Alec Baldwin shooting: Lawyer suggests potential sabotage on ‘Rust’ set.

[Fregly]

My understanding of safety protocol on set with guns is that it is largely the same as with real firearms. Baldwin aimed and pulled the trigger at someone, and he has been in the industry long enough to know set procedure, and in American culture long enough to know the abc of gun handling. Not that it is relevant, but something has alway been seriously off with that dude.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Reading the latest interview with Baldwin where he says "I didn't pull the trigger", it strikes me that nobody has pointed to the fact that the Colt 45 is a single action revolver. That means that this revolver has to physically have its hammer pulled back to the cocked position in order for it to be fired. So if the intention was NOT to actually fire the revolver, why in the hell was the hammer cocked? TWO actions were required - cocking and pulling the trigger, so somebody obviously intended to allow the revolver to be fired. Cocking the hammer proves 'intent to fire' just as much as pulling the trigger. I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

 

[Destination: Moon]

Maybe the gun was left cocked and ready to fire after being checked and thought to be empty?
Speculating: maybe when checked they were looking for brass and instead, there was a nickel plated live round that didn't conform to the rounds normally found on set. Just a speculation on what may have gone wrong after reading the last couple posts. I didn't know that there are revolvers that don't have a swing out cylinder.... Leaving one to peer into a confined space. Looking for a brass casing but not seeing a nickel one that is similar in color to the gun itself. Hazarding a guess so please....DTMB

 

[Destination: Moon]

Reading the latest interview with Baldwin where he says "I didn't pull the trigger", it strikes me that nobody has pointed to the fact that the Colt 45 is a single action revolver. That means that this revolver has to physically have its hammer pulled back to the cocked position in order for it to be fired. So if the intention was NOT to actually fire the revolver, why in the hell was the hammer cocked? TWO actions were required - cocking and pulling the trigger, so somebody obviously intended to allow the revolver to be fired. Cocking the hammer proves 'intent to fire' just as much as pulling the trigger. I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

The gun was a replica that functions so maybe it had a 2 stage trigger?

Edit: Nope, it's noted in several places, gun was single action

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

The gun was a replica that functions so maybe it had a 2 stage trigger?

The basic design of the Colt Single Action Army 45 is for single action. There would have to be massive re-designs of the internals to make it double action - so much so that I would seriously doubt that anybody would make a replica as double action. If they did, it wouldn't be a very good replica. These guns did not have a 'half cock' position for the hammer. Even modern versions of this weapon are single action. A few years ago I was going to buy a replica Colt 45 because I hand load my own ammunition.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The basic design of the Colt Single Action Army 45 is for single action. There would have to be massive re-designs of the internals to make it double action - so much so that I would seriously doubt that anybody would make a replica as double action. If they did, it wouldn't be a very good replica. These guns did not have a 'half cock' position for the hammer. Even modern versions of this weapon are single action. A few years ago I was going to buy a replica Colt 45 because I hand load my own ammunition.

Actually the Pietta used has three hammer detents. The 1st barely lifts the hammer so it would be safe to carry one in the chamber. 2nd detent is halfway for loading and unloading. The 3rd is fully cocked for firing.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Actually the Pietta used has three hammer detents. The 1st barely lifts the hammer so it would be safe to carry one in the chamber. 2nd detent is halfway for loading and unloading. The 3rd is fully cocked for firing.

I wasn't familiar with that brand - they're really nice. Regardless, the hammer of the gun in question would have to be fully cocked in order to fire. Either somebody was stupendously careless or clueless. Judging from what the armorer has said in interviews, I'd vote for monumentally clueless.

 

[Duke]

Imo Alec Baldwin's claim that he never pointed the weapon at anyone and never pulled the trigger may not be as unreasonable as it seems at first glance.

From a recent article:

"Baldwin sat on a wooden church pew, practicing a cross-draw of his weapon, before the director heard what sounded 'like a whip and then loud pop.'"

For a right-handed shooter, "cross-draw" implies that the weapon is on the left side of the body (either under the left armpit or on the left hip), handle forward, and the shooter reaches across his body with his right hand, grasps the handle, pulls it from the holster and then across his body towards the right as his right arm extends towards the target.

So the muzzle is crossing a fairly large frontal arc, probably the entire left-front quadrant and maybe more (depending on where the muzzle starts out and where the target is), which means that he would not have to be deliberately "aiming the gun" at anyone within that arc for them to be at risk in the event of an accidental discharge during the cross-draw. Depending on the specific design of the cross-draw holster, the muzzle could even start out pointed BEHIND the shooter, resulting in a potentially huge arc.

Proper trigger etiquette would call for the shooter's finger to remain outside of the trigger guard until the pistol is roughly aligned with the target, but that is difficult to do when executing a cross-draw because it's hard to get an adequate grip on the pistol without using your index finger, ESPECIALLY if you are trying to go fast.

So imagine that as you quickly grab the pistol you (easily) mistakenly wrap your index finger around the tigger, because you have to pull against resistance to get it out of the holster and the angle is awkward. The weapon is not going to fire because of this alone, because on a single-action revolver the hammer ALSO has to be pulled back. However things are about to go bad!

As you execute your rapid cross-draw, in order to be able to get the shot off as quickly as possible once you are on target, you probably start cocking the hammer while the weapon is traveling across your body towards alignment with the target. And the instant your thumb comes off the hammer, having cocked it, BECAUSE your index finger is ALREADY pressing the trigger (even though you never did so INTENTIONALLY), pop! And if your thumb comes off the hammer before the weapon has completed its arc across your body and been aligned with the target, well that's the direcion the bullet goes when it exits the muzzle. If anything unexpectedly impeded the motion of Baldwin's right arm - like tight clothing, or the weapon getting hung up in the holster because he was going faster than his muscle memory could handle - then the timing of his thumb coming off the hammer would have been thrown off, and would have happened before the weapon was aligned with the intended target.

This is my best guess about "what happened", and in this scenario Alec Baldwin may have never INTENTIONALLY pressed the trigger, and he did NOT do so while the firearm was deliberately pointed at anyone, BUT rather did so while poorly executing a cross-draw. This armchair analysis does not address the pivotal issue of WHY there was a live round in the cylinder.

But imo in light of the "practicing a seated cross-draw" information, it is plausible that Alec Baldwin did not realize the trigger was already pressed when he thumbed back the hammer, and it is also plausible that he never intentionally pointed the weapon at anyone and then deliberately pulled the trigger - they were unfortunately within the arc of his failed cross-draw. And it probably all happened within a few tenths of a second, literally in a blur.

EDIT: More information has now come out, which indicates that Alec Baldwin was NOT practicing a cross-draw at the time of the shooting:

Alec Baldwin gives his account of the 'Rust' shooting, Hilaria Baldwin offers support: 'I will take care of you'

Alec Baldwin gave his first sit-down interview to talk about the "Rust" shooting that killed Halyna Hutchins. Here's what he said.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MRC01]

Seems plausible. Similar to aviation, when a fatal mistake happens it is usually not just 1 mistake but a chain of them. Analyzing the chain can help to improve safety.

• Cross draw is dangerous, not used by professionals. It's strictly a Hollywood thing.
• Finger on the trigger before your sights are on target, especially when drawing, is a common rookie mistake.
• Practicing in a non-sterile, non-safe environment without a defined safety line and safe area to point & fire should never be done.
• Never practice without first checking that the gun is in safe condition, not just unloading it but physically disabling it like removing the cylinder or slide. Better yet, use a bright orange dummy model gun and save the real gun for the final take.
• The above mistakes show that whoever was responsible for gun safety on the set (typically the armorer), was negligent.
• Obviously the gun was loaded which shows further negligence from the armorer.

That's my first draft. Any other mistakes in this chain?

 

[Blumlein 88]

So that sounds like he thumbed back the hammer and it slipped letting the gun fire. If he was told the gun was empty, then it shouldn't have blanks or anything in it which just points to more irresponsible behavior by the armourer and possibly other people.

 

[HiFidFan]

So that sounds like he thumbed back the hammer and it slipped letting the gun fire. If he was told the gun was empty, then it shouldn't have blanks or anything in it which just points to more irresponsible behavior by the armourer and possibly other people.

On a revolver it is very easy to tell if the cylinder is empty. A passing glance would be enough. Baldwin would've known something was wrong.

Edit: According to his interview, It seems that Baldwin was told the gun was "cold" meaning it did not contain live rounds, not that the cylinder was empty.

 

[Blumlein 88]

On a revolver it is very easy to tell if the cylinder is empty. A passing glance would be enough. Baldwin would've known something was wrong.

Edit: According to his interview, It seems that Baldwin was told the gun was "cold" meaning it did not contain live rounds, not that the cylinder was empty.

Not as easy to tell on a single action revolve. The cylinder doesn't swing out, and it is all enclosed on the rear. So no way to tell just glancing there. You can see from the front, but again on a SAA it isn't as open and obviously seen.

 

[HiFidFan]

Not as easy to tell on a single action revolve. The cylinder doesn't swing out, and it is all enclosed on the rear. So no way to tell just glancing there. You can see from the front, but again on a SAA it isn't as open and obviously seen.

Fair enough.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

The armorer said in the latest interview that she 'didn't check it too much'. Poster child for clueless.

 

[j^j=e^-pi/2]

I watched the interview. Do you think he completely turned off his acting skills during the discussion?

 

[Sonny1]

Why is it taking so long for the authorities to file charges? He shot a woman on a movie set and we have not seen one second of film. Did they capture this on film and where is the copy?

Word is, Baldwin immediately hired a PR firm right after the shooting. His lawyers probably recommended it immediately. Lots of stories planted by his firm to create reasonable doubt that could help his legal case. I don’t know the actual details because there are several accounts of the “truth”. Baldwin said the gun fired itself. Seems a bit sketchy. Also, several people walked off the set due to safety concerns. I’d like to see their depositions. This could get interesting. Sympathy for the family of the deceased.

 

[litemotiv]

A question for the people who argue that Baldwin should be prosecuted and imprisoned, it's an honest question so not a gotcha or anything.

Last week there was another tragic shooting accident in Texas:

Texas man fatally shoots 11-year-old daughter while hunting

"The man was hunting when he was unloading a high-powered rifle, which fired and struck his daughter once"

Would you argue that here also, the man had no excuse for pointing his loaded rifle in the direction of his daughter and should therefore be prosecuted? This incident is perhaps more tragic even since he shot his own daughter, but legally this would not change the circumstances. He should have known better, and in contrast to Baldwin he was well aware that the rifle was loaded.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts and whether you feel that this situation is different or not.

 

[MRC01]

... Last week there was another tragic shooting accident in Texas:
Texas man fatally shoots 11-year-old daughter while hunting
"The man was hunting when he was unloading a high-powered rifle, which fired and struck his daughter once"
Would you argue that here also, the man had no excuse for pointing his loaded rifle in the direction of his daughter and should therefore be prosecuted?
...
I'm interested to hear your thoughts and whether you feel that this situation is different or not.

That sounds like an accident involving negligence, as almost all firearms accidents are. But I am not a lawyer nor do we have the details. We can draw an analogy to fatal traffic accidents, which almost always involve negligence in some form. Dad is driving, makes a mistake that causes a crash that kills his daughter. It could be a tragic accident, negligence, manslaughter, or whatever, depending on the details.

This may be different from the Baldwin case, as Baldwin may have had a reasonable expectation that the on-set professional armorer had made the firearms safe.

 

[JJB70]

Nothing about the case seems to make sense from the stuff in the public domain. I suspect that is why no charges have been brought yet or the case closed as the Police are trying to unravel all the conflicting stories.

 

[theyellowspecial]

All I've learned so far is Alec Baldwin and his wife are more loony than I realized and I'd never want them near me or my family.