Rust armorer found guilty

[T77911S]

So he claims he did not pull the trigger.

I am guessing he is either in denial that he killed I assume a friend because I’m sure that was a severely traumatic experience.
Or
He is holding his “trial” In the public forum now in hopes that he is swaying a potential jury in his favor.

Personally what I have seen of him off set he is a real douche with a temper and his wife appears to be a real tool too. Haven’t seen all of the interview but so far it confirms my feelings. For me.

[varmint]

Possible psychotic break. Or working on a legal defense.

Single action revolvers do not just go off by accident.

[sc_rufctr]

My comment from the other thread...

"So now it's a self firing pistol?
Anything to avoid taking responsibility for what happened... How predictable and pathetic.

And Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of himself for trying to cover for this guy."

Alec BaldBalls is a low life POS.

[Reiver]

Ok, the problem with this style of defense is this....you have to physically pull the hammer back with your thumb on a single action Colt 1873 model revolver.
This puts the hammer at full cock and moves the cylinder ... if you 'pulled' the trigger before cocking the piece nothing would happen.
If your finger has the trigger pressed, under pressure, the hammer will fall as soon as you remove your thumb. It need not be pulled.

You can 'fan' a single action Colt by holding the trigger down and, with the off hand, striking/fanning the hammer spur.

A strange thing to say with that type of revolver....

Lawyer speak for a 'defective firearm' perhaps.... setting the stage.

[craigster59]

Posted in the OT thread: I saw it somewhere.."I did not have pull with that trigger!".

[sc_rufctr]

Back in the day if there was ever an "unauthorised discharge" the rifle was immediately given to an armourer so he could check the condition of the rifle. If it was found to be faulty the soldier usually got off with a warning but that didn't happen very often. In most cases the soldier was formally charged.

FYI In most cases even dropping a cocked gun wont make it go off.

The big problem with this defence is that any experienced armourer will tell you that guns just don't go off on their own.
To even try something like this as part of his defence is a clear display of arrogance in the extreme!

[Scott R]

Wouldn't this be on film?

[Crowbob]

Apparently, no cameras were running at the time.

[T77911S]

it could be so traumatic for baldwin that he has to believe that he did NOT pull the trigger to keep from killing himself.

but then I don't think baldwin has any conscience or concern for anyone other than himself.

stephie is a disgrace. of course he wont ask the tough questions.

[berettafan]

How shameful to be involved in a tragic accident (negligent, but accident just the same) that took a life and then **** all over her memory by not owning up to what you did.

What a sorry sack of crap he is.

[craigster59]

In my honest and biased opinion I really don't think AB is responsible for the cinematographer's death beyond being too cheap to hire decent, experienced people.

I believe (and it will eventually come out) that the armourer was responsible for the live ammo being brought on site and eventually on set. She is young, scared and inexperienced and is going to deny responsibility until enough evidence is brought forth and then and only then will she break.

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by craigster59

In my honest and biased opinion I really don't think AB is responsible for the cinematographer's death beyond being too cheap to hire decent, experienced people.

I believe (and it will eventually come out) that the armourer was responsible for the live ammo being brought on site and eventually on set. She is young, scared and inexperienced and is going to deny responsibility until enough evidence is brought forth and then and only then will she break.

Yes, as to that discharge...the armorer is, by description, responsible for all weapon related events. However, we don't know the circumstances that could influence that.
Was the armorer present because they were going to use weapons that day or not?

Baldwin was also 'in charge' as the producer and many had left the job scene due to activity they could not abide union related and safety.

What he is responsible for is not checking a weapon IF it was not supposed to be used in that scene and he picked it up himself without the armorer present.

IOW, it ain't cut/dried.

He pulled or had the trigger suppressed when he drew and cocked....he just has ptsd'd that out of the sequence.

[Crowbob]

It is inconceivable to me that Baldwin would not have known about the inappropriate use of firearms and live ammo. He had to replace crew members who walked off, specifically citing the perilous work environment due to untended weapons, recreational shooting, etc.

As such, everyone, including and especially Baldwin himself, should have been hyper-vigilant on that set with a replacement crew, real firearms and live ammo.

[T77911S]

Originally Posted by craigster59

In my honest and biased opinion I really don't think AB is responsible for the cinematographer's death beyond being too cheap to hire decent, experienced people.

I believe (and it will eventually come out) that the armourer was responsible for the live ammo being brought on site and eventually on set. She is young, scared and inexperienced and is going to deny responsibility until enough evidence is brought forth and then and only then will she break.

I agree.

an actor is not required to know anything about guns. that is the job of the armorer.
UNLESS baldwin had been actually shooting the gun with live ammo, as an actor and killing someone he should not be held responsible. the armorer should.
NOW, as producer he may end up with lawsuits but probably no jail time.
unless it is found out that the gun had been used for live ammo shooting.

as for the armorer, I think she is screwed.


I will not be surprised to find out baldwin and others were shooting live ammo with that gun ON the set.

as for baldwin, my opinion of him could not get any lower after his tv interview and its "not my fault".

[otto_kretschmer]

Originally Posted by T77911S

I agree.

an actor is not required to know anything about guns. that is the job of the armorer.
UNLESS baldwin had been actually shooting the gun with live ammo, as an actor and killing someone he should not be held responsible. the armorer should.
NOW, as producer he may end up with lawsuits but probably no jail time.
unless it is found out that the gun had been used for live ammo shooting.

as for the armorer, I think she is screwed.


I will not be surprised to find out baldwin and others were shooting live ammo with that gun ON the set.

as for baldwin, my opinion of him could not get any lower after his tv interview and its "not my fault".

this might be true in Hollyweird but a jury in rural New Mexico may see it differently

[john70t]

It doesn't matter what some company's internal policy or procedure is.
It might say in the corporate formation documents that killing janitors and puppies is allowed. That shouldn't make it so in the eyes of the law.
Two people were shot and one was killed but the law still hasn't arrested Baldwin.

[john70t]

His interview was just bizarre.
He said everyone was quickly hustled out by security, but for an hour he thought she had fainted.
Oh yeah, and he wasn't 'allowed' to check the weapon before using it in the scene.

[sc_rufctr]

At first Baldwins public comments seemed unwise to me. Why is he talking about this? What good could that do?
- But it now looks like there's a coordinated effort to protect Baldwin.

Considering what we've all seen over the last few years, that shouldn't surprise anyone here.

And he's not going to be arrested or formally charged. If that was going to happen it would've happened by now.

[sc_rufctr]

[javadog]

I don’t know, I think he could be charged for involuntary manslaughter. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t. Given the high profile of the case, it’s not a surprise that it’s moving slowly.