Alec Baldwin Shooting on Film Set in USA.

[ShootingEgg]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

I don't disagree, but it does seem 'normal practice' as 'they' (the crew?) had been using guns from the armourer for recreational target practice according to early reports.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/halyna-hutchins-gun-rust-set-fatal-shooting-target-practice/

https://nypost.com/2021/10/26/rust-crew-used-alec-baldwins-prop-gun-for-plinking/

But that should not be the norm, especially if it's a set that is using prop guns, they are lucky that this has not happened before now .

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

But that should not be the norm

And I'm sure in many parts of the world (UK included), it wouldn't be - but the USA have a much more 'relaxed' attitude to the whole firearms topic from recreation, personal protection, 'everyday' carry etc.  "Plinking' with handguns is a popular recreation (apparently).

[mel b3]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

And I'm sure in many parts of the world (UK included), it wouldn't be - but the USA have a much more 'relaxed' attitude to the whole firearms topic from recreation, personal protection, 'everyday' carry etc.  "Plinking' with handguns is a popular recreation (apparently).

Yep. The whole sorry story is just sooo American. 

[Walker570]

....and I see he is now saying he  didn't pull the trigger.  He admits he did not know how the live round got in there but still did not check the gun personally himself which to my mind is out and out carelessness.

 A 'Phantom handgun' which loaded itself with live cartridges and actually fired by itself ....amazing.  I have no sympathy for anyone other than the family of the dead woman.

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said:

This seems at odds with the testimonies that there had already been incidents of the gun going off without the trigger being pulled earlier on in filming. 

I guess we'll have to wait and see - if that's even provable. Baldwin might be relying on precedent having been set with the gun firing without the trigger being pulled to at least muddy the waters with blame, or he may genuinely have not pulled it and there's a fault with the gun or ammunition. 

Given how poor the safety record and behaviour of the gun team and crew had been on this film set, anything's possible. It sounds like a right cowboy enterprise...only appropriate when filming a Western, I guess!

In order for the gun to have gone off (if as was alleged he was practicing his quickdraw), he had to have cocked the hammer back past half cock (to cycle the cylinder and produce a round to be fired in the chamber aligned with the barrel) and also have pulled the trigger to allow the hammer to go forwards past the half cock postion to strike the cartridge.

At no point is he alleging that he hit the back of the gun (hammer) with something to set it off, if the chamber was already live.

As a co-producer,  as well as being criminally liable for the wrongful death, he is also civilly liable for the 'accident' and anyone of us peons would have been arrested (and bailed) if this had happened but somehow he wan't.

But the nub of the matter, is that every time you handle a gun (real or prop) you check it is clear. no matter what anyone else has told you and he failed to do so.

In the USA, negligence is not a defence against manslaughter or being sued.

[Scully]

5 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

In an interview (R4 Today, this morning) he said he drew the hammer back rehearsing a scene and asked (the director?) if that was OK?  On being told yes, he released the hammer - and 'bang' the gun went off.

It was a Colt 45, but I don't know enough to comment on whether this 'can happen', or should be prevented in some 'mechanical was such as half cock sear, or safety sear etc.  On a rather basic item, I suspect there aren't any such fitted.

How the gun came to be pointing in the direction of any person can ONLY be the holder's responsibility.

The hammer on a single action revolver, once at full cock, can only be released by pulling the trigger. It’s quite easy ( with a bit of practice ) to decock by pulling the trigger and keeping tension on the hammer with your thumb, but it’s not safe practice to do so on a loaded chamber, which is why we only ever loaded five with the hammer on an empty chamber. 
I find it hard to believe that he is that unfamiliar with firearms, or that he hasn’t had sufficient training in their use, given the films he has been in. 
Edited: Just seen the post of Stonepark. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Scully

[JohnfromUK]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

It’s quite easy ( with a bit of practice ) to decock by pulling the trigger and keeping tension on the hammer with your thumb, but it’s not safe practice to do so on a loaded chamber

As per a hammer gun - where you open the gun and remove the cartridges before 'letting down' the hammers gently.  This is what I do with my hammer guns.  Rarely, you encounter a top lever hammer gun where the right hammer (when at full cock) prevents the lever moving enough to open the gun.

[chrisjpainter]

52 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

In order for the gun to have gone off (if as was alleged he was practicing his quickdraw), he had to have cocked the hammer back past half cock (to cycle the cylinder and produce a round to be fired in the chamber aligned with the barrel) and also have pulled the trigger to allow the hammer to go forwards past the half cock postion to strike the cartridge.

At no point is he alleging that he hit the back of the gun (hammer) with something to set it off, if the chamber was already live.

As a co-producer,  as well as being criminally liable for the wrongful death, he is also civilly liable for the 'accident' and anyone of us peons would have been arrested (and bailed) if this had happened but somehow he wan't.

But the nub of the matter, is that every time you handle a gun (real or prop) you check it is clear. no matter what anyone else has told you and he failed to do so.

In the USA, negligence is not a defence against manslaughter or being sued.

I don't doubt that and the video you posted was very helpful, but there have been testimonies saying that the gun had gone off  before twice without the trigger being pulled, and the attorney for the AD has made a statement to say that at no point did the AD see Baldwin pull the trigger and that his finger wasn't even in the trigger guard. 
Attorney for 'Rust' assistant director says Alec Baldwin 'did not pull that trigger' - ABC News (go.com)

Given everything that's been reported what I don't think is too much of a stretch is that either a) the gun was faulty or b) had been modified/tampered with. There have had been a litany of safety failings on this film, a poorly maintained weapon would be completely unremarkable.

Agreed. I can understand someone who's been outspoken on the prevalence of firearms being unfamiliar with how one works, as it'd be hypocritical to be anti-gun but regularly using them! But to my mind that should make them even more likely to check that there really isn't something lurking in a chamber - especially given the poor safety record the film had already had with firearms, including the crew using live ammo for fun off set.

 

[Dougy]

They can look at the ins and out of every ducks orifice they like but the only single question that needs answering is "why a live round was in the firearm"  And for Alec Baldwin to say he didn't pull the trigger is just pure stupid, Like me saying i haven't typed this post. 

How else did it happen. 

[clangerman]

it’s all a load of cobblers a armourer is responsible for firearms and ammunition on set so any live round present in the chamber is full square down to their failure regardless of how the round comes to be fired Baldwin should chuck the armourer straight under the bus where they belong 

[ShootingEgg]

8 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

And I'm sure in many parts of the world (UK included), it wouldn't be - but the USA have a much more 'relaxed' attitude to the whole firearms topic from recreation, personal protection, 'everyday' carry etc.  "Plinking' with handguns is a popular recreation (apparently).

Think like you say it is hugely relaxed and seems they can just do anything when it comes to firearms .

 

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Dougy said:

They can look at the ins and out of every ducks orifice they like but the only single question that needs answering is "why a live round was in the firearm"  And for Alec Baldwin to say he didn't pull the trigger is just pure stupid, Like me saying i haven't typed this post. 

How else did it happen. 

Three separate incidents where it's been claimed that weapon had gone off without the trigger being pulled suggests it might be a lot more complicated than this...

[Dougy]

4 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Three separate incidents where it's been claimed that weapon had gone off without the trigger being pulled suggests it might be a lot more complicated than this...

It still doesn't answer the question though,  why a live round was in ANY gun on the set. 

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, Dougy said:

It still doesn't answer the question though,  why a live round was in ANY gun on the set. 

No not at all. as I said above. A litany of screw ups here, resulting in one young woman losing her life 😞

[Dougy]

I'm betting money will cover this up. Someone will put it down to a technical fault. 

[Newbie to this]

Yes technically some idiot, pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger (or not, if you believe that), a gun that they had zero idea if it was loaded or not.

He might not be solely responsible, but Alec Baldwin is not without fault here.

[ShootingEgg]

52 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

No not at all. as I said above. A litany of screw ups here, resulting in one young woman losing her life 😞

And nothing will change, live guns will still be allowed on sets and will continue to be used in those settings. Someone has lost their life and it will just go down as a "terrible accident" (hot Fuzz style) 

[bluesj]

Saying the gun just went off and had done so before is really a very good argument, all they are really saying is that we knew the gun was faulty and could go off at any time possibly causing death or injury but we carried on  using it anyway!

[Rewulf]

15 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Three separate incidents where it's been claimed that weapon had gone off without the trigger being pulled suggests it might be a lot more complicated than this...

On a single action revolver , if the hammer isnt raised , no amount of pressure on the trigger would make the gun fire.

If the hammer has a 2 stage property, where full c o c k 'arms' the trigger, and half c o c k allows loading ect , its usual that when half set, the trigger cannot be released without pressure first being taken off the hammer.

Most single action revolvers of this type allow the trigger to be depressed, and the hammer pulled back and released (whilst keeping trigger depressed) and thus allowing enough pressure to fire a chambered round.

A Peacemaker style  revolver of this type, would need the hammer to be set at half c o c k , and the loading gate opened to check if there were rounds loaded.
There is an unsafe way to do this, by looking at the gun from the front , but then you are basically pointing a possibly loaded gun at yourself.

Mr Baldwin chose to do none of this, and allegedly relied upon the (inexperienced) armourer to tell him the gun was safe and unloaded.

A member of the camera crew on the film “Rust” disputed claims by actor Alec Baldwin that he didn’t pull the trigger on the Colt .45 prop gun, fatally shooting the movie’s cinematographer and injuring its director.

In a statement Thursday, first camera assistant Lane Luper, through his Albuquerque attorney, countered Baldwin’s remarks — just hours before a planned ABC prime-time program. Baldwin told ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that he didn’t fire the gun during an Oct. 21 rehearsal, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.

“The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger. No, no, no, no, no,” Baldwin told Stephanopoulos in a clip from “Alec Baldwin Unscripted.” “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

Although he was not on the set the day of the shooting, Luper, through his attorney, Jacob G. Vigil, said Baldwin’s claims didn’t add up.

 

“Guns don’t just go off. The single action Colt .45 revolver handled by Alec Baldwin required multiple active steps to discharge and kill Halyna Hutchins,” Luper said in the statement. “The gun had to be loaded with live ammunition, held and pointed, the hammer of the weapon manually cocked, and the trigger pulled. It was not a magic self-firing weapon.”

[chrisjpainter]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

On a single action revolver , if the hammer isnt raised , no amount of pressure on the trigger would make the gun fire.

If the hammer has a 2 stage property, where full c o c k 'arms' the trigger, and half c o c k allows loading ect , its usual that when half set, the trigger cannot be released without pressure first being taken off the hammer.

Most single action revolvers of this type allow the trigger to be depressed, and the hammer pulled back and released (whilst keeping trigger depressed) and thus allowing enough pressure to fire a chambered round.

A Peacemaker style  revolver of this type, would need the hammer to be set at half c o c k , and the loading gate opened to check if there were rounds loaded.
There is an unsafe way to do this, by looking at the gun from the front , but then you are basically pointing a possibly loaded gun at yourself.

Mr Baldwin chose to do none of this, and allegedly relied upon the (inexperienced) armourer to tell him the gun was safe and unloaded.

A member of the camera crew on the film “Rust” disputed claims by actor Alec Baldwin that he didn’t pull the trigger on the Colt .45 prop gun, fatally shooting the movie’s cinematographer and injuring its director.

In a statement Thursday, first camera assistant Lane Luper, through his Albuquerque attorney, countered Baldwin’s remarks — just hours before a planned ABC prime-time program. Baldwin told ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that he didn’t fire the gun during an Oct. 21 rehearsal, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.

“The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger. No, no, no, no, no,” Baldwin told Stephanopoulos in a clip from “Alec Baldwin Unscripted.” “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

Although he was not on the set the day of the shooting, Luper, through his attorney, Jacob G. Vigil, said Baldwin’s claims didn’t add up.

 

“Guns don’t just go off. The single action Colt .45 revolver handled by Alec Baldwin required multiple active steps to discharge and kill Halyna Hutchins,” Luper said in the statement. “The gun had to be loaded with live ammunition, held and pointed, the hammer of the weapon manually cocked, and the trigger pulled. It was not a magic self-firing weapon.”

The single action revolver may have needed several stages to discharge - if it was functioning properly. From everything I've read of this farce of a set, a poorly maintained firearm that isn't functioning how it was intended to function would be completely unsurprising, as I've said before.

The chap you've quote wasn't even on set when it happened, the AD was and has put in his statement (and maintained from the beginning) that at no point did Baldwin pull the trigger. Added to the fact that there had been two previous claimed incidents where it had fired without the trigger and you have to at least entertain the thought that, for whatever reason, this specific gun had the capacity to do it. If it had just been Baldwin claiming it, I'd agree with you that he's probably talking nonsense. But it's him, the AD and the two previous claimed incidents of it happening. At some point, you have to consider that this time for whatever reason, it might just be a zebra, not a horse, you can hear.

[Centrepin]

"Alec the actor said."

Erm, he's an actor, trained to say lines as given to him. Anything he says is like any other actor speaking, rubbish.

Might be why actors make good politicaliticians.

Let the investigators and those that specialise in laying the blame decide

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

The single action revolver may have needed several stages to discharge - if it was functioning properly. From everything I've read of this farce of a set, a poorly maintained firearm that isn't functioning how it was intended to function would be completely unsurprising, as I've said before.

The chap you've quote wasn't even on set when it happened, the AD was and has put in his statement (and maintained from the beginning) that at no point did Baldwin pull the trigger.

What I tried to explain from my own knowledge of single action revolvers, and dont get me wrong  the gun may have had a dodgy seer, is that discharging this type of gun usually requires trigger depression , but bringing the hammer back to full c o c k is not the best idea .

I would go so far as to say , it doesnt matter if the seer was worn if , as he says it was the gun was at half c o c k.

And if he or anyone else on the set  knew the gun was faulty , why did they not get it fixed , or replace it.
Baldwin appears to be trying to save his behind to my eye.
As far as the 'armourer' goes , the operation of such a gun is that simple, even the most basic of knowledge could fix it, alternatively , a couple of hundred dollars could replace it ?

[chrisjpainter]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What I tried to explain from my own knowledge of single action revolvers, and dont get me wrong  the gun may have had a dodgy seer, is that discharging this type of gun usually requires trigger depression , but bringing the hammer back to full c o c k is not the best idea .

I would go so far as to say , it doesnt matter if the seer was worn if , as he says it was the gun was at half c o c k.

And if he or anyone else on the set  knew the gun was faulty , why did they not get it fixed , or replace it.
Baldwin appears to be trying to save his behind to my eye.
As far as the 'armourer' goes , the operation of such a gun is that simple, even the most basic of knowledge could fix it, alternatively , a couple of hundred dollars could replace it ?

Yup. All infuriatingly good questions that it seems staggeringly obvious should have been dealt with. Before Baldwin had it in his hand (and didn't check it was indeed empty) so many screw ups have been made. I don't know if this was a particularly poor film set, or whether there is just a standard cavalier attitude to firearms in a country that has such relaxed rules in public, not just on set. 

Either way, with any luck, tightening of procedure could be a good thing to come out of this tragedy

[Rewulf]

This video explains it better than I could.

 

[Windswept]

32 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

This video explains it better than I could.

 

That video doesn't explain much. Some makes of primers are far harder to set off than others, so a CCI primer may not go off on some guns at full cock whereas a Federal primer will. If the hammer spring is hard enough to set off the CCI then I would not be surprised to see the primer go off with a small amount of hammer fall.

To be honest, without having the exact gun in front of me I could tell you what it's capable of doing, I've seen all sorts of things happen.