Alec Baldwin giving an interview tonight on ABC

[poker]

Should we hold Macaulay Culkin responsible injuries that Joe Pesci may have received during the filming of Home Alone as well?

 

[richaceg]

Should we hold Macaulay Culkin responsible injuries that Joe Pesci may have received during the filming of Home Alone as well?

"joe pesci" the stuntman signed the waver but I don't know if it includes getting shot by a real gun...

 

[richaceg]

This is the way I see it. ^^^

This sheds some light on the chance (however slim) that the gun fired without pulling the trigger. But I go back to the fact the gun was handed to him and wasn't supposed to be loaded, especially with a bullet.

https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-...d-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/

the fact of the matter is, the gun ended up in his hand, pointing towards the victim. a lot of pieces are to blame the lady is dead, as I said, this is pure negligence and i doubt on malice / intent...the end of the day, he was holding the gun, pointing towards the victim....

 

[GameBoy27]

the fact of the matter is, the gun ended up in his hand, pointing towards the victim. a lot of pieces are to blame the lady is dead, as I said, this is pure negligence and i doubt on malice / intent...the end of the day, he was holding the gun, pointing towards the victim....

He was holding the gun because it was handed to him by a member of the crew who's trained to handle guns and ensure they're "safe." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the reason he was holding a gun was because the scene called for him to shoot someone. If that's the case, then I don't see how he could be blamed for shooting the woman.

 

[HEYHEY]

The gun was loaded by the armourer or an assistant and handed to Baldwin. He has no obligation to check it. It's supposed to have just been checked.

It's possible for a revolver to fire without pulling the trigger.

This topic has been done to death in previous threads and I was going to just miss this one. But you guys are making silly mistakes on basic facts.

You still gotta pull back the hammer

This story is a perfect example why idiots shouldn't be allowed near guns

 

[GameBoy27]

You still gotta pull back the hammer

Not according to this guy.

In his first major interview since being involved in a fatal shooting on the set of his latest movie, Alec Baldwin made a surprising new claim about his actions that day.

Baldwin said the gun went off without him ever actually pulling its trigger.

“Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled,” he told ABC News. “I didn’t pull the trigger.”

At first glance, this sounds far-fetched. It is exceedingly rare for a gun to fire without the trigger being depressed. Modern firearms, even replicas of antique guns, have safeties specifically designed to prevent them from firing without the trigger being pulled. It only really happens when the gun’s firing mechanism is damaged, or there is a significant design flaw.

That’s why most gun owners and firearms safety trainers are highly skeptical of any claim a gun just “went off” absent user error.

In Baldwin’s case, though, the claim is at least somewhat more believable. That’s because the gun involved is more prone to firing without the trigger being pulled. And, even though it’s a modern replica of an antique design, it’s possible it did not include modern safety devices.

Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza identified the gun used in the shooting as a modern Pietta replica of a single-action army revolver. Those guns can be bought either with a transfer bar that makes it impossible for the firing pin to strike the primer unless the trigger is pulled or without one. Often, enthusiasts and collectors prefer the models without modern safety devices because it’s more authentic and perfectly safe when handled properly.

A single-action revolver usually requires the hammer to be manually cocked, and the trigger be pulled for a shot to be fired. That’s why it’s referred to as a single-action: because the trigger performs just one action. It drops the hammer. In a double-action revolver, on the other hand, the trigger can both cock and release the hammer.

However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

This is why the “cowboy load” was developed. When carrying an old-style single-action revolver, it’s best practice to leave the chamber underneath the hammer unloaded. That way, a jolt can’t unintentionally set off a round.

None of that means Baldwin’s story is entirely accurate. It’s not clear if drawing a gun from a holster in this state would be enough to set it off. It still seems more plausible Baldwin pulled the trigger. But, the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first.

Police should be able to determine what kind of firing mechanism the gun in question has and whether it could have fired in the way Baldwin described. However, even if the gun did go off without the trigger being pulled, it doesn’t negate the other negligence that contributed to the deadly shooting.

There is a reason the basic gun safety rules are redundant. You’re never supposed to put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire. You’re never supposed to assume a gun is unloaded. You’re never supposed to point a gun at anything you don’t want to shoot.

Had they all been followed, it is unlikely this shooting would have turned deadly. But, as the numerous prior negligent discharges on set and Baldwin’s other comments reveal, basic safety rules were not followed.

“I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them,” Baldwin said.

That sentence went on six words too long. Even on a movie set, you shouldn’t be pointing a gun at anyone. Most sets have protocols in place to avoid scenarios like that. Most also have protocols to ensure a gun is never loaded with any round it isn’t supposed to be. And most would never allow live ammunition on set while filming.

There was a string of negligent acts that led to the death of a colleague, wife, and mother. Even if Baldwin never pulled the trigger, a cascade of avoidable mistakes was necessary for this tragedy to unfold. There remains plenty of blame to go around.

https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-...d-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/

 

[mandrill]

You still gotta pull back the hammer
This story is a perfect example why idiots shouldn't be allowed near guns

It actually doesn't make sense that he pulled back the hammer, but who knows? As I have already mentioned, Baldwin was about to pull the trigger in the scene and the gun was supposed to have been checked and unloaded by the crew.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Not according to this guy

But then another expert says this is highly unlikely: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...wins-claim-did-NOT-pull-trigger-set-Rust.html

Bryan W. Carpenter, a weapons armorer who works for Dark Thirty Film Services, said that this is highly unlikely.

'In order to make it fire, you have to put your thumb up onto the hammer, cock the hammer all the way back, and then as the hammer is completely cocked back, then you pull the trigger and then the gun fires,' Carpenter told Fox News. 'So that's very important because that gun had to have two step process to fire. It had to be cocked and the trigger pulled to fire.'

Carpenter continued: 'Once you cock the hammer back on one of those old west guns, it doesn't take a lot to set that trigger off.'

His comments come after Santa Fe Sheriff Adan Mendoza told the outlet that 'guns don't just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, [Baldwin] did that and it was in his hands.'

This is what the gun looks like

 

[K Douglas]

Apples to oranges. KR killed in cold blood, Alec did not. He wasn't even responsible for the gun, has as been pointed out many billions of times now by people in the industry. You nutcases areonly going after him BECAUSE of his being a lefty. That is insane.

The courts found that KR did not kill in cold blood so you're wrong.

 

[Jasmina]

OJ was acquitted too. Means nothing.

The courts found that KR did not kill in cold blood so you're wrong.

 

[fictionfactor]

he should be charged and serve some time. If he gets off shows his privilege

 

[GameBoy27]

I caught a bit of his interview last night. It sounds like he was pulling the hammer back to cock the gun when it went off. So he could be right in that he didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps the hammer slipped and struck the primer which fired the bullet.

He was also asked why he didn't check the gun when it was handed to him. He said, from early on in his acting career, he was told by the weapons handler to not to open the gun etc. after it's handed to him. Guns are checked and declared safe (cold) before they're handed over. He said some actors will check it themselves and others don't like to touch them.

As I understand, there is no requirement for the actor to inspect a gun after the weapons handler gives it to them. Unless I'm wrong about that and an actor must "double check" a weapon after it's handed over, I don't see how he will be held responsible. The fact there was a live round in it is a whole other story.

 

[GameBoy27]

he should be charged and serve some time. If he gets off shows his privilege

What exactly did he do wrong? What protocols did he breech? I'm asking because I haven't seen anything to date. Please provide some evidence, other than you feel he should do some time because he killed someone.

 

[richaceg]

I caught a bit of his interview last night. It sounds like he was pulling the hammer back to cock the gun when it went off. So he could be right in that he didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps the hammer slipped and struck the primer which fired the bullet.

He was also asked why he didn't check the gun when it was handed to him. He said, from early on in his acting career, he was told by the weapons handler to not to open the gun etc. after it's handed to him. Guns are checked and declared safe (cold) before they're handed over. He said some actors will check it themselves and others don't like to touch them.

As I understand, there is no requirement for the actor to inspect a gun after the weapons handler gives it to them. Unless I'm wrong about that and an actor must "double check" a weapon after it's handed over, I don't see how he will be held responsible. The fact there was a live round in it is a whole other story.

What if by pulling the hammer back, it slipped his thumb and it went off? I've handled a revolver before and the hammer isn't a light pull and could definitely kick back in...it is possible if he doesn't know much about revolvers...

 

[mandrill]

I caught a bit of his interview last night. It sounds like he was pulling the hammer back to cock the gun when it went off. So he could be right in that he didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps the hammer slipped and struck the primer which fired the bullet.
He was also asked why he didn't check the gun when it was handed to him. He said, from early on in his acting career, he was told by the weapons handler to not to open the gun etc. after it's handed to him. Guns are checked and declared safe (cold) before they're handed over. He said some actors will check it themselves and others don't like to touch them.
As I understand, there is no requirement for the actor to inspect a gun after the weapons handler gives it to them. Unless I'm wrong about that and an actor must "double check" a weapon after it's handed over, I don't see how he will be held responsible. The fact there was a live round in it is a whole other story.

If the gun wasn't maintained properly, there could be all sorts of shit wrong w it. The spring that controls the hammer was too tight and forceful? The catch that's supposed to hold the hammer back until it is released by the trigger was too worn and didn't "catch"? The trigger was faulty and released the catch for the hammer without being pulled back by the actor?

Just tons of simple mechanical shit that could be screwed up.

 

[GameBoy27]

If the gun wasn't maintained properly, there could be all sorts of shit wrong w it. The spring that controls the hammer was too tight and forceful? The catch that's supposed to hold the hammer back until it is released by the trigger was too worn and didn't "catch"? The trigger was faulty and released the catch for the hammer without being pulled back by the actor?

Just tons of simple mechanical shit that could be screwed up.

Which is why sets have weapons experts on hand to make sure the guns are properly maintained and are safe. I don't think you can reasonably expect actors to know all the ins and outs of every different kind of weapon and be responsible for the safety of them. That's why they hire experts.

 

[21 Days Later]

OJ was acquitted too. Means nothing.

OJ was "not proven guilty" by the Stare therefore he was acquitted.
Kyle Rittenhouse however was found not guilty by a trial of his peers. Why? KYLE RITTENHOUSE DID NOTHING WRONG.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I caught a bit of his interview last night. It sounds like he was pulling the hammer back to cock the gun when it went off. So he could be right in that he didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps the hammer slipped and struck the primer which fired the bullet.

He was also asked why he didn't check the gun when it was handed to him. He said, from early on in his acting career, he was told by the weapons handler to not to open the gun etc. after it's handed to him. Guns are checked and declared safe (cold) before they're handed over. He said some actors will check it themselves and others don't like to touch them.

As I understand, there is no requirement for the actor to inspect a gun after the weapons handler gives it to them. Unless I'm wrong about that and an actor must "double check" a weapon after it's handed over, I don't see how he will be held responsible. The fact there was a live round in it is a whole other story

I watched the interview as well, it sounds like he might be telling the truth (unless he's a brilliant liar).

Its all gonna come down to whether or not Baldwin can legally held responsible for not checking the gun to see if it had live bullets.
If there is no law then I think he can only be sued

 

[Jasmina]

I don't have to agree. And I don't. It's absolutely insane that someone can take a gun into public and shoot people, and get away with it. And anyone who thinks otherwise needs serious fucking mental help.

OJ was "not proven guilty" by the Stare therefore he was acquitted.
Kyle Rittenhouse however was found not guilty by a trial of his peers. Why? KYLE RITTENHOUSE DID NOTHING WRONG.

 

[GameBoy27]

I watched the interview as well, it sounds like he might be telling the truth (unless he's a brilliant liar).

Its all gonna come down to whether or not Baldwin can legally held responsible for not checking the gun to see if it had live bullets.
If there is no law then I think he can only be sued

That's the way I see it. I have yet to hear anyone say there's a procedure whereby actors must check a gun once it's handed to them. I mean, it doesn't even makes sense that they would put the responsibility on the actor. Would they just assume every actor has taken a firearm safety course?