Rust armorer found guilty

[john70t]

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.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by javadog

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.

.

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

[javadog]

Originally Posted by berettafan

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

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

[berettafan]

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.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by berettafan

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.

[john70t]

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

[sc_rufctr]

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

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

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.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by berettafan

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

Really? Slick Willie didn't inhale.

[speeder]

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.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by Reiver

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.

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?

[Reiver]

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.

[Reiver]

trigger...

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by Reiver

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.
This is a healthy Hammer with a distinct full cock cut....

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?

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

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.

[sc_rufctr]

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?

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

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.

[sc_rufctr]

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.

[T77911S]

Originally Posted by Reiver

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.

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

[Crowbob]

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.