I bought my first pistol at the State Fairgrounds at a show just like that. 100,000 square foot building and filled with tables of guns. I walked up picked out the pistol I wanted, handed over cash. He gave me a receipt, and a bag to put the pistol in, and I walked out.

Sadly that gun and many others were lost in the boating accident not too long ago.

There was no report or background check done so my statement would be
Gun? What gun. I didn't see any gun.

Unfortunately, the "Boating accident" alabi would be worthless when Big Brother wants to know why you are buying ammo (or powder and primers) for guns you no longer have.

Isn't she "obstructing justice" and using her position for "favoritism"?

Shouldn't she be brought up on Grand Jury charges?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackie-johnson-ahmaud-arbery-prosecutor-charged-obstruction/
Nov 25, 2021 · Justice for Ahmaud 41:46. A former Georgia district attorney has been booked on charges linked to her alleged mishandling of the case of Ahmaud Arbery,

The Gun Show pictured above, I don't know if any So Cal Pelicans attended, but The Great Western Gun Show they would have at L.A. Fairgrounds in April and November would be 5-7 HUGE buildings. It could take 2 days to walk through.

Unfortunately after the Rodney King riots they canceled all gun and ammo sales so the gun show was canceled. Then people were upset that county property was being used for gun and ammo sales and that was the end.

Kalifornia at its best.

I agree with you.

This is a very dangerous way of thinking. If it comes down to not holding the individual who pulled the trigger responsible for the consequences of shooting someone dead, what would prevent anyone else from claiming ‘someone else is responsible but it certainly isn’t me’ when any loaded gun is handed to him and someone is killed? Say a gun owner, who is responsible for that firearm unknowingly hands off a loaded firearm. Is it reasonable to say, ‘It’s his gun! I didn’t know it was loaded. It’s his fault!’

In such a case, what would prevent any unintentional discharge of a firearm and the consequences including death, be the responsibility of the gun owner?

Two people plinking. The gun owner lays his firearm down, both thinking he spent the last round when the other person picks it up and kills somebody. Is the gun owner then responsible?

This is a very, very dangerous precedent. It opens the door to all gun owners being held responsible for the consequences of someone else’s negligence.

In my worthless opinion, the person pulling the trigger should always be held responsible for whatever happens because of it.

Ultimately none of this matters. What matters is the law in that state, which makes this seem to be a definite case of involuntary manslaughter. The legal aspect is pretty clear, all that remains is the political aspect of it.

There is nothing in the law regarding exceptions for movies. He was in possession and control of the gun that shot and killed someone.

FIFY, respectfully.

‘He was in the possession and control of a gun, pulled the trigger and killed someone.’

When the armorer was not on the set.... I would say, from my foxhole, that if you are the producer and you do not follow the set rules you are then responsible for what takes place.

Yes. I was thinking your statement could be misconstrued as ‘the gun that shot and killed someone’ was in Baldwin’s possession and control.

The gun didn’t shoot and kill anyone is the point I was trying to make.

It remains to be seen if he consciously pulled the trigger after pointing it, or had his finger on it when he pulled the pistol from the holster, or if it had some sort of unusual defect in the firing mechanism, etc.

Lots of possibilities and no details have been made public about any of them.

None of those details are relevant from my reading of the legal statute. Regardless of how he caused it to fire, she’s dead from a projectile fired from a gun that he had control of.

Suggesting he did not actually pull the trigger is just silly. I would hope most aren't gullible enough to believe that.

Maybe you didn’t understand the point I was making. He might’ve had his finger in the trigger guard and had the trigger depressed, then when he pulled it out of the holster he might’ve cocked it with his thumb, then released the hammer and boom.

That’s a different scenario than pointing it and consciously pulling the trigger.

It’s like all of those unintended acceleration problems, when the driver thought they were pressing firmly on the brake pedal, but they weren’t.

And the point is there are several ways he could have fired the gun and we don’t know any details yet.

As he has used that firearm before I doubt that and regardless, there is no way one can verify that he pulled/pressed/folded or massaged the trigger in any certain way other than the weapon went off.
If the single action revolver is in good repair his excuse is moot.....

Fair enough, but none of us know if it’s in good repair, or if it’s been modified in some way, or whatever. Lots of what if’s? at this point. Lots of opinions as to what went down, without any facts, yet.

Under New Mexico law, I don’t think any of it makes any difference.

Anybody have a guess when this will go to trial?

And pleassssse let it be televised.

Whether he pulled the trigger or not, the gun was discharged while in his hand and a person was killed.

No matter what the proximate cause of the discharge, the firearm was not inspected prior to being pointed at someone.

Pulling the trigger, or not pulling the trigger, the loaded firearm was pointed at a person and a live round was discharged, killing one and wounding another.

Only if it can be shown that the firearm pointed itself at someone and discharged a live round into someone all by itself can Baldwin be absolved of negligence.

Pulling the trigger was simply the last negligent act in a whole series of negligent acts, each contributing to the tragedy. Why should Baldwin escape responsibility for his part in it?

I don’t think anybody is suggesting Baldwin should be let off the hook. I’m on record as saying that I think he’s guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

The movie industry has procedures they like to follow, I get that, but those don’t seem to be relevant under New Mexico state law. Involuntary manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter and it doesn’t make any difference that it occurred on a movie set.

A weapon traveled across state lines and was used to shoot people.
(not even sold or transported)

Where is the NYC district court system and mayor in all this? The Hollywood sting operations. The federal lawsuits.

like i said, pulled the trigger. that's how guns fire.

You seem to have missed my point, but that’s OK.

No i see what you are saying and don't agree.

Was this not a single action gun? If so i think flat earth theory has more validity than the idea the gun accidentally went off.

Supposedly it’s a single action gun. I don’t think I’ve seen any official confirmation of exactly what gun it was but that’s what seems to be the popular opinion.

It’s my understanding that if you’ve already got pressure on the trigger, if you cock it with your thumb and let the hammer go it will fire. If he says he didn’t pull the trigger, maybe that is the explanation, he just didn’t realize he had pressure on the trigger.

As I said before, it’s like all those unintended acceleration victims that were pushing hard on the throttle and swore they weren’t.

So far, we’ve seen absolutely nothing on the gun from any official source.

The investigative reporters have been strangely quiet about such a major news story.

Is it possible the trigger sear(s) was somehow modified or damaged?

If it is a Colt SA, or a direct copy of one there is no sear... the trigger spur extends up and directly connects to a notch in the hammer base.
If the trigger spring had broken (flat spring not wound) that could happen so they will know as they have the gun.
Still, one must hand cock the hammer....that is only done when attempting to fire...no one walks around with a cocked SA Colt.

Really? Slick Willie didn't inhale.

He admits that he pulled the hammer back and then released it. It went *boom* and a bullet came out. If he had released it gently, the way that I release a hammer when I do not want a gun to fire, she would be alive. He had to just let go of it, like the way that you side-step or slide your foot off of a clutch pedal to do a burn-out. :(

This is what I meant by "sear"... Note the three notches circled. Is it possible these were either broken or filled down in the gun Baldwin was using?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1639018990.jpg

Anything is possible... the furthest one down, slight indentation, is the full cock and the one in that picture is worn or filed down a bit.
The other parts, as you may know, are the hand that moves the cylinder and the lock that locks the cylinder / rounds in line with the barrel.
I've done gunsmith work on Colts, timed them etc... I've never had a trigger spring break.
The 'sear' is simply the extension on the trigger that mates with that / those notches...
This is a healthy Hammer with a distinct full cock cut.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1639019659.jpg

trigger...http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1639020121.jpg

And that's the problem...

We have no way of knowing the condition of the gun or it's internal components.

So... Could Baldwins lawyers argue the gun was faulty?
- If they got three armourers/gunsmiths to check the condition of the pistol would they all agree on it's serviceability?

As they have the weapon he'd be hard pressed to if it operates as it should.... he also cocked the piece with his thumb after drawing it from a holster and pointed it at the victims. You only cock a SA Colt if you intend to fire it...it is never carried or re holstered in that manner, and, as you know there is no safety once cocked.

From what I gather here, and from the vids with an armorer speaking:

Baldwin did not receive the weapon from the armorer (sop) as is the safety/union rules,

The armorer was not directly present when an actor was handling a firearm as per SOP safety/union rules.

Baldwin was the producer/ man in charge of the set.

I cannot see a way that he just say's 'sorry, my bad'.... and walks away.

OK... This is an opinion only. I think Baldwin has hired a lawyer with firearms experience.

Long ago when I served, if a soldier ever had an "unauthorised discharge" the rifle was immediately taken from the soldier and then inspected by the unit armourer. If the rifle was found to be "serviceable" then formal legal proceedings were begun to "charge" to soldier.

Right now Baldwins lawyers don't have access to the gun but at some point they could request that it be inspected by a gunsmith of their choosing.
What happens if their gunsmith "determines" that the gun is faulty?
- Would the prosecutes then have the gun reinspected by a gunsmith of their choosing?

Can you see were this may be going?

Sure, they need something to hang a hat on... however, the Police have armorers too and any prosecutor can bring in an expert witness.

Here I'm playing the devil's advocate.

"The only thing Baldwin's lawyers have to do is sew doubt. They can do that by claiming the pistol was faulty, worn or modified. And that explains how it could "go off" without pulling the trigger which means Alec is in the clear."

What I mean by claiming: They don't have to have proof. Just the claim alone could be enough to create* reasonable doubt.
(I used the word "create" very deliberately in this statement)

Remember OJ? "The glove didn't fit"

----

This my my prediction: The insurance company of the production company will have to pay out a large sum of money to the family of Halyna Hutchins.

And that's about it...

-----

Regardless of the outcome this could be the end of Baldwin's career in movies.

this is where I think AB will get in trouble, as the producer.

even if he gets off with no charges there will be civil lawsuits

It doesn’t matter if the gun is faulty.

Baldwin accepted the gun from an ‘unauthorized’ person and failed to examine it resulting in a death.