PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on October 22, 2021, 05:32:35 AM
-
It appears that the great hypocrite, himself, grabbed a prop gun and accidentally fired it killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring another, on the set of Rust, a new movie glorifying guns and violence, by the anti gun fucking commie Hollywood left.
Mr. I Hate The Second Baldwin was seen weeping outside the New Mexico sheriffs office shortly after the killing.
Odd how reluctant the communist media is to properly cover this story. How different than if this was a conservative actor doing the murdering.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/10/21/alec-baldwin-film-rust-woman-killed-after-prop-gun-incident-set/6128073001/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/antigun_actor_alec_baldwin_shot_a_woman_to_death.html
-
It appears that the great hypocrite, himself, grabbed a prop gun and accidentally fired it killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring another, on the set of Rust, a new movie glorifying guns and violence, by the anti gun fucking commie Hollywood left.
Mr. I Hate The Second Baldwin was seen weeping outside the New Mexico sheriffs office shortly after the killing.
Odd how reluctant the communist media is to properly cover this story. How different than if this was a conservative actor doing the murdering.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/10/21/alec-baldwin-film-rust-woman-killed-after-prop-gun-incident-set/6128073001/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/antigun_actor_alec_baldwin_shot_a_woman_to_death.html
See my shocked face :-/
Alec ShitForBrains Baldwin
-
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1451518389617311745
-
The question is, who the hell put a real bullet(s) in the prop gun and why would he point it at a person like that and pull the trigger.
-
Watch this get flipped into a gun confiscation tirade.
-
Sorry someone got killed and another injured. Would be nice if he were to pick up some sort of negligence charge over this. Would be pretty good karma for an anti-gun retard to get convicted of a firearm related crime.
-
The question is, who the hell put a real bullet(s) in the prop gun and why would he point it at a person like that and pull the trigger.
See Reply #1 above...
-
Watch this get flipped into a gun confiscation tirade.
I fear you may be correct...
-
Watch this get flipped into a gun confiscation tirade.
He's going to be pull the victim card on himself. Instead of gun confiscation, let's make it illegal for movies to be made that have guns in it. Would pretty much ruin the movie industry.
-
He's going to be pull the victim card on himself. Instead of gun confiscation, let's make it illegal for movies to be made that have guns in it. Would pretty much ruin the movie industry.
And of course this goes with all of the dim witted gun handling we see on TV and the movies, with people running around with their fingers in the trigger guard all of the time. I bet he was handling it with his booger digger on the trigger.
-
Mr. I Hate The Second Baldwin was seen weeping outside the New Mexico sheriffs office shortly after the killing.
ALWAYS the actor. What a fraud.
-
The question is, who the hell put a real bullet(s) in the prop gun and why would he point it at a person like that and pull the trigger.
Time to call Columbo.
-
https://twitter.com/TimJGraham/status/1451388861305720833
-
The question is, who the hell put a real bullet(s) in the prop gun and why would he point it at a person like that and pull the trigger.
Why are there real guns there at all. Or at least ones able to fire live amo
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
https://twitter.com/TimJGraham/status/1451388861305720833
From Alec fucking retard Baldwin's Twitter Feed about Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCRePaWXsA4g_P8?format=png&name=small)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCRePaWXsA4g_P8?format=png&name=small (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCRePaWXsA4g_P8?format=png&name=small)
-
Why are there real guns there at all. Or at least ones able to fire live amo
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Sometimes they use real guns but fire blanks, it could have been a casing fragment. They can modify the gun to fit blanks but not ammo. Sometimes they fire real bullets for authentic looking shots but of course those wouldn’t be aimed at people and they have whole teams of specialists overseeing the safety of things. Obviously something went wrong here.
-
Can't help but wonder, since they couldn't associate themselves with anyone who is pro second amendment and a professional with regards to firearms, perhaps they settled for a Hollywood type movie "gun guy" that has little to no real firearms background.
Too soon to know.
-
Apparently poor, wounded, asshole, hypocrite alec baldwin immediately asked prop master why he was handed a gun with live ammunition when he killed one and wounded another...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10118665/Rust-movie-set-starring-Alec-Baldwin-LOCKED-New-Mexico.html
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211022/bd04892d9878334a3d58c60ee4238073.jpg)
-
maybe a litte too soon
-
maybe a litte too soon
Nope. Not at all.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10121545/Production-crew-walked-Alec-Baldwin-movie-set-hours-tragic-shooting.html
-
He's the Moron's Moron. What a fucking Woketard idiot.
-
maybe a litte too soon
Sorry. Not when you are such a fucking hypocritical, egotistical douche bag like Baldwin.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211023/f2799bff9616a872c4a5319a74d56960.jpg)
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211023/f2799bff9616a872c4a5319a74d56960.jpg)
What bothers me about the Alex Baldwin mess is why didn't he check the weapon? That was beat into me from the time I was old enough to handle firearms.
-
Baldwin’s public persona has been hard to miss, even if you don’t pay much attention to celebrities.
He’s a narcissistic, angry, dissipated, undisciplined, hateful and dishonest jerk. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near him. I’m extremely sad for this victim.
-
What bothers me about the Alex Baldwin mess is why didn't he check the weapon? That was beat into me from the time I was old enough to handle firearms.
If it was a malfunctioning blank, checking to make sure it was a blank wouldn’t have helped. What I want to know is why was it pointed to a person and the trigger pulled at all? My understanding of filming with prop guns is you never point it directly at the other actor and pull a trigger. The editing takes care of the scene. Of course that’s based on googling, not that I know anything of the industry. On the other hand you see them point guns at each other with their finger on the trigger all the time, so that renders the rule useless even if it is a rule. It’s too easy to accidentally pull a trigger, especially if it’s light.
A report has come out that an assistant producer handed him the wrong gun. Maybe, but there should be NO gun anywhere on the set loaded with live ammo. Sometimes they shoot scenes using live ammo. If they were doing that they failed big time to keep them separated.
He was told he was handed a cold gun. But the people responsible for the prop safety were New Mexico people, not the Hollywood experts that have developed strict safety protocols over generations in California. They apparently did that to save money, and Baldwin himself is one of the producers so must have been involved in that decision. If true, the responsibility circles back to him. And if it was a live round (lead bullet) and he didn’t check the chamber himself then he was TWO links in the accident chain.
-
He’s an actor, a guy that pretends to be somebody else. Nothing more.
Being an actor is not special, nor does it make the person special. But because of celebrity worship, these people take on an air of self importance and often believe they are above mere peasants.
Gun safety? Does anyone honestly believe this guy had one clue to gun safety? After all, he’s a celebrity! Why he’s handled lots of prop guns!
Sorry, he’s responsible for this. His idiocy has now killed another.
But in the democrat world, killing someone only brings about more admiration and esteem. Look at how it elevated Ted Kennedy.
-
Gross negligence all around. But of course they are going to go after the armorer on set. Baldwin will walk free and clear and use this as more ammo in his anti-gun tirades.
-
Gross negligence all around. But of course they are going to go after the armorer on set. Baldwin will walk free and clear and use this as more ammo in his anti-gun tirades.
That’s exactly what will happen. Find some guy or girl to hang for it, not the “important” big people and not the lowliest one involved but someone with mid level authority, high enough to satisfy the public that someone of importance is punished but certainly not the top elite, they are never held accountable. Unless they’re not leftists though probably. If a conservative actor had done this they’d probably go after him.
-
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5895.0;attach=2303;image)
-
Apparently it was live ammo:
-
I was told that they were out shooting for fun with live ammo in the desert near the movie location at some point prior to this accident.
I have not been able to verify it though.
-
This guy has a good summary of the events, if his info is accurate.
-
What bothers me about the Alex Baldwin mess is why didn't he check the weapon? That was beat into me from the time I was old enough to handle firearms.
Agreed. Only an anti-gun novice dickhead would pull a trigger on a gun (prop or not) without thinking that they are willing to destroy whatever they are shooting at.
-
Agreed. Only an anti-gun novice dickhead would pull a trigger on a gun (prop or not) without thinking that they are willing to destroy whatever they are shooting at.
Not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t know what the protocol is for actors and props. It might be different from what we are used to with ordinary gun handling. The steps between guns being made available on set and one being put into the hand of an actor are supposedly many and tightly controlled for safety to the point where the person that hands the gun to the actor says “cold gun” might be the final check. Much the same as the TSA security checkpoint at an airport is the last time you’re searched for a weapon. They don’t scan you again at the gate as you board the plane. In the interest of time constraints during filming, actors are juggling the demands of the scene, standing on marks, dealing with multiple props, etc., perhaps they’re not expected to do chamber checks on firearm props every time one is handed to them.
A search warrant released Friday said that armorer Hannah Gutierrez laid out three prop guns on a cart outside the filming location, and first assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the gun from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded.
This guy, Dave Halls, picked up a gun, did not check it himself, yet told Baldwin it was unloaded. Again, I don’t know what the protocol is supposed to be but it seems reasonable to me that this guy should have done the final check, or at least a check. He is the one that picked it up not having viewed the recent chain of custody. But from the point he held it and declared it “cold” it would be in the same condition it was when he picked it up, is what the actor would presume.
This little girl is apparently the main point of failure. She put the guns on the cart, a cart of props going into the scene. None should have been hot. Somehow she failed to check them. You could argue that Dave Halls presumed they were all cold because they were on the cart, and there is no difference between that presumption and Baldwin’s presumption that Hall was handing him a cold gun and perhaps that is valid.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/photos-this-is-the-woman-alec-baldwin-put-in-charge-of-firearms-for-his-low-budget-film/
It goes back to hiring this kid as opposed to schlepping in real and experienced experts from California as the root cause of this disaster. And if Baldwin as one of the producers had any hand in that decision he is indeed culpable.
-
Not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t know what the protocol is for actors and props. It might be different from what we are used to with ordinary gun handling. The steps between guns being made available on set and one being put into the hand of an actor are supposedly many and tightly controlled for safety to the point where the person that hands the gun to the actor says “cold gun” might be the final check. Much the same as the TSA security checkpoint at an airport is the last time you’re searched for a weapon. They don’t scan you again at the gate as you board the plane. In the interest of time constraints during filming, actors are juggling the demands of the scene, standing on marks, dealing with multiple props, etc., perhaps they’re not expected to do chamber checks on firearm props every time one is handed to them.
This guy, Dave Halls, picked up a gun, did not check it himself, yet told Baldwin it was unloaded. Again, I don’t know what the protocol is supposed to be but it seems reasonable to me that this guy should have done the final check, or at least a check. He is the one that picked it up not having viewed the recent chain of custody. But from the point he held it and declared it “cold” it would be in the same condition it was when he picked it up, is what the actor would presume.
This little girl is apparently the main point of failure. She put the guns on the cart, a cart of props going into the scene. None should have been hot. Somehow she failed to check them. You could argue that Dave Halls presumed they were all cold because they were on the cart, and there is no difference between that presumption and Baldwin’s presumption that Hall was handing him a cold gun and perhaps that is valid.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/photos-this-is-the-woman-alec-baldwin-put-in-charge-of-firearms-for-his-low-budget-film/
It goes back to hiring this kid as opposed to schlepping in real and experienced experts from California as the root cause of this disaster. And if Baldwin as one of the producers had any hand in that decision he is indeed culpable.
Frankly I won’t believe anything I see on this. The stakes are too high for Baldwin, and he is the type of guy who will throw anyone under the bus to save his life, his career, his reputation, and his activism. His ego is too great to think otherwise.
He didn’t point the gun at an actor in a scene, so the time constraints thing doesn’t hold water with me. He pointed it at a crew member and pulled the trigger, high enough to hit her in the chest.
-
Could have been a camera shot head on to Baldwin. That would not be out of the ordinary.
-
I think it’s a little much, but read someone lament Baldwin wasn’t doing a suicide scene.
Rule #1 of gun safety…which of course he doesn’t know because he is an ignorant twat. But he is still responsible for the round. There are no accidental discharges, only negligent ones.
-
I think it’s a little much, but read someone lament Baldwin wasn’t doing a suicide scene.
Rule #1 of gun safety…which of course he doesn’t know because he is an ignorant twat. But he is still responsible for the round. There are no accidental discharges, only negligent ones.
If he is responsible, it’s because he hired an inexperienced airhead to be in charge of the gun props. And as a producer, was ultimately responsible for all safety measures including a protective shield if people are on the camera in a front camera shot. My understanding is that’s what happened. He was firing as he backed out of a church and the camera was in front of him. The (expensive) Hollywood experts would have had a shield in place or used a robotic camera.
No doubt there is a written protocol somewhere with checklists. I’d like to know if, in that protocol, each actor is required each time he is handed a gun, even if told “cold”, to check it himself. We can proclaim all day long that they should anyway, but I want to know what the real practice is. In all the history of Hollywood there have been only two other fatal prop gun incidents. For how much they use guns that’s an incredible safety record.
Well I found it. The property master (or a weapons handler in their absence) is the one responsible for:
“Checking all firearms before each use.”
Page 4, item 16:
https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf
Here are the rules for using live ammunition. Notice the general gun handling rules are here, but not listed under the rules for blanks:
https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/02LIVE_AMMUNITION.pdf
These are industry rules, not law, and it remains unclear to me whether the general rules about pointing guns and keeping your finger off the trigger apply in the case of blanks. Presumably not, because they violate those in nearly every show and movie.
It seems clear that this production violated many of the safety standards including allowing only experienced and properly trained weapons specialists to load and supervise the props. This kid was neither, as evidenced by her social media posting that she wasn’t comfortable dealing with blanks and had to get extra coaching from her dad before arriving on set. It turns out it wasn’t just blanks about which she didn’t know her job.
-
There's no "if" he is responsible. He picked up the gun. He pulled the trigger. He IS responsible. "I didn't know" or "it was his job" are not legal defenses.
He was negligent on safety. He was negligent because of his anti-gun bigotry. And he is guilty of manslaughter.
-
There's no "if" he is responsible. He picked up the gun. He pulled the trigger. He IS responsible. "I didn't know" or "it was his job" are not legal defenses.
He was negligent on safety. He was negligent because of his anti-gun bigotry. And he is guilty of manslaughter.
But he'll go free. People like him circle the wagons to protect people like him. *spit*
-
There's no "if" he is responsible. He picked up the gun. He pulled the trigger. He IS responsible. "I didn't know" or "it was his job" are not legal defenses.
Are you a lawyer?
He was negligent on safety. He was negligent because of his anti-gun bigotry. And he is guilty of manslaughter.
Unfortunately in this country we have innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That applies to everyone, even slimy communist anti-American pieces of shit.
-
Are you a lawyer?
Unfortunately in this country we have innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That applies to everyone, even slimy communist anti-American pieces of shit.
Unless you are a Supporter of the real President, not the senile, imposter, President fuckwad.
-
Unless you are a Supporter of the real President, not the senile, imposter, President fuckwad.
True, I forgot; double standard.
-
The sad thing is, this is going to result in drastic changes in the industry. They’ll be using inert plastic “guns”, faking recoil, and CGIing in the visuals. It’s gonna suck. I already can’t stand CGI apes and tigers. Oh well American entertainment pure sucks anymore anyway.
And it will all be unnecessary as the real prop experts fixed the problem after the Brandon Lee incident. The bottom line cause of this one is trying to save money by not using them and hiring an amateur.
-
The sad thing is, this is going to result in drastic changes in the industry. They’ll be using inert plastic “guns”, faking recoil, and CGIing in the visuals. It’s gonna suck. I already can’t stand CGI apes and tigers. Oh well American entertainment pure sucks anymore anyway.
And it will all be unnecessary as the real prop experts fixed the problem after the Brandon Lee incident. The bottom line cause of this one is trying to save money by not using them and hiring an amateur.
Leftists always have to do SOMETHING even if it the wrong thing to do. Actually just FOLLOWING the existing rules would be fine. However, you're right, there is nothing new I want to see from Hollywood anymore and it has been that way for quite some time. It all sucks today.
-
Are you a lawyer?
Unfortunately in this country we have innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That applies to everyone, even slimy communist anti-American pieces of shit.
Am I a lawyer? No, but I can read the law. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed (1)..., or (2)...., or (3) without due caution and circumspection. That is directly quoted from N.M. state law, I added numbers to the conditions for clarity. Unlawful? Killing? Human? Without malice? Without due caution and circumspection? Check, check, check, check, and check.
Certainly we know the difference between being guilty and being found guilty, no? He IS guilty of it.
Whether or not the DA in N.M. covers for him and doesn't file charges or whether or not a jury has a hold out that refuses to convict a famous leftist is an entirely different matter. If this goes to a court, I can only see two outcomes - conviction or hung jury and the latter only if a jury member refuses to follow the law.
-
Certainly we know the difference between being guilty and being found guilty, no? He IS guilty of it.
True and I agree overall with your assessment of the evidence.
However, from a legal perspective, if you state in print in a public forum that someone is guilty of a crime who has not been adjudicated guilty, that can be the tort of libel.
-
However, from a legal perspective, if you state in print in a public forum that someone is guilty of a crime who has not been adjudicated guilty, that can be the tort of libel.
Fair enough, but if Baldwin actually sues all the people on the web who are roasting him over this incident, he might collect one or two percent of the money he's going to have to pay out in settlements as one of the producers of the movie.
Tim
-
Fair enough, but if Baldwin actually sues all the people on the web who are roasting him over this incident, he might collect one or two percent of the money he's going to have to pay out in settlements as one of the producers of the movie.
Tim
He's a public figure, so the laws of libel are more difficult for Baldwin to pursue against anyone than say a private citizen.
Personally I don't see anything happening to him. We have a two tiered justice system now.
-
(https://media.patriots.win/post/waKLzCPQ.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/WiXxbAV.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4CyjBs4.jpg)
-
Am I a lawyer? No, but I can read the law. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed (1)..., or (2)...., or (3) without due caution and circumspection. That is directly quoted from N.M. state law, I added numbers to the conditions for clarity. Unlawful? Killing? Human? Without malice? Without due caution and circumspection? Check, check, check, check, and check.
Certainly we know the difference between being guilty and being found guilty, no? He IS guilty of it.
Nope. The only fact we know is that a homicide was committed. That’s it. “Homicide” is not synonymous with murder or manslaughter. It simply means someone killed another person. It includes killings that are purely accidental with no criminal negligence, no lack of due caution or circumspection. We don’t know what, if anything, unlawful, he is guilty of.
-
Nope. The only fact we know is that a homicide was committed. That’s it. “Homicide” is not synonymous with murder or manslaughter. It simply means someone killed another person. It includes killings that are purely accidental with no criminal negligence, no lack of due caution or circumspection. We don’t know what, if anything, unlawful, he is guilty of.
That more correctly describes Brian Laundrie. The difference between Laundrie and Baldwin is that we KNOW that Baldwin pulled the trigger.
-
Nope. The only fact we know is that a homicide was committed. That’s it. “Homicide” is not synonymous with murder or manslaughter. It simply means someone killed another person. It includes killings that are purely accidental with no criminal negligence, no lack of due caution or circumspection. We don’t know what, if anything, unlawful, he is guilty of.
It's possible the type of killing could be more than manslaughter, but I can see zero evidence of malice. It can convincingly be shown to have been accidental, so holding onto any belief that it might rise to murder is folly.
-
That more correctly describes Brian Laundrie. The difference between Laundrie and Baldwin is that we KNOW that Baldwin pulled the trigger.
“Homicide” describes how Gabby Petito died but doesn’t say anything about Laundrie. But he probably did it. Yes, we know Baldwin pulled the trigger and we know he committed homicide. What has not been proven is whether he committed criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.
-
“Homicide” describes how Gabby Petito died but doesn’t say anything about Laundrie. But he probably did it. Yes, we know Baldwin pulled the trigger and we know he committed homicide. What has not been proven is whether he committed criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.
But manslaughter is a lesser included charge. We know he did at least that.
His PR people are already smearing the armorer.
-
But manslaughter is a lesser included charge. We know he did at least that.
Nope. We highly suspect it but don’t know it. Actors aren’t supposed to be firearms experts but apparently on this set the assistant director was responsible for holding safety meetings that inform the actors and everyone else how to be safe. Dave Halls was the one who handed Baldwin the gun:
“He did not maintain a safe working environment,” she told NBC. “Sets were almost always allowed to become increasingly claustrophobic, no established fire lanes, exits blocked ... safety meetings were nonexistent.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dave-halls-set-gun-safety-complaints-alec-baldwin_n_61755f46e4b066de4f63ceb4
You can argue that Baldwin should have known the set was dangerous because safety meetings weren’t being held, but that doesn’t mean he should have known Halls would hand him a loaded gun. All of this is hearsay anyway. None of us were there to see what happened, nor do we have anything like a complete understanding of the whole context and the state of mind of all involved. We are probably close to correct in what we think the truth is, but we don’t know.
His PR people are already smearing the armorer.
As they should, for her fashion sense if nothing else.
She’s going to end up thrown under the bus for this, no doubt along with Halls, but she is a naive, inexperienced novice. The fault is more with the producers who hired her and hired Dave Halls. If she didn’t look like such an arrogant brat I’d feel sorry for her. Her life is ruined, certainly her career is.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/kFeuDpY.gif)
-
OK, Alec Baldwin is both dumb as a stump AND not a stand up guy. Not that I thought the weasel would own up to what he did...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/02/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-interview-george-stephanopoulos/8839098002/
"Alec Baldwin said he cocked the gun but "didn't pull the trigger" "
"I cock the gun and I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off."
He drops the hammer on a live round and it isn't his fault because he didn't pull the trigger? Does he not know what the hammer actually does?
No Brains Baldwin
-
OK, Alec Baldwin is both dumb as a stump AND not a stand up guy. Not that I thought the weasel would own up to what he did...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/02/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-interview-george-stephanopoulos/8839098002/
"Alec Baldwin said he cocked the gun but "didn't pull the trigger" "
"I cock the gun and I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off."
He drops the hammer on a live round and it isn't his fault because he didn't pull the trigger? Does he now know what the hammer actually does?
No Brains Baldwin
If what he says is true, then he didn’t understand the gun he held. Modern weapons won’t do that but it seems they were using an authentic antique without the “automatic safety”. There is a discussion on PoA about what kind of gun it was and whether or not it had the “half cock notch” which I confess I know nothing about but I know enough about old guns to know they might go off if the hammer falls even without pulling the trigger. That might be what happened, BUT, that adds yet another layer of massive irresponsibility in the chain of events that led to this tragedy: the decision to use such a gun, then, no training about how it works, on top of live ammo being around, no checks right before use, etc. etc.
-
No shock, people don’t kill guns do. :)
-
Gun was in his hands, his responsibility, period.
-
If what he says is true, then he didn’t understand the gun he held. Modern weapons won’t do that but it seems they were using an authentic antique without the “automatic safety”. There is a discussion on PoA about what kind of gun it was and whether or not it had the “half cock notch” which I confess I know nothing about but I know enough about old guns to know they might go off if the hammer falls even without pulling the trigger. That might be what happened, BUT, that adds yet another layer of massive irresponsibility in the chain of events that led to this tragedy: the decision to use such a gun, then, no training about how it works, on top of live ammo being around, no checks right before use, etc. etc.
Drop the hammer from almost cocked on a 1911 and it's going to go off. The same for many weapons I'd think.
-
Drop the hammer from almost cocked on a 1911 and it's going to go off. The same for many weapons I'd think.
My brain was stuck on revolvers.
-
My brain was stuck on revolvers.
No matter the style, dropping the hammer on a live round is just asking for trouble.
-
never EVER trust the safety
Don't point a gun at anyone you don't want to kill... EVER
Even someone like baldwin should be able to comprehend that.
-
"I cock the gun and I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off."
He drops the hammer on a live round and it isn't his fault because he didn't pull the trigger? Does he not know what the hammer actually does?
No Brains Baldwin
He must have never watched all those old westerns where the gunfighter would hold and aim the gun and fan the hammer with his other hand practically turning it into a semiautomatic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMZEkZQQ6hk
-
He must have never watched all those old westerns where the gunfighter would hold and aim the gun and fan the hammer with his other hand practically turning it into a semiautomatic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMZEkZQQ6hk
To do that one must hold the trigger down.
-
Gun was in his hands, his responsibility, period.
Totally agree but you know he will never accept that.
-
https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
-
To do that one must hold the trigger down.
Not all of them.
-
I still trust a fart after eating Chipotle with a large coffee than I do what Baldwin says.
-
I still trust a fart after eating Chipotle with a large coffee than I do what Baldwin says.
With a Taco Bell chaser…
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/17C41UvchStTkd92UQ/giphy.gif)
-
Not all of them.
Which ones are you referring to?
-
https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/
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.
Now that makes total sense! I can easily see that. Baldwin being an anti-gunner, and in the movie business, no doubt thinks the normal way to always hold a gun is with your finger on the trigger. You do it unconsciously because that’s how you learned it from childhood watching all those shows. He probably was unaware that he had the trigger depressed and indeed has no memory of “pulling” it, because he already had it pulled when he first drew it.
Hollywood in general can be added to the list of guilty parties, for training all of us to put our finger on the trigger when we touch a gun.
-
I suspect the screw up was so monumental that he is blocking it out, either subconsciously or on the advice of legal counsel.
I don't think it matters. A revolver does not go off by itself, especially not a single action revolver. The pistol was in his hand, he pointed it and obviously he shot it. The only question in determining accidental manslaughter is whether or not he was careless. I believe the testimony that he did not seek the armorer's consent to fire the pistol means that he has to own it. By her own testimony that day to an officer, the pistol wasn't supposed to be fired. So why did Baldwin pick it up when shooting it hadn't been cleared, point it at someone, and pull the trigger?
-
I believe the testimony that he did not seek the armorer's consent to fire the pistol means that he has to own it.
He'll never own it and they'll never pin it on him. People like "him" don't have bad things happen to them. Mark my words, on the criminal side he's going to walk, on the civil side, it depends on how good his council performs.
-
I suspect the screw up was so monumental that he is blocking it out, either subconsciously or on the advice of legal counsel.
I don't think it matters. A revolver does not go off by itself, especially not a single action revolver. The pistol was in his hand, he pointed it and obviously he shot it. The only question in determining accidental manslaughter is whether or not he was careless. I believe the testimony that he did not seek the armorer's consent to fire the pistol means that he has to own it. By her own testimony that day to an officer, the pistol wasn't supposed to be fired. So why did Baldwin pick it up when shooting it hadn't been cleared, point it at someone, and pull the trigger?
Nitpick, not a pistol.
-
Were there any cameras filming at the time?
-
Were there any cameras filming at the time?
This was my immediate question as well. Also agree he may well have been holding the trigger down. Maybe gun control nuts with no real experience with firearms ought not be using them on the set. Or even making movies with guns, actually.
-
I should have done a simple search. According to this article they were filming when he shot:
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3914033/alec-baldwin-shooting-captured-camera-gun-killed-cinematographer/ (https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3914033/alec-baldwin-shooting-captured-camera-gun-killed-cinematographer/)
An eyewitness on the scene told The Sun that the tragedy was recorded on camera as the cast and crew did a take rehearsing their scene.
The insider claimed: “The camera was facing Alec who was shooting in the cameras general direction during a rehearsal scene that was being recorded.
"The cameras captured Alec shooting but Halyna and Joel were behind the camera so I don’t think the cameras captured them being shot.”
However, “cameras, lights and props were damaged” from the gunfire with “broken glass was everywhere,” so it is unclear if the footage would be salvable.
-
This was my immediate question as well. Also agree he may well have been holding the trigger down. Maybe gun control nuts with no real experience with firearms ought not be using them on the set. Or even making movies with guns, actually.
He should take lessons from experienced gun handlers like the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211203/39b70f7eb0b9a999ded8bc1727f4be1c.jpg)
-
He should take lessons from experienced gun handlers like the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial.
I've seen that pic before. Question I have is "What happened to the sights on that rifle?" Did someone steal them? Removed for "safety"? Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence?
Tim
-
I should have done a simple search. According to this article they were filming when he shot:
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3914033/alec-baldwin-shooting-captured-camera-gun-killed-cinematographer/ (https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3914033/alec-baldwin-shooting-captured-camera-gun-killed-cinematographer/)
An eyewitness on the scene told The Sun that the tragedy was recorded on camera as the cast and crew did a take rehearsing their scene.
The insider claimed: “The camera was facing Alec who was shooting in the cameras general direction during a rehearsal scene that was being recorded.
"The cameras captured Alec shooting but Halyna and Joel were behind the camera so I don’t think the cameras captured them being shot.”
However, “cameras, lights and props were damaged” from the gunfire with “broken glass was everywhere,” so it is unclear if the footage would be salvable.
If they were using a digital system there may be greater hope of recovery.
-
I've seen that pic before. Question I have is "What happened to the sights on that rifle?" Did someone steal them? Removed for "safety"? Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence?
Tim
Good question. Also appears not to have the safety flag in the chamber.
-
Good question. Also appears not to have the safety flag in the chamber.
There not only is no safety flag, but the bolt is closed. If that rifle is loaded and the safety is off, it's ready to go. I'm amazed they didn't AT LEAST put a cable tie through the ejection port, if not actually remove the bolt.
In other news, some idiot kid in Georgia was building up and selling 80 percent ARs (I won't call them "ghost guns".) He accidentally shot and killed his sister while shooting at some other kids who stole one of his rifles.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/georgia-teen-accidentally-killed-sister-with-ghost-gun/?utm_source=yahoo%20mail&utm_campaign=android_nyp
I have to admit the 80 percent lower idea has, contrary to my predictions, turned out to be a huge problem. I simply did not think that our criminal element had the brain power to complete a lower and build a rifle on it.
Tim
-
I have to admit the 80 percent lower idea has, contrary to my predictions, turned out to be a huge problem. I simply did not think that our criminal element had the brain power to complete a lower and build a rifle on it.
It’s not a difficult task. Finishing the 20% is a little filing, then assembling the parts. The Army trained thousands and thousands of people how to do this and there are simple videos available on YouTube.
-
I've seen that pic before. Question I have is "What happened to the sights on that rifle?" Did someone steal them? Removed for "safety"? Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence?
Depending on the build, some uppers don’t come with a carrying handle, which where the sight is traditionally placed. If you want to put a scope on it, you’d have no carrying handle and you’d get a barrel with no forward sights. My take is the scope was removed for whatever reason.
-
A4 uppers (aka flat-tops) don't have optics or sights. They have to be added. Some shooters like scopes, some like red dots, some like both.
A4 uppers are a lot more popular now than the old A2 upper (A2 is the old style carry handle upper with iron sights).
-
If they were using a digital system there may be greater hope of recovery.
Unless someone didn't want it recovered. ;)
-
There not only is no safety flag, but the bolt is closed. If that rifle is loaded and the safety is off, it's ready to go. I'm amazed they didn't AT LEAST put a cable tie through the ejection port, if not actually remove the bolt.
In other news, some idiot kid in Georgia was building up and selling 80 percent ARs (I won't call them "ghost guns".) He accidentally shot and killed his sister while shooting at some other kids who stole one of his rifles.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/georgia-teen-accidentally-killed-sister-with-ghost-gun/?utm_source=yahoo%20mail&utm_campaign=android_nyp
I have to admit the 80 percent lower idea has, contrary to my predictions, turned out to be a huge problem. I simply did not think that our criminal element had the brain power to complete a lower and build a rifle on it.
Tim
Making the gun wasn’t illegal, but selling it was (if I know my law?). Other than that why do we assume he was of the criminal element? Many law abiding blacks are waking up to exercising their 2nd amendment right. In fact, I support arming black communities. Gun control is one of the contributing causes of inner city crime.
I recently made a long post about stereotypes that blacks are stupid, particularly inner city poor (which I don’t know if this family was or not). This kid may be very smart, in fact he had figured out a way to make tons of money. On the other hand, firing the gun at the guy who robbed him was stupid because it’s probably illegal in GA although would have been legal in Texas. In any case he broke the know your target and everything behind and around it rule.
Here is what I see: “A mother is losing two kids….” A mother. Where is father? Apparently this kid feels the responsibility of being the man of the house. He has seen the rioting and general crime in Atlanta and got interested in guns probably more to protect himself and his family, then realized he could make a lot of money selling them to others. Maybe. Or maybe he’s already involved in selling drugs, being in a gang, etc. but even if that’s the case, he is still the male head of the family.
Age 13, puberty, is when you become a man in primitive cultures, that’s still in our genes, and one of the problems with modern civilization is that adolescent males are denied opportunities to express their manhood, which is to be protector and provider. Lacking an adult father to guide him safely through the learning period, this kid is only following instinct. He’s actually found a brilliant way to be both protector and provider. But he needed a mentor to teach him how to be that in safe, legal ways.
-
Making the gun wasn’t illegal, but selling it was (if I know my law?). Other than that why do we assume he was of the criminal element? Many law abiding blacks are waking up to exercising their 2nd amendment right. In fact, I support arming black communities. Gun control is one of the contributing causes of inner city crime.
ironically, some of the very early gun control attempts were intended to prevent blacks from owning guns. Let that sink in...
-
Which ones are you referring to?
Ok, I was probably wrong. I am by no means a gun expert, and when it comes to handguns, I am rather ignorant. Most of my "gun experience" was with hunting guns when I was in my teens.
I do remember when I was a kid, around 10ish, my friends dad took us to a firing range to show us a little about gun safety. I thought I remembered him firing a really old revolver by "fanning" the hammer. I probably don't remember this very well but I have always thought he never pulled the trigger. I probably thought that because he kept emphasizing to NEVER put your finger on the trigger, (unless . . .) I guess I just remembered it wrong.
-
ironically, some of the very early gun control attempts were intended to prevent blacks from owning guns. Let that sink in...
Similar to how the minimum wage was first implemented to discourage northern employers from hiring cheap black ex-slaves.
-
ironically, some of the very early gun control attempts were intended to prevent blacks from owning guns. Let that sink in...
GUN CONTROL
Progressive position:
Restrict access to guns as much as possible; ultimately ban and confiscate them all.
False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Gun violence is a scourge on society; easy access to killing machines unnecessarily facilitates murder and crime.
Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives want to disarm the populace to prevent armed resistance to the eventual imposition of a leftist totalitarian police state.
The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.
The basic dividing line in American politics is not (as it once was ) North vs. South, nor is it (as many people now assume) Coasts vs. Flyover Country, but rather Urban vs. Rural:
The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either — virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it’s about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy — or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants. …The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City.
Or put more simply: In modern America, liberals live in cities; conservatives live in rural areas. And what else is concentrated in cities? African-Americans, and gun violence:
The 62 center cities of America’s 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun-related murders.
Putting all these statistics together, we see that large cities have high concentrations of white liberals alongside gun-using black criminals. And yet it is specifically in Democrat-voting big cities where most of the gun-control measures are proposed. Why is that? Are the white progressive urban dwellers afraid of rootin’-tootin’ cowboys? Of backwoods deer hunters? Of hillbillies with shotguns? No: the average white progressive has never even met a cowboy, a hunter or a hillbilly. And frankly, progressives could care less if rednecks own guns, because progressives aren’t physically afraid of rednecks on a daily basis. Instead, they are afraid of gun violence at the hands of their fellow city-dwellers, the urban African-Americans who commit a wildly disproportionate percentage of the gun crimes in America.
Progressives don’t want to ban guns to disarm resistance to any upcoming police state; that idea has never even occurred to them. Instead, progressives want to ban guns because progressives are afraid of black people.
But God forbid that progressives’ racist motivations be exposed publicly. So to make the gun-control bans appear even-handed and race-neutral, progressives must try to ban guns for everyone, even though the bans are in reality aimed at one specific group. Rural gun-users are just collateral damage of a policy that actually targets inner-city blacks.
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/03/10/progressive-racism-the-hidden-motive-driving-modern-politics-n137846
-
Ok, I was probably wrong. I am by no means a gun expert, and when it comes to handguns, I am rather ignorant. Most of my "gun experience" was with hunting guns when I was in my teens.
I do remember when I was a kid, around 10ish, my friends dad took us to a firing range to show us a little about gun safety. I thought I remembered him firing a really old revolver by "fanning" the hammer. I probably don't remember this very well but I have always thought he never pulled the trigger. I probably thought that because he kept emphasizing to NEVER put your finger on the trigger, (unless . . .) I guess I just remembered it wrong.
https://www.historynet.com/western-movies-created-myth-fanning.htm
So to fan a single-action revolver, the shooter squeezed the trigger against the back of the trigger guard and held it there in firing position while repeatedly fanning back the hammer into full-cock position with the heel of his other hand. This fanning turned the cylinder and released the hammer to fall and fire a new chamber as rapidly as the shooter’s off hand could repeat this movement.
-
I've seen that pic before. Question I have is "What happened to the sights on that rifle?" Did someone steal them? Removed for "safety"? Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence?
Tim
I watched the case closely as well as local Wisconsin news coverage. This pic is totally legitimate, but I asked the same question. He had some optics on the rifle on the night in question, such as a red dot. I wonder if he removed it before surrendering it, and no one asked about it.
-
Good question. Also appears not to have the safety flag in the chamber.
In the trial the prosecutor asked the Sheriff’s deputy for the gun, and verbally asked the deputy to ensure it was safe, which I thought was odd. The deputy put on nitrate gloves, opened the chamber, inspected it, and then closed the chamber and handed it to the prosecutor, who didn’t wear gloves. Prosecutor took that stance for the cameras and the jury, for no valid reason IMO.
-
In the trial the prosecutor asked the Sheriff’s deputy for the gun, and verbally asked the deputy to ensure it was safe, which I thought was odd. The deputy put on nitrate gloves, opened the chamber, inspected it, and then closed the chamber and handed it to the prosecutor, who didn’t wear gloves. Prosecutor took that stance for the cameras and the jury, for no valid reason IMO.
Reprehensible and totally inappropriate to point it at the jury and put his finger on the trigger, no matter what. I understand you’re not defending that, just sayin. Can’t repeat it enough.
-
A4 uppers (aka flat-tops) don't have optics or sights.
I know that--I have one myself. My point was that in all the pic showing Kyle at the riot, there was an optic installed, and now it's conspicuously missing. Just wondered why anyone would have thought to remove it.
Tim
-
I know that--I have one myself. My point was that in all the pic showing Kyle at the riot, there was an optic installed, and now it's conspicuously missing. Just wondered why anyone would have thought to remove it.
Tim
ah. sorry
perhaps the optics were removed because optics are not controlled items. Hopefully, the optics didn't develop legs and walk away while in the evidence locker.
-
ah. sorry
No apology necessary, and certainly no offense taken! I just wondered about the missing sight. There has long been speculation in the shooting community that sometimes confiscated firearms, set for destruction by the police, end up in police officers' private collections, especially if the gun in question is collectible or otherwise valuable. Honestly, I doubt that's what happened here, but still I wonder.
The deputy who handed the prosecutor the rifle with the bolt closed violated a safety rule that I first learned as a pre-teen. Anyone who has been through a hunter safety course would know better than to do that.
Tim