Alec Baldwin Will Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter in ‘Rust’ Killing

[Jeff Higgins]

Zeke, you have my apologies. If all you meant was a light hearted jab then yes, indeed, I completely misconstrued what you were saying. That was a rather contentious exchange between us way back when, so my impression was that you were trying to be contentious again. I was clearly wrong. I'm sorry.

[KFC911]

Jeff thanks for that reply. I was specifically thinking about the second scenario... with a hammer in the process of being cocked, but not at/past the first notch. If it slipped, say with a heavy spring and a "light" primer, then "in theory", mebbe it could fire? I have ZERO experience with a SAA, but have always been extremely cautious with squeezing the trigger while releasing a cocked, or half-cocked spoon, sometimes even sticking a finger between the hammer and firing pin (modern guns).

And I've never practiced any "fast draws", cross draws, and the like.....

That kind of stuff is for TV and the mov....

Aw crap !

[varmint]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I always like him. He is a great comedic actor. His parodies on SNL are hilarious. I didn't hear anything about being abusive toward his daughter. Does that make him guilty of murder?

I'm curious to see it also. Without having it in hand to examine, I don't see how anyone can say it absolutely could not have fired unless AB pulled the trigger.

Never criticized him as an actor. Glengarry Glenn Ross, red October, I even liked the shadow. It’s his personal life. He has a decades long history of entitled douche behavior.

I know my way around single action colts. Others here seem to know more so I don’t say much. I am having a real hard time figuring out what you’d have to do to one to make it just go off in that scenario.

[KFC911]

^^^^ Mebbe by practicing some BS movie "cross draw" scenario and not really being safety conscious?

Seems to me, a cross draw would wave the muzzle in an approximate 120 degree arc (at least) while going from the holster to the target, while being cocked, and while being 100% focused on "the movie" .... freaking make believe until it got REAL .

I know nothing about AB either ... other than those SNL skits that were replayed later.

It's a tragedy with multiple players at fault ....criminal? I dunno .... but certainly liable imo.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by KC911

Jeff thanks for that reply. I was specifically thinking about the second scenario... with a hammer in the process of being cocked, but not at/past the first notch. If it slipped, say with a heavy spring and a "light" primer, then "in theory", mebbe it could fire? I have ZERO experience with a SAA, but have always been extremely cautious with squeezing the trigger while releasing a cocked, or half-cocked spoon, sometimes even sticking a finger between the hammer and firing pin (modern guns).

And I've never practiced any "fast draws", cross draws, and the like.....

That kind of stuff is for TV and the mov....

Aw crap !

The hammer would have to be pulled back well past the first notch in order to compress the mainspring enough to give it enough energy to detonate a primer.

Here is a good little sketch showing the trigger and hammer. The hammer is shown at half cock, notice the hammer has one notch above and one notch below the notch where the end of the trigger rests.



Here are the four hammer positions. First is the full rest, hammer down position:



Next is that "safety" notch. Notice there isn't much difference between this and full rest:



The half cock notch. We place the hammer in this position to load and unload. When the hammer is in this position, the bolt (the part that fits into the notches around the cylinder and locks it in alignment with the bore) drops out of the way so the cylinder spins freely:



The full cock notch. Notice how big of a swing the hammer takes when we get serious about it. Much less than this, and it just won't go off. And, unless the trigger is held back, either the half cock or safety notches will arrest the hammer's fall anyway:



So, again, unless the gun is dropped and that sear extension of the trigger breaks off, the trigger must be held back in order for the gun to fire.

Oh, and just for the hell of it, how they land when dropped:

[greglepore]

Where does the expression "going off half cocked" come from?

[KFC911]

Just thinkin' a bit more about TV/Movie stuff.... practicing a cross-draw.

On a set, is there any way to do this and NOT point the muzzle at folks during the arc of the draw? Is that part of what happened here.... just speculating .... as I don't think anyone really thinks AB pointed the gun at her and consciously pulled the trigger.

I am SO cognizant about the muzzle direction..... ALWAYS!

[masraum]

Originally Posted by KC911

Just thinkin' a bit more about TV/Movie stuff.... practicing a cross-draw.

On a set, is there any way to do this and NOT point the muzzle at folks during the arc of the draw? Is that part of what happened here.... just speculating .... as I don't think anyone really thinks AB pointed the gun at her and consciously pulled the trigger.

I am SO cognizant about the muzzle direction..... ALWAYS!

I actually think he could/would have. It would not at all surprise me for some folks to get so used to and complacent about "it's not real".

Take 2 actors, AB and Keanu who is a "serious gun guy". I would think that Keanu is probably hyper vigilant about the rules. I don't know a thing about AB, but I could see him NOT being a serious gun guy, and getting very used to everything just always being make believe.

[varmint]

He’s well known for holding guns and 2A types in contempt. Which isn’t a good attitude when handling guns.

[stevej37]

Maybe he shouldn't have skipped the mandatory firearms safety training for 'Rust'

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Where does the expression "going off half cocked" come from?

Exactly where you think it comes from. Except, well, maybe earlier than you think.

The earliest use of this term dates from the era of the flintlock. Along with it came "flash in the pan". I think we are all pretty familiar with, and might even still use these quaint old terms.

"Going off half cocked" is, of course proceeding before we are ready. Usually before we have all of the information necessary to be effective in our actions, or to have even chosen the proper course of action. We are sure to miss our mark.

Being more innocent times, the "cock" was that part of the flintlock that held the flint. You can kind of see it, looking sorta like a rooster's head. This, of course, evolved into the "hammer" with the coming of the percussion ignition system.

"Flash in the pan" denotes a lot of commotion, very briefly, with no tangible results. Soon forgotten. Flintlocks have a pan that holds a few grains of powder right next to a hole in the side of the barrel, known as the "touch hole", a term carried over from cannons that were fired by touching a flame to a hole in the barrel. On the flintlock, a cover with a striking plate is held over the pan full of priming powder, held by spring pressure. This is known as the "frizzen".

Cock with flint held in place, touch hole, frizzen open exposing the pan:



Filling the pan with powder:



Frizzen closed, flint at full cock:



Fired position. Note how the flint is centered in the pan. This is important, ensuring that the sparks generated by flint striking frizzen land in the powder in the pan. It's important, too, that the touch hole be free and clear, of we get just a "flash in the pan".



Probably more than anyone here wanted to know...

Early firearms, with their not yet refined metallurgy, were not nearly as robust and reliable as today. Parts would break, or wear, and they certainly could "go off half cocked". We pretty well had it down by the time of the Rocky Mountain fur trade era, and certainly by the time of the Civil War. Not perfected by any means, but much better than the early "blacksmith" guns.

Which raises an interesting, salient point. Firearms prior to the age of modern heat treated alloys achieved their strength and durability through sheer size and mass of their various parts. There was no other way in the day of cast iron frames, actions, and barrels.

So, where does that lead us when we manufacture reproductions, true to original dimensions, in this day and age? Using modern heat treated alloys? I'll tell you where it leads us - to some of the strongest, most robust, most durable firearms ever made.

And that is precisely what Baldwin had in his hand that day. A modern made reproduction of a revolver design from 1873. I believe it was manufactured by Uberti in Italy, a very reputable manufacturer of these reproduction arms. Or it may have been Investarms, another very reputable manufacturer.

In light of that, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that this revolver was "worn". The sheer amount of use such a revolver would have to see to be "worn" is orders of magnitude more than any movie prop gun could ever see. Oh, competitive Cowboy Action Shooters do shoot theirs enough to require periodic "rebuilds", but we're talking far more use than even my examples see. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds.

So, yeah, as stated earlier, no more than a red herring meant to introduce doubt. The FBI's forensic and firearms experts made no note of any "wear". To suggest they must have missed it is even more ludicrous than to suggest it was "worn" in the first place.

[sc_rufctr]

Jeff has all the nice toys... Jealous

[greglepore]

Thanks Jeff. There's nothing I enjoy more than being taught by someone with knowledge and patience.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The argument Steve has been advancing is concerning some newfound doubts about the condition of the firearm. I have done nothing more than address those points, from a purely mechanical, functional perspective, as a guy with no small amount of experience with these specific guns. I have pressed the point that the FBI found no undue "wear", no mechanical faults of any kind, and no modifications.

Do you have a link to the FBI findings you mention?

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

And, in light of that, the irrefutable fact that these guns simply cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled, or the trigger is held back while the hammer is cocked. It really is that simple.

It has become clear to me that Steve has absolutely no experience with these revolvers. No idea how they function nor, more importantly, how they fail. I have been up against this before on this forum. Like I've said, there are few topics over which I will "go to the mat". This, obviously, is one of them. I have been faced with similar "google experts", who know so little about the topic that they cannot even separate "the wheat from the chaff" on their google search results. Their need to be "right" - about a topic they clearly have no knowledge of - trumps everything.

Please show me where I have done this. I'm not aware of doing any of this.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

My comments have been very strictly limited in scope to the mechanical function of this revolver. No more, no less. Not having the background to actually discuss the finer points of Single Action revolvers, I see Steve has now resorted to insult and obfuscation. Steve - what is your personal experience with the Single Action? Do you actually own any, have you actually handled any, have you actually fired one? Or is everything you think you know about them gleaned from google searches and the press releases related to this case? That's purely rhetorical, of course, you have already answered those questions.

I don't care who hired these new "experts". Neither have I addressed the safety protocols that were violated - we covered those ad nauseum some time ago. My only interest in this latest round was to address the mechanical function of this revolver design, and to express support for what the FBI found when they tested this particular example.

They noted no undue wear, no mechanical modifications, no broken parts. Nothing that this new "team" - who remain unnamed, it appears - would like to introduce into the conversation. The natural assumption, of course - and I freely admit it is an assumption - is that they are working with the defense. Introducing doubt...

Anyway, my only interest at this point is in clearing up the misinformation that some parties appear to be trying to introduce into this situation. I'm trying to introduce some insight, insight gained from 56 years spent with these things. Folks who are interested in learning might listen. Folks who have a burning desire to be right about things they know nothing about will take other approaches. To each his own.

I am only discussing the situation and advancing my clearly stated opinions. I would suggest that you are missing the forest for the trees. Where have I stated that it matters if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not? You are hell bent on stating the trigger had to have been pulled. I'm fairly certain you are right. You're right about me having zero knowledge of single action revolvers. So what. I'm curious about what the findings are of these "investigators" and who they are. I've stated that. You leave no room for any such evidence. You have been invaliding my opinion- you insulted me first. Where have I obfuscated?

Coming from a place of having zero experience with single action revolvers, I noticed in my expert google use that Baldwin spoke about "fanning" the revolver. That requires holding the trigger down, right? In the videos I've seen of Baldwin rehearsing, his finger is clearly wrapped around the trigger. I suspect he held the gun with his finger on the trigger when it went off and may not have even known it.

[KFC911]

I haven't watched any of the videos, and had seen it mentioned that AB was practicing a cross-draw.... with the arc of the muzzle issues I mentioned earlier. If you add in "fanning" the hammer, then this is total "made for TV/movie" scenario BS .... and the trigger would have to be held back the whole time..

That's not "real life" .... it's Little Joe Cartright stuff and if ya put real rounds in the gun then bad stuff is bound to happen....

And it did.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Where does the expression "going off half cocked" come from?

The whole nine yards is the length of a Vickers gun as fitted to aircraft during the First World War usually had ammunition containers capable of accommodating linked belts of 350-400 rounds(wiki)

[Crowbob]

The Phrase Finder:

What's the origin of the phrase 'The whole nine yards'?

Abstract
This piece is quite long, so here's a summary:

Many people are convinced they know the origin of this expression, which has numerous speculative derivations, but aren't able to provide any evidence to support their belief of choice.

The earliest known citation of a form of the phrase in print is from 1907, which clearly disproves the commonly circulated World War I and World War II origins.
The phrase originated in the central states of the USA in the early 20th century.

All of the numerous supposed explanations as to the origin of the phrase are incorrect.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Do you have a link to the FBI findings you mention?

I have already posted several relevant news stores that quote directly from those results.

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Please show me where I have done this. I'm not aware of doing any of this.

You have done this repeatedly throughout the course of this discussion. You keep posting links to stories that reference "sources", "sources" that are unnamed, in an effort to counter stories that quote directly from the FBI's report.

The FBI has some of the finest forensics experts in the world. They have some of the world's foremost experts on firearms. You have tried, repeatedly, to invalidate their findings (which are quoted directly in the articles I have provided) with these various articles referencing "sources".

You have apparently bought into the pretense that these "sources" are attempting to bring forward - the idea that this revolver was "worn" or "broken". It is clear, based on the fact that the FBI report does not mention any "wear" or "breakage", that the FBI did not find any. Yet you persist, responding with more links that say the same thing in an effort to support your contention. You are finding those links through internet searches. You apparently do not know enough about these guns to be able to sort valid, truthful, reasonable results from those that are not. You persist in posting only those that fit your narrative, and those that do are providing at best erroneous, at worse purposely deceitful (I lean towards the latter) information regarding these guns in general, and this one in particular.

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

I am only discussing the situation and advancing my clearly stated opinions. I would suggest that you are missing the forest for the trees. Where have I stated that it matters if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not? You are hell bent on stating the trigger had to have been pulled. I'm fairly certain you are right. You're right about me having zero knowledge of single action revolvers. So what. I'm curious about what the findings are of these "investigators" and who they are. I've stated that. You leave no room for any such evidence. You have been invaliding my opinion- you insulted me first. Where have I obfuscated?

You have not stated that it matters whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. That's the largest part of the problem regarding what you have said. It matters a great deal that Baldwin did in fact pull that trigger. This young lady would be alive today had he not.

You have been trying to push the narrative that the gun may have malfunctioned because it was worn, broken, or faulty in some way. My objective has been to counter that argument, and explain why that is simply impossible. I have raised two key points supporting my contention:

A) The FBI did not find any fault with the gun.

B) The amount of use required to "wear" such a firearm is vastly beyond what even very active users of these revolvers can ever invoke in their lifetimes, and that this is a gun used in movie production, which would see far less than even "average" use. Remember, this is not an old gun - it is a modern reproduction of an old gun.

Your obfuscation occurred in the post in which you were ranting about something in my head. You threw in a lot of unrelated nonsense in with that one.

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Coming from a place of having zero experience with single action revolvers, I noticed in my expert google use that Baldwin spoke about "fanning" the revolver. That requires holding the trigger down, right? In the videos I've seen of Baldwin rehearsing, his finger is clearly wrapped around the trigger. I suspect he held the gun with his finger on the trigger when it went off and may not have even known it.

Yes, "fanning" involves holding the trigger back while rapidly swiping back over the hammer with the palm of the other hand. The very best way to actually break something in one of these, by the way. Pure movie nonsense.

Had this gun been broken through this practice, it would have been immediately obvious the very next time anyone handled it. They simply won't stay cocked, the hammer won't stay back. And the FBI would have picked up on that in a nanosecond.

So, again, my only objective here has been to try to offer what little I know about these guns in an effort to clear up just what is possible and, more importantly impossible with them. It is patently impossible that this example fired, in this instance, without pulling the trigger.

[KFC911]

Does anyone in "the real world" (pro trick shooters?) ever fan the hammer with any accuracy .... or is it even done at all? I think it's a "given" that AB held the trigger back if fanning during his cross-draw if that's what the script called for. IMO .... that's something no safety conscious shooter would EVER do with other folks around .... and why? It's movie/TV nonsense .... not real world .... add live rounds to the gun, skip set protocols, and THAT is where it can get tragic..... and did.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Do you have a link to the FBI findings you mention?

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have already posted several relevant news stores that quote directly from those results.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The FBI determined, unequivocally, that this specific gun absolutely would not fire unless the trigger was pulled after the hammer was cocked, or held back as the hammer was cocked and then released. When they received the gun, it was in fine working order, unmodified, nothing broken, nothing repaired or replaced.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have pressed the point that the FBI found no undue "wear", no mechanical faults of any kind, and no modifications.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have pressed the point that the FBI found no undue "wear", no mechanical faults of any kind, and no modifications.

You overstate what the FBI results were. Your words. Show me where the FBI says there were no parts replaced or seriously worn. I just want to see who these investigators were and what they found. You stated that they work for Baldwin's defense team, and then later admitted assuming that. What's wrong with waiting for the facts and who is claiming them?

Here's the FBI report. I didn't see them claiming all the parts were original and there was no wear.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22138100-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fbi-and-medical-examiner-reports-aug-2022

You seem to make up stuff as far as who the investigators are and that I'm posting links to invalidate the FBI's findings. That's made up. Show me where I said any of that. I'm just conversing on this situation and making my own opinions based on what I've seen. For you, that seems unacceptable and your 56 years of experience makes you the oracle of the truth and what happened.

Now you're stating "facts" from the FBI that don't exist (at least I haven't seen them). Show me if you can. I don't claim to have seen everything.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You have not stated that it matters whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. That's the largest part of the problem regarding what you have said. It matters a great deal that Baldwin did in fact pull that trigger. This young lady would be alive today had he not.

I have stated more than once that it may not matter if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not- that the safety protocols on the set should account for an accidental trigger pull in the wrong direction. Let me know if you need the quotes.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You have been trying to push the narrative that the gun may have malfunctioned because it was worn, broken, or faulty in some way. My objective has been to counter that argument, and explain why that is simply impossible. I have raised two key points supporting my contention:

A) The FBI did not find any fault with the gun.

B) The amount of use required to "wear" such a firearm is vastly beyond what even very active users of these revolvers can ever invoke in their lifetimes, and that this is a gun used in movie production, which would see far less than even "average" use. Remember, this is not an old gun - it is a modern reproduction of an old gun.

Your obfuscation occurred in the post in which you were ranting about something in my head. You threw in a lot of unrelated nonsense in with that one.

I'm not trying to push any narrative. I'm simply discussing the fact that the prosecutors have decided to dismiss the charges, at least for the time being. Show me where I'm "pushing" such a narrative vs asking questions about it.

I didn't say there was something in your head. Something missing might be comprehension, though. I said you should read my posts vs listening to your head roar. That observation still stands.

After all this is said, perhaps this will help you: I'm pretty certain Baldwin pulled the trigger or had it held back when he pulled back the hammer. Video of him rehearsing show his finger on the trigger. He's an actor, not a gun expert. Movie set protocols are supposed to take this into account. That's been my contention all along, if you had been reading my posts you should have noticed that.