gun was in correct mechanical functioning condition.

Don't be misled by the statement about "only" firing the primer. Testing is always done with a primed case in place of LIVE ammunition. Its simply for safety. If the gun fires a primed case, it WOULD fire a live round.

SO, at this point, I would say Baldwin absolutely cocked the gun, aimed the gun, and pulled the trigger. He may not remember pulling the trigger, and so believes he did not pull the trigger, but his memory and opinion do not trump FBI testing.

Could the FBI be wrong? They have made mistakes before, so someone might argue they did, this time, but really, the operation of a Colt type Single Action revolver is hardly cutting edge tech, having been well known since about 1873....its not rocket science or DNA lab tech stuff, its SIMPLE mechanics. What amazes me is that they managed to do it and issue a report in less than a full year.....:rolleyes:
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
44 AMP said:
SO, at this point, I would say Baldwin absolutely cocked the gun, aimed the gun, and pulled the trigger. He may not remember pulling the trigger, and so believes he did not pull the trigger, but his memory and opinion do not trump FBI testing.
Click to expand...
Baldwin has shown poor trigger finger discipline throughout his career. If you go back to The Hunt for Red October, there's the scene toward the end in which Jack Ryan is crawling along an overhead electrical cable tray with a cocked 1911 in his hand. There is no reason for his finger to be on the trigger at that point -- but it is.

Could the FBI be wrong? They have made mistakes before, so someone might argue they did, this time, but really, the operation of a Colt type Single Action revolver is hardly cutting edge tech, having been well known since about 1873....its not rocket science or DNA lab tech stuff, its SIMPLE mechanics.
Click to expand...
Actually, the mechanism is the same as that of several preceding generations of cap-and-ball revolvers, at least as far back as the 1849 (that's the earliest I have worked on -- I repaired a genuine 1849 Colt that had a broken hand, using a hand made for an Uberti 1860 clone).
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
jmr40 said:
Supposedly the hammer slipped from his thumb as he was trying to lower the hammer. He wasn't pulling the trigger at the moment it fired, but probably had to pull it at some point earlier.
Click to expand...
The ONLY way (short of beating it with a mallet until the sear breaks) to lower the hammer from any of the cocked or partially-cocked positions on a Colt SAA (or clone) is to pull the trigger.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
It takes a little more than just pulling the trigger, the trigger must also be HELD back as the hammer falls. This is what normally happens when firing, and the way the gun is made to work.

It is possible to manipulate the hammer and trigger to get the hammer to "fall" off any of the notches, but if you release the trigger as soon as the hammer is free, the hammer will be caught by one of the lower notches (half cock or the "safety" notch).

BUT, if the trigger is pulled and HELD BACK the hammer will go all the way down.

Based on the news (what has been "leaked" so far) the FBI testing determined the gun was in proper correct mechanical condition and worked exactly the way it was designed to work, and DID NOT MALFUNCTION.

I have no problem with the ruling that the shooting was accidental, as I do not believe Baldwin intended to shoot anyone, but wound up doing so, and so is responsible for that.
 
Z

zeke

New member
Even more so if the specific pistol had a modern hammer safety, and i believe the model identified was made both ways over the years.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
44 AMP said:
I have no problem with the ruling that the shooting was accidental, as I do not believe Baldwin intended to shoot anyone, but wound up doing so, and so is responsible for that.
Click to expand...
I will accept "unintentional" but not "accidental."

Too many rules were broken for it to have been an accident. IMHO it was negligent in numerous ways.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
I think we've danced this one before...:rolleyes:

Accident because the result was unintentional.

Negligence caused the accident. And the accident would not have happened without it.

Nothing else has changed about the incident, the only "new" information is that the FBI tested the gun and their results indicate Baldwin's version of what happened could not have happened the way he said it did.

Numerous gun safety rules were ignored, and the result was tragic. TO me, all claims about "we do things different on movie sets" or "I was told it wasn't loaded" or variations of that simply don't hold up.

The gun had a live round in it, he was holding it, he aimed it (intentionally or not) and he FIRED IT. Intentional or not, he DID IT. Those facts are not in question.

I believe the legal system takes intent into account, and while it was ruled accidental, someone did DIE and another person injured. SO I think a charge of manslaughter (in whatever degree and terms NM uses) would be entirely appropriate.
 
P

Pahoo

New member
Really !!!

Negligence caused the accident. And the accident would not have happened without it.
Nothing else has changed about the incident, the only "new" information is that the FBI tested the gun and their results indicate Baldwin's version of what happened could not have happened the way he said it did.
Click to expand...
I agree and don't expect Baldwin to admit he made a mistake. His ignorance is not insulting but lack of admission does. ........ :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
R

Rhodester

New member
So if it is accidental or unintentional, do you still get off scot-free?
Are there no consequences for his careless actions?
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Are there no consequences for his careless actions?
Click to expand...

There are consequences, both in law, and in our social system. How much and to what degree they get applied to Baldwin remains still to be seen.

A person was killed, that makes it homicide, and there is no getting around that. An act that is intended to harm that results in homicide is considered murder. One that is not intended to harm but does, and results in a homicide is called manslaughter.

Different states use slightly different names and have slightly differing requirements as to which category a specific action falls under, but they are generally the same or very similar.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no question about what he did. It is up to the state of New Mexico to determine what legal standards are applied and how, and with a matter of this kind with the intense public (and press) scrutiny involved, I have no doubt that the officials involved are thinking very carefully so that when charges are brought there will be no question of procedural errors.

Or I hope they are, at least, :rolleyes:
 
I

imp

New member
I can't stand Alec Baldwin, but I have a hard time assigning much blame to him in this situation.

There was an armorer/firearms expert on site, supposedly responsible for the prop guns and ammo. Not only did this person allow the live ammo on set, but was also not properly ensuring that an actor ( who could be expected to do something stupid) was not properly supervised or equipped beforehand.

Thats why the movie industry contracts these experts. Unless Baldwin smuggled the ammo on set and loaded it himself, there is another person that should shoulder most of the blame.
 
H

HiBC

New member
The issue,IMO, is that Alec Baldwin had two jobs on the set. He was the actor AND he was the Producer.
I understand the way the Guild safety rules are written. The Armorer has responsibility,there is a chain of custody, and the Actor just does what they are told. Actors are not expected to be firearms competent.
Baldwin should not have been handed a loaded firearm. I get that.
This FBI info is interesting but,IMO,distracting.

There is more to the story. Much more, and as Producer Alec Baldwin has more responsibility.
Live ammo is an issue. There was allegedly live ammo fired at a target shooting session before the scene.
The Armorer did not hand the gun to Baldwin. She was not present. The guns were not secure,they were on a table. Chain of custody was not there.
This fatal scene was not as scripted. It was an improv "creative idea"

Alec Baldwin,Producer, seems to have not held up the responsibility of being in charge. He did not maintain firearm safety on the set.
That cannot be "delegated" away. Baldwin is the boss. He is responsible for his Armorer and assistants.

There was something about a walk off due to "unintended discharges" that were reported as "misfires."

I don't think this should be viewed as "Poor Actor! Didn't know the gun was loaded"
It was "Sloppy Producer allowed a dangerous set that failed to follow Industry Standards."

There may not have been intent,but there was gross negligence resulting in death.
 
Last edited:
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
There is also the "small" matter of the film not paying enough for any established, "name" armorers in Hollywood to have been willing to take the job. So Hannah Guttierez (Thell Reed's daughter) took the job. BUT ... she wasn't allowed to just be the armorer, despite the number of firearms on the set. She was also expected to be an assistant prop master.

At the time of the incident, according to Ms. Guttierez, she didn't even know they were shooting a scene involving guns. She was nowhere near that set -- she was off doing assistant prop master stuff. That, alone, is a major violation of safety protocol. The established protocol was -- and had been for many years -- that the armorer either shows both the assistant director and the actor that a prop firearm is UNloaded (entirely empty), OR the armorer loads the gun in front of the assistant director and the actor, with both of them watching as the armorer shakes each round so that everyone can hear the BB clicking inside to verify that it's a dummy round.

None of that was done in this case. As one of the producers, Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure that safety protocols were followed.

That's before we even get to another major safety protocol, which is that firearms are never supposed to be pointed at people on a movie set. If a gun has to be pointed at the camera for effect, the camera is supposed to be behind a lexan shield, and is supposed to be operated remotely so the operator is never exposed directly to the line of fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top