It's a good thing Alex didn't copy his own footage onto another computer...

That would have been a $250k fine and 5 years in jail. FBI thing.

Like the saying goes:
Actually killing Micheal Jackson is considered less-worse than listening to his music.

The thing about Alec. At a time like this we get to see what he's really about - Zero substance or integrity.

He should have stood up like a man and taken responsibility.

Not taken the blame alone but accepted/acknowledge his part in all of this.
- Instead he's done nothing but blame other people!

the prop master will be the first to go down.

AB has always been a piece of crap but this has really let the brown turd in him shine.
dont forget his phone call to his daughter where he is belittling her.

of course living in the fantasy world of Hollywood he thinks a simple "interview" will make everyone believe he did nothing wrong

I still don't get how a live round found its way into the revolver. Why would there be live ammo anywhere near a movie prop kit?

Gun control advocates like Alec Baldwin know the least about firearm safety. That's how.

That's been the problem from the start. There are people here (who work in the industry) that have said "live rounds are never allowed anywhere near a movie set". But it has been reported that this gun was used after hours for "plinking" by the crew. So somehow it got loaded with a live round on set or there were lives rounds left in it. Either way someone stuffed up in the worst possible way.

Except "the worst possible way" was pointing the gun at a persons face and then pulling the trigger. No one does that regardless of their thought of if it's loaded, unloaded, a prop gun... whatever. At a minimum this was gross negligence.

how many movies have you seen where a gun is pointed directly at a person.

the gun should have been locked up when it was not being used for the movie and it should be illegal for live ammo to be on set other than for what ever gun the prop master may carry IF they carry one.

as i said, the prop master will go down for not controlling the weapon at the least

Except that it is of course commonplace in the industry being discussed.

In a "Two shot" (shooter and victim) you can film with the camera at an angle where the shooter is not actually pointing the gun at the victim, but just off to the side.

In a "POV" where the camera is staring right down the gun barrel you would use a plexi shield and operate the camera remotely.

Unfortunately this was a low budget film and I'm sure there was no camera remote.

The Osha review of the incident put the blame on the 'Rust' production company for not following the rules etc....Baldwin claims this exonerates him as does the armorer.

My question to Baldwin would be.... 'you have been doing this for decades, often with firearms, why did you participate and not practice safety when you could see the rules being ignored?'

I have the osha report in PDF form but no idea how to attach.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fined-death/?msclkid=cf8198e7c28f11eca1f2fb3c2bc6156e

You'll try and argue anything..
Someone somewhere said "That's all Canadian's do is argue." Perhaps it's the boredom of the long winters...

Actually it is not commonplace. As the Craigster pointed out, more typical would be all precautions possible.

I did not say they do it without precautions. I just said it is not uncommon to come upon scenes that can only be adequately shot by pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

With all precautions of course, and only as the final option, but I seriously doubt it is "uncommon" given the amount of gun play in modern cinema.

So all the americans posting here, they aren't "arguing"? I know you guys like an echo chamber, but are you really looking for threads with no dissention of opinion? Sounds sort of boring to me, but good luck to you.

The point here is this was no scene being shot..... isn't that the case...they were between scenes and Baldwin was screwing around because he didn't want another take...so he pointed the 'prop' gun at those folks and fired as a joke to underwrite his position at the time.... ha ha.

An FYI only... Under Australian law the only people who can handle any gun on a movie set must have a licence. Prop gun, rubber gun, real gun it doesn't matter. They must pass a safety and competency test before being allowed to handle or use a gun on set. I only know this because my son was an extra on a Russell Crowe movie a few years ago. (The Water Diviner, 2014)

The point is an unprofessional idiot dicked around with a gun around what appears to be a group of unprofessional people and killed one due to extreme negligence by more than a few it sounds.

Which means this aberrant event has little to nothing to do with how the film industry as a whole handles firearms. Also means it has no relevance really to the not uncommon requirement for professionals to sometimes be required to point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger, after every precaution is taken. Those professionals are not irresponsible or idiots for pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger, which is why accidental shootings on sets are all but unheard-of.

True. This was very much an “isolated incident” and none of the parties are in the clear. There are civil suits still to go and criminal negligence charges that still have to wind their way through the courts.

If AB thinks he’s been exonerated and in the clear he is sorely mistaken.

Internet rumor (unconfirmed...of course) was that he pointed it directly at the director next to the camera out of rage over something, swore at her, and fired two shots. Maybe he was trying to make a point or something. That action does not jibe with a seasoned actor, with years of safety protocol, if true.



Sadly...there is no footage available. On a movie set.

It does jibe with his anger control issues, which he has publicly exhibited before.

His net worth is about 60 million. Her family deserves 1/2 of it.

Just so you can see the repercussions. This aint over yet.

Bill SB - 831:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB831&fbclid =IwAR2QdanXjEQxHegDXId6WLuMeyix_lFnZ6vFxAEeP8n53Fv lYSGU8VimbAA

there were more people in that room other than the dead girl that can tell what actually happened.
you might keep an eye on their bank accounts.

From the bill:

(a) A firearm, a functioning firearm-like device, firearm and blank ammunition containing gunpowder or other explosive charge shall only be permitted on motion picture productions, for the purposes of rehearsal, the filming of an on-camera sequence, or other development of content of the motion picture production with individuals of the cast or crew, under the following conditions:
(1) Under the custody and control of a qualified armorer, property master, or designee, as specified.

"designee"? As in "hey you go get the gun"?

So here we have a guy, who as part of doing his job, did something really stupid. Probably didn't expect to kill somebody, but did.

There was a police officer in Minneapolis two years ago who, as a part of doing his job, did something really stupid. He probably didn't expect to kill somebody, but did. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 some years in prison.

designee is vague, maybe assistant armorer.

IF we needed an actor to fire real bullets so that he/she could understand things like recoil, we went to a range, always....

In his interview he emphasizes that he pulled the gun out slowly but in the video he has a quick draw that would make Barney fife jealous.
What a lying sack of …….

Why did he cock the hammer?

Finger on the trigger and slapped the hammer back.

EDIT: The first interview. They gave him a Miranda warning but he chose to speak to them without a lawyer present.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qpl0Ol-N-PU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you have any interest in this case it's worth watching that video.

At no point did Alec say that he fired the gun. He kept saying it just went off. They go over the details of the various rounds used on set and they show Alec a picture of the bullet that was removed from Joel Souza's shoulder. Right at the end of the video they tell Alec that Halyna Hutchins had died in hospital.

Foxnews is reporting the results of the forensic examination of the gun. Impossible to fire without having pulled the trigger.

^^^ I started another op about that I'll post it here

ABC News
What forensic testing reveals about revolver in on-set 'Rust' shooting

The gun used in the fatal shooting on the "Rust" movie set could not have been fired without pulling the trigger, according to an FBI forensic report obtained Friday by ABC News.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/gun-rust-shooting-could-not-015300975.html

Depraved indifference to human life.....This piece of shyt didn't think past he need to make a point. Point being the operative word.

Can somebody explain this to me?

Does this mean the gun could have fired without pulling the trigger?

“With the hammer de-cocked on a loaded chamber, the gun was able to detonate a primer "without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly," which is normal for this type of revolver, the report stated.”

It means if an external force is applied to the hammer the result could be a discharge. Pretty standard stuff.
My guess is that it was cocked and the asswipe just pointed it and let one fly.
You'll never hear Baldwin utter that noise but taking responsibility is not really the strong suit for celebrities.

Now the question is: If Baldwin didn't pull the trigger, where did the external force originate?
Knowing the way a liberal's mind works, I'm guessing the answer will be "a climate change " phenomenon.
If that strategy doesn't fly with anyone but AOC, maybe they can push the mean orange guy who tiptoed across the room (in stealth mode)and hit the hammer with Nancy's gavel that he stole during the Jan 6th insurrection.

So the gun can fire without pulling the trigger?

Alex says he did not pull the trigger. If the gun can fire without pulling the trigger he is not lying.

If the gun can fire with the application of force to the hammer without pulling the trigger, to be fair, I can see this being an accident not attributable to negligence.

Is it common that handguns can fire with applied force to the hammer without the trigger being pulled?

I don’t know if you are joking??

But no. It takes an conscious action to pull a trigger.

Baldwin is a known hothead. Not that it has anything to do with this.

I’m not joking.

Forensics says the gun cannot fire without the trigger being pulled but also says the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled.

If the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled Baldwin may not be lying.

I am not defending the man or his personality.

Any single action revolver of the original Colt Single Action Army design can fire if the hammer is in the fully forward "rest" position, with a sufficient blow to the hammer. The original design has the firing pin mounted directly to the front of the hammer. The firing pin pokes through a simple hole in the back of the frame to strike the primer and fire the gun.

Modern designs, such as the Ruger Blackhawk and Vaquero, mount the firing pin in the frame rather than on the nose of the hammer. Between the hammer and the firing pin is a mechanism known as a "transfer bar". Its function is intuitively obvious from its name - it transfers the blow of the hammer to the firing pin.

This transfer bar is attached to the trigger. Unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear, the transfer bar will rest below the firing pin, making no contact with it when the hammer is dropped. Pulling the trigger to the rear raises this transfer bar to a position between the hammer and the firing pin, allowing it to transfer the blow and fire the gun.

Below are some photos of the original Colt system and the new Ruger system (Ruger on top).

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660437980.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660437980.jpg

This transfer bar system allows the Ruger to be safely carried with six rounds in the cylinder. With the Colt, we only load five, leaving an empty chamber under the hammer.

When dropped, I swear these things are like cats - they always land "on their feet" or, in this case, the heel of the grip and the hammer spur. Guess what happens next?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660437980.jpg

So, yes, while technically the old design will fire without pulling the trigger, it takes a rather substantial blow to the hammer to make that happen. Since the gun was in Mr. Baldwin's hand when it fired, that would mean he would have had to have struck the hammer, like with the heel of his hand. An even more contrived, unlikely scenario...

Thank you, Jeff.