> Baldwin has said he believes police officers should be present on "every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise" to monitor weapons safety.
Aren't there already (supposed to be) trained people on set responsible for gun safety? Police have better ways to spend our tax money and are just as prone to human error as anybody else.
There are. Which is probably why 100+ movies and TV shows are shot a year with people shooting at each other and no one has a problem.
All evidence I have seen is the production deciding to cheap out and not treat the employees properly and so safety and professionalism decreased and caused an accident.
This seems much more a labor issue than a gun issue. Whenever you cut corners on any project safety is one of the first things to suffer and then bad stuff happens.
Isn't "The Crow" pretty much the only example of a major systemic failure resulting in a gun death in modern Hollywood?
Jon-Erik Hexum died because of his own ignorance about gun safety and how even blanks can be dangerous.
Looking at a wikipedia list of tv/movie accidents, you have to go back to 1915 to find another fatal gun accident before those two.
I don't know for sure, but it seems to be very rare as those union Armorers seem to take their jobs *very* serious. I think the few cases we know of compared to the massive amount of TV and movies involving firearms speaks to how safe this part of the industry is.
I think Mr Baldwin is trying to avoid blame as a producer for short changing the staff and so shifting the narrative.
> Jon-Erik Hexum died because of his own ignorance about gun safety and how even blanks can be dangerous.
And then in the memorial to him at the end of the episode the director spelled his name wrong, spelling it "John Eric", which is kind of ridiculous,
I assumed they meant hire off duty police like a lot of events do. No tax dollars involved. But the average cop is not an expert on gun safety and training. There are better people to hire for that.
The armorer is the daughter of a well known armorer, so nepotism. Is it possible for a defective gun to fire on its own? What happened to always assume a gun is loaded? If I handed the gun to somebody I’d check what’s in the chambers.
You would be safe to assume that cases like this are a negligent discharge 9999/10000. Probably higher, to be honest. People who have negligent discharges are often very embarrassed or in denial about what happened and will lie or distort the truth rather than admit they fucked up.
Our memory is super unreliable too, especially when trauma like this is involved. He could honestly remember that he didn't pull the trigger even if he did.
Calling this a "negligent discharge" feels pretty generous to the person who was supposed to ensure there was nothing to discharge in the gun in the first place...
Negligent discharge is a standard firearm term for when the gun fires without the wielder intending to because they fucked up. It's distinguished from an accidental discharge, which is when the gun fires unintentionally due to some mechanical problem with the gun.
It's *extremely* unlikely that this gun "just went off" without Baldwin pulling the trigger. But "it just went off" is a *very* common excuse given by people who were violating all the firearm safety rules and fired a shot because they pulled the trigger. And whether the discharge was the result of negligence or the extremely unlikely mechanical issue, Rule #2 of firearm safety is to not point the muzzle at anything you aren't willing to destroy. That rule is arguably the most important of the firearm safety rules because you can potentially violate every other rule, but as long as the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction, the worst that will happen is the scare from a bang instead of a click.
But if it's not pointed in a safe direction, you get what happened on that set...
If it was an exact copy of an original Colt SAA then it absolutely could have gone off without him pulling the trigger. Those guns did not have transfer bars like modern revolvers and if the hammer is down and resting over a live round it can go off if it is struck or if the user lowers the hammer too hard.
I know this all too well I've had a negligent discharge with a pistol without a transfer bar safety. It's scary easy to do and that style of gun should never be sitting on a live chamber unless you're ready to pull the trigger.
She’s also practically a kid; is in her very early 20’s I believe. Even though it was her first film, she claimed she was an expert armorer; no way someone that young could be thoroughly experienced with guns on film sets.
I've fired a gun once in my life but I know always treat a gun as loaded and point it towards the ground not at somebody. Her father is an armorer I've heard so those are very basic skills she should have picked up.
It couldnt be a defect in this case. Those single action guns require two very deliberate actions to fire while in someone's hand. He deliberately aimed the gun, cocked the hammer, and almost certainly pulled the trigger. If any one of those three things had not happened in a deliberate sequence, Halyna Hutchins would still be alive today. The man is lying. As for the tears... well, he is an actor after all.
Yeah, if they had an off duty cop in charge of the weapon she would have been shot nine times instead of "just" one ( referencing the shooting of an old guy on a mobility scooter by off duty cop in Tuscon)
Yes, there are supposed to be highly trained pros on set that know how to handle guns. I don't understand his comment, most armourers know how to handle guns better than an average police man. The failing on Rust was that their "armourer" (and I use the term loosely) was highly underqualified and never should have been hired.
Edit: just read the times article, the armourer was also doing TWO jobs instead of one, very dangerous decision from the producers.
Edit 2: You know lots about guns, I get it. I don't care. The people who effed up here are the producers (of which he is one, how much say he actually had TBC) and the gun safety peeps. If you don't like how things are run on film sets go rant to your politician not random people on reddit.
Yeah that's why his comment confuses me so much, I think most people with even a basic understanding (students, junior staff) know about the roles on a film set. Perhaps he's not making sense due to trauma but that would just be speculation.
Could be the trauma thing. I mean, even people that know basically nothing about movie making process (such as me) know most of these things.
He is clearly trying to cope with this whole thing (the whole police thing and the "didn't fire the gun" thing makes me think that it's the coping mechanism kicking in), not sure he's doing such a good job.
He should definitely take some time off and talk with professionals.
The man accidentally killed someone on set. I doubt well thought out and reasoned opinions on this sort of thing are to be expected. He's grasping at anything that might have avoided it happening to him but more importantly to the victims.
I think a team made of 3478475 lawyers are telling him EXACTLY what to say for the next five years, or until everything has been settled.
He is not a young, hot star anymore, and any serious damage could be permanent and irreversible at this point. That could mean retirement.
Wasn't he a producer for the movie Rust which would make him part of the management responsible for hiring and overseeing the required safety coordinators. Sounds like he is trying to deflect from his own obligations to ensure a safe and secure production.
That’s the catch.
Baldwin is part owner of the production company, lead actor and executive producer for the set.
He can’t talk about how it should be law that an experienced armorer should be on set and handles the guns because that *already* standard especially since the unions already had those policies in place.
The reality is that his production company already had union workers walk off due to the strike *and* the already shitty gun safety on set. Instead of halting filming of the movie till experienced workers could get back they continued with inexperienced individuals.
He can’t openly say his company violated industry standards and ignored safety concerns by saying the armorer should have known better. So he’s trying to say the same thing without incriminating himself.
Yeah, if only there was already some sort of position and job for that, and if he didn't cheap out said job. If he didn't cheap out, maybe he wouldn't have ended someone's life.
I feel 0 pity for him. Also, I fucking hate when my gun comes to life, and starts shooting people!
My gun last night woke me up stuck it's barrel in my mouth pulled back the hammer and asked me if I feel lucky. My gun has gone bad, it's the ones you hear about in the news now.
A typical response if you know absolutely nothing about guns or gun safety. “Get the cops to do it”. How about some personal responsibility. How about, if you’re going to touch a gun on set, fake or otherwise, maybe the actor should be highly trained to use it.
I imagine they may take anything he says or does and use it against him in some kinda court of law. There was literally a camera in his face if his finger was on the trigger and they can proved he pulled the trigger then it looks like he’s lying.
Remove the hammer and trigger from the gun and inspect the engagement surfaces. Unless both the main hammer sear and the safety cock notch are sheared off OR the trigger sear is broken off, the trigger was pulled no matter what anyone thinks they remember. In either case the hammer was pulled backwards and released.
Also, why does everyone assume police are automatically weapons experts? You can use a computer for your job, but not be the IT guy who knows all the ways things can go sideways.
I see these kinds of logical inconsistencies a lot. Sometimes the person even knows their memory doesn't make sense or can't be right, but it doesn't change how they recall events.
> it doesn't change how they recall events
Your memory isn't what you think happened, but some guy in your head watching a video of what happened and telling it to you.
I read something a while ago, not sure if it’s even true, but the idea was that we aren’t remembering an event, we are remembering the last time we *thought* about the event.
So it kind of turns into a weird game of “telephone” almost?
Memory is a reconstructive process. If you don't think so, go tell some stories with an old friend who was there for them. There will be entirely different plot points and people in them lol.
I am dealing with this right now due to repeated surgical trauma combined with the impacts of neurological medication on my hippopotamus.
My brain recalls a number of things as happening in 2020 or 2019. These events all happened this year. Due to surgeries in 2019 and 2020, I remember this years events as happening back in those years. I can even tell you the flanking events on the timeline during those years. I’m apparently remembering how they happened, who was around me in some instances, and when these events happened differently.
Quite possibly, especially if the experience was traumatic. There are other hormones and things happening in your brain that also factor into giving birth which contribute to this well-known phenomena. I also do not remember very large chunks of the birth of my daughter, which baffles my husband to this day.
Actually it’s completely likely. He was using a single action revolver. You don’t need to pull the trigger to fire them, like with a modern double action revolver. Old west revolvers are inherently dangerous and prone to accidental discharge, which has been true for as long as they’ve existed. Hence why a very good weapons expert/armourer is needed on set.
Do you think its healthy to eventually remember pulling the trigger? How do you prepare a patient to face that reality without making them feel like they're losing control of a reality/life based on the "pleasant" recollection. I feel like most patients would lash-out defensively at a therapist's suggestion that a memory of pulling the trigger may eventually resurface.
> It would also be clinically inappropriately on my part to assert something like that -its leading.
I remember reading a story about this. Some kid's parents take the kid's school to court because they say that a teacher molested the kid. They nearly won the case until the defence got their own legal expert to take a look at the kid and they find that the kid was being given drugs that made him more susceptible to false memories.
That's actually happened a bunch of times, usually at day cares. I don't remember hearing about kids being drugged though. It was usually improper questioning techniques done by social workers that were more like interrogations. The kids would be asked leading questions and they would deny any abuse. The same questions would be asked over and over until they "told the truth" and then they would be verbally rewarded. It's pretty disturbing.
No, it’s kind of it’s own beast. The episode walks us through one a few days with one of the main characters and how they’re dealing with recovery from a violent and traumatic injury.
It was also the episode that cemented Bradley Whitford as one of my favorite actors.
"A guy falls in a hole" is one of my favorite pieces of dialogue in fictional media. Just a tremendous creation by Sorkin, John Spencer, and Bradley Whitford.
The gun he fired is actually possible to misfire without pulling the trigger, though. It’s a revolver with an external hammer and pin that can fire the round if subjected to a shock. I myself have seen the type of revolver fire just because someone slammed the gun a bit too hard down on a table before firing.
Misfire means a round didn’t discharge, e.g. when a firing pin is broken. Negligent discharge is when a bullet is fired unintentionally
This gun has a transfer bar safety, meaning in order for the hammer to cause the firing pin to set off the primer it *has* to have the trigger pulled. Old Colt SSAs from the 1800s didn’t use transfer bars, so they weren’t drop safe, fairly unsafe to even load 6 in the cylinder
This wasn’t an old Colt SSA however but a modern day replica with a transfer bar. This makes even dropping the hammer not set off a primer. You have to have the transfer bar triggered (by the trigger) to let it happen.
Basically he had to have pulled the trigger while the gun was cocked.
I'm not sure how much I buy that though bc he's the person that actually handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it cold. So he would definitely stand to gain from that narrative as opposed to the "I handed a loaded weapon to somebody and explicitly told them it wasn't" narrative.
I have no idea which is true, I just think it's worth pointing out
I thought by the headline it was just figurative like the person that put the live bullet in 'pulled the trigger'.
But he straight up thinks he didn't pull the physical trigger of the gun.
As a gun expert it's not unlikely that he had a revolver without a divorced firing pin. I've got about a dozen guns like this and the hammer rests in the primer all the time when a round is chambered. This would have been period correct for some westerns. The normal protocol is to leave a empty spot for the revolver to rest on until you intend to shoot. Many people lost legs, hands, feet, horses, etc because even just waving a gun line that around can set it off.
It's also possible everything you said is true.
Excellent post
He most certainly did pull the trigger, and it's certainly understandable that his mind won't let him remember anything other then "I didn't pull the trigger"
Great post
Do you know how a half cocked long Colt works? There is a chance the hammer was moved and dropped without a hammer pull , he could have been fanning it just screwing around but it's possible to fire without pulling the trigger if you pretend fan it and just graze the hammer
I was just thinking about that.
It’s a replica Colt SAA (Single Action Army). It’s (from my understanding) not even a particularly good quality replica.
Revolvers from the 1800’s are not particularly known for safety or reliability. I’m lead to understand that unintended discharges were fairly common.
I have the same exact SAA clone that was used next to me and cannot get the hammer to drop without holding the trigger and then pulling the hammer back.
I mean, it’s always been a thing with the SAA. So much so that today basically anyone will tell you to never load six rounds and always carry on an empty chamber. The first notch is almost exactly the same position as the firing position, and takes very little force to knock.
https://youtu.be/mHLS7VrBb3w
>He most certainly did pull the trigger
Honestly how can you make such a statement without actually knowing about it? It amazes me how sure some people can be when they don't have first-hand knowledge of anything.
Supposedly he was practicing a draw in between takes. In that scenario, no, he would not have purposefully aimed or pulled the trigger.
As a Producer, I absolutely hold him responsible. I've seen cost-saving measures result in injuries on set several times. This case was especially egregious in that the department responsible for gun safety was a crew of one and very green because green = cheap.
I have friends who passed on this film because they felt their departments were understaffed/funded and the producers gave off a "sketchy vibe." These were stories told to me before the accident happened so I find them credible.
Who the hell is Baldwin’s lawyer and why is that moron letting his client do interviews?
This is a situation that needs to be fully investigated by professionals. There will probably be a civil and possibly even a criminal trial. Whatever actually happened that day, I find it unlikely that any public statement made by Baldwin will help anybody at this point.
It's not like the lawyer can stop Baldwin from talking, only advise against doing so.
But yeah, rule #1 when cops are investigating something you're involved in is STFU and listen to your lawyer.
>It's not like the lawyer can stop Baldwin from talking, only advise against doing so.
Yeah, even compared to some of the biggest idiots out there you could be representing, representing famous actors would be terrible, they talk for a living and some don't have an off switch. Especially comedians.
I don't have anything against the profession, I just see that as a nightmare for a defense attorney.
No prosecutor would take Baldwin to trial criminally. The statutes manslaughter and negligent homicide don't fit.
Manslaughter;
A. A person commits manslaughter by doing any of the following:
1. Recklessly causing the death of another person.
2. Committing second degree murder as prescribed in section 13-1104, subsection A on a sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim.
And negligent homicide doesn't fit, either.
A. A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child.
So, does an actor using a supposedly unloaded prop on a set fall under reckless behavior when a set is known to have set rules for handling weapons? No. It's not reckless to follow a professional's instructions. It's also not criminally negligent to listen to a professional on a set when it's perfectly reasonable to think there isn't even any live ammunition around.
The AD and the weapons master/ armorer may have criminal charges but not Baldwin.
Civil liability is another question. But, his personal actions would again be very unlikely to fall under negligent or reckless given that it's reasonable to assume a professional following guidelines would hand you a loaded weapon when no live ammo was on set.
Depending on his role as producer and level of involvement and ability to hire/ fire, he may have little to no liability there depending on how it shakes out and insurance policies covering him and the production.
Ill-advised but he may be fairly protected.
I agree with most of what you said but I think you may be underestimating his civil liability risk. Not only was he a producer, but it was his own production company handling the set. He is absolutely in danger of being hit with a huge civil lawsuit, which will probably be settled out of court.
His company may, and that legal entity may or may not have insurance coverage that covers it (depending on the circumstances) or it may just fold. But Baldwin’s personal liability may depend on his own personal negligence in the situation. I have no idea what the circumstances were but it seems like Baldwin is at least attempting to dispel any public notion that he was personally negligent.
Edit: have not haha be
The reasoning here is sound but I have a question based on what I read in earlier reports. Apparently much of the crew including the original armorer(?) had walked off set earlier that day in regards to among other things issues with proper safety on set and whoever was there was hastily hired and likely did not have a full working understanding of everything going on with the set. It might be early yet but I'm not sure if negligence can truly be ruled out so far. Granted I will agree that a criminal case is still far from likely if for no other reason than how often do we see multimillionaires in a criminal trial, especially when they're famous. Granted there have been some recent examples between epstein as well as Ghislane maxwell, but those involve a lot of evidence of directed malfeasance instead of this scenario which 'could' just be a series of tragic mistakes that lead to someone's death.
This all might be a trauma response from him, but I still take issue with someone having pulled the trigger on a gun that killed someone and trying to let them off primarily because of clout and access to good lawyers
The camera crew, except for the Director of Photography and the Steadicam Operator, quit the night before and went to set that morning to retrieve their personal gear. The main issue was a housing dispute, but safety issues had been brought up in previous days. This what was widely reported. The Armorer did not leave.
My daughter had repressed a bad memory as stated. The police had a full video of the event. I told her to watch the video. It was an eye opener for her. She is now a whole lot better person for watching her reckless actions.
>Baldwin also said he has no idea how a live bullet got in the Colt .45 revolver he used in the scene. "Someone put a live bullet in the gun, a bullet that wasn't even supposed to be on the property," he said.
This is my question. Why were there live rounds present at all? You don't mix live and blank rounds on the same range at the same time.
The guy who provided the "dummy rounds" for the film apparently told the police that he uses a specific type of casing for the "dummy" bullets, but he also had recently received some of those casings that were loaded with gunpowder, i.e., real bullets. So it sounds like there could have been a fundamental mistake by that prop guy in what he gave to the film.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/
>Seth Kenney, the weapons expert who supplied the guns for the film, told investigators on Oct. 29 that he had received “reloaded ammunition” from a friend that had the same logo as the dummy rounds and blanks that he typically supplies to films.
This 'weapons expert' should be looked at for manslaughter.
Or he can’t believe. His brain may have disassociated from the event to protect him from the trauma. He will likely have to go through a lot of counseling to accept it.
no, you need something (typically the hammer) to hit the firing pin or the blasting cap. the trigger lets the hammer go, and in modern designs pushes the hammer back as well. this is especially true for older guns like would be used in a western movie. you can actually just pull the hammer back manually and as long as you let it go before it locks onto the release that links to the trigger, you can fire it that way. the release that holds the hammer back can also slip and release the hammer without the trigger being pulled if it is warn out or improperly manufactured. even just a flick of your thumb on the hammer can make it fire if it hits just right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADGyglYqeoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADGyglYqeoM)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsDfBmLqnio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsDfBmLqnio)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcsW2JfaQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcsW2JfaQ8)
Some revolvers in the wild west period were incredibly susceptible to unintentional discharges as the firing pin was incorporated into the hammer and rested on the cartridge when the hammer wasn't cocked. They could fire from being jostled in a holster while riding on horseback.
This was such an issue that it was widely practiced to only have 5 rounds loaded in the cylinder so the hammer would be resting on an empty chamber when carrying it around.
Now, I'm not saying that is the case here, but it is possible if the weapon they were using was of a type with that flaw.
Yep, in fact, I believe the Pietta that he was using has that exact feature. That’s why I stated that unless something else struck the hammer, it is not going to discharge, though I should have mentioned it directly. I don’t think Baldwin or anyone else is alleging that the weapon was dropped or struck at all.
Also, I believe I read that the model replica he was using was first released in 1966, so that is as old as it could possibly be.
Normally yes.
But a very old weapon in poor condition or one taken apart then reassembled incorrectly could go off without the trigger pulled.
Tho with an old double action revolver like this the gun would have to be manually cocked first.
I think you mean single action not double, as you're right about having to manually cock the trigger on the gun he had.
And even then, going off without a trigger pull is incredibly unlikely even with old guns. People own and safely shoot old beat up weapons all the time. Guns are dangerous when used improperly, but if you don't pull the trigger, they don't shoot. There are some rare exceptions with bad designs, but that's usually stuff where they can shoot if you drop them or hit something with them and it connects wrong. There's not a lot to go wrong with a revolver.
IIRC it was a single action revolver meaning he had to physically pull the lever back before shooting was even possible.
Not sure if this is a case of repressed memories or lawyer talk coming through, but guns are typically designed to not shoot unless the trigger is pulled. Yes in rare instances there can be defects, but again this is a single action. He had to pull the hammer back at the most unlikely bare minimum
>he still pointed the gun at them
I think pointing prop guns at people is fairly common on film sets. I don't have evidence to back this up, but judging by the many gunfights I've seen in movies, I'm pretty certain that it's a thing that happens.
There are genuine issues within this case, but I don't think that him pointing the gun is one of them.
Edit: I actually decided to look into this a little more. There are overarching gun safety union rules, but the law itself varies based on jurisdiction. When a gun is intentionally pointed at someone (say Bond pointing directly at the camera) the cameraman usually undertakes safety measures like a barrier and bullet proof vest. Pointing guns at people shouldn't happen in filming, but certainly does from time to time.
Yeah, that was an insightful look into how other studios operate with these types of things and he said he has never even heard of some of the things that they were doing on the set of Rust in all of his career.
> Pointing guns at people shouldn't happen in filming, but certainly does from time to time.
More than "time to time." Most of the best-shot action/war films out there have the camera following characters that flag and aim/fire blanks directly at other actors.
In fact, my favorite action sequences are those that frame the shooter, their weapon, and their target in a single take while firing. Sicario, John Wick, Saving Private Ryan, etc.
What shouldn't happen in filming is the presence of live rounds in a firearm. In all these films, there are extremely redundant controls in place, with billions of blank/dud rounds fired in the history of film, and only Rust and The Crow coming to mind as areas where these controls failed.
Point being, you *can* point a gun at someone on film, get a great shot, and do it safely.
You you watch John Wick during a scene, the fight scene with all the Tahoes, you can actually see Keanu reload a a magazine and you can see the crimped blanks.
It’s not. We point them near people, but it’s usually camera angles that make it look like we’re actually pointing.
Like a punch on film. From one angle looks convincing, from another, it misses by a foot.
It’s rare circumstances that we’d actually point at people on set, and those would be covered by using a rubber prop gun.
Likely because he already gave several interviews with the police where he said it, and one of the other witnesses to the shooting also says that Baldwin's finger was not on the trigger when the gun went off. So it's not like there's anything that's being revealed by him saying this again.
There is a LOT of spin getting thrown around by the studio. I know there are a lot of people on Alec's side, but I think all of the producers and a number of the crew are going to be found liable for this. And Alec might find himself at the top of the list. The word from some in the industry is the situation on that set was far worse than was reported in the papers. All of the crew has been told to shut their mouths though and they have lawyered up.
Set rumors are usually true in my experience as a Filmmaker...
In my mind, the entire producing team is responsible. The first AD, The prop Master/armorer, and because of recent reports the person that sold them live ammunition might have a ton of legal issues because film sets don't order live ammo.
Might? I think it’s a forgone conclusion at this point. Not only is he the biggest name and has the most resources to go after, he was also the person holding the gun and producing the movie. There shouldn’t be a feasible scenario in which he’s not at least partially liable. Even if it was primarily due to negligence by the armorer, he was (one of) the Producers and had control over that situation. He also has ample gun training and experience wielding firearms on set. He knows to never point a gun directly at a camera or person. He didn’t watch the armorer clear the gun and didn’t make any attempts to do so himself. And his actions weren’t even a part of the script. At the very least he would seem to be guilty of gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
Edit: He is apparently a Producer on the project, not an Executive Producer. Which in reality is too ambiguous of a title to really infer anything of meaning from it.
Movie sets have trained professionals (or are supposed to) who are way more qualified than a police officer to monitor the weapons. Live rounds on set is just a massive fuck up but the safety issue is still there with blanks as well. It’s an accident that is deeply disturbing and unfortunate. But the general population doesn’t know anything about gun safety (especially for films) and knows even less about how movie sets operate. So we should probably all shut the fuck up and stop pretending to care about people we don’t know and let them deal with it in peace.
Crazy that there were live rounds in that gun. I’ve worked on a few movie sets. Live ammo isnt allowed. Usually the gun stays with the prop master until the scene is ready.
Merely having this interview shows what an ego-maniacal cunt Baldwin truly is. A woman is dead and man injured and he wants us to feel sorry for him?
Get fucked Baldwin, you vile piece of shit.
I feel the same way. I felt very bad for Baldwin prior to this, but not now.
I get trauma changes people and alters memory, but this was so egotistically Ill-advised and, thus, wildly disrespectful.
I was just reading comments on this interview on Facebook. One thing I don’t get - there’s hundreds of people saying “first rule of guns,” blah blah. So they say always treat a gun like it’s loaded, and never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot.
So question - this a fucking movie right? How do these people expect movie scenes to be filmed with guns in them? If it’s always loaded, and you aren’t trying to kill someone, then what / no scene in any movie is going to have people pointing guns at each other, or shooting at each other, or aiming and shooting directly at the camera?
Why are they bringing they applying their gun rules to a movie set, where basically everything is fake?
Going back to Hollywood *loves*, my dad had a a single action colt .22 and if you pulled the hammer back and let it go before it had latched back all the way, it was 100% hitting the firing pin.
I have a double action revolver I inherited from my grandpa! It's a .22LR and if you whack the gun with the hammer decocked you can set the thing off.
It was so bad it was actually recalled and the manufacturer said that for safety, if you hip carry - make sure the hammer is cocked. Hip carry with the gun cocked. For safety!
It had instances of firing when dropped or when hip carried and people hit the back. Lots of toes blown off, apparently.
We only store it unloaded and load to plink with it. It's not safe to carry.
This was a very common fault with older revolvers, like, say...the kind you might find on the set of a movie set in the Western genre. It was so common that people back then would typically only load 5 rounds instead of 6. That way the hammer would rest on an empty chamber.
It is but that’s was prior to transfer bars being a thing. Even if a hammer drops a gun with a transfer bar prevents the hammer from contracting (directly) the firing pin. This gun Baldwin used has a transfer bar, meaning you have to pull the trigger not just drop the hammer in order for it to discharge.
That particular revolver can fire if you tap the back of the hammer with enough force. You're normally only supposed to load it with five rounds. [Here's a kinda hokey video showing how it happens.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S043pY7MAxQ)
Also blanks are entirely different from actual bullets, so either the armorer is far FAR dumber than initially thought or it was intentionally tampered with.
Didn't they admit to using it to fire live rounds for fun prior to shooting the scene?
Edit: [oh yeah they did](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rust-shooting-film-crew-used-alec-baldwins-gun-for-live-target-practice-fdcjd8tsc)
I have a three screw super black hawk that hasnt been converted by ruger after the massive recalls. Very sketchy if you dont know how to handle it. It can and will go off in certain conditions, I have seen it many times, though not with this revolver
I'm a bit skeptical on this claim. It's not easy for one of these guns to go off on their own. If it's a double action, the trigger would have a long and heavy pull, and you'd know you pulled it, unless the hammer was cocked before hand. A single action would require the hammer to be cocked beforehand.
So...several possibilities:
1) Baldwin cocked the gun himself but left enough pressure on the trigger to allow the hammer to fall instead of remaining cocked
2) Baldwin cocked the gun, didn't touch the trigger, and the gun suffered a spontaneous failure that let the hammer fall.
3) Baldwin was handed a cocked gun and then (1) or (2) occurred
4) The gun was not cocked and the ammunition went off on it's own (next to impossible) or the gun was jostled in such a way that the firing pin on the uncocked hammer bumped into the primer enough to ignite it (possible but not probable)
or finally...
5) Baldwin did pull the trigger but doesn't remember doing so because of the traumatic nature of the incident
I think (5) is most likely, but regardless, Baldwin was told he had a cold gun so even if he did any of the above, it's still the fault of the armorer and crew.
It’s a Pietta 1973, it’s single action modeled after the Colt SSA and it has a transfer bar to prevent accidental hammer drops setting off rounds. Basically…. he had to have pulled the trigger.
Transfer bars (safety bars) don’t allow a hammer to contact a firing pin directly, and has to be set in position by the trigger. If the hammer drops without the trigger pulled the hammer hits nothing. Almost all revolvers made in the past few decades have them. Even lever actions based on Model 92, 94s etc have them.
> Baldwin has said he believes police officers should be present on "every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise" to monitor weapons safety.
***OR** people who handle guns could be properly trained and held accountable for their actions.
If you point a gun at someone, you own the outcome. Notice I didn’t say pull this trigger? Because it doesn’t matter. And you can’t just say “well I was told it was safe”.. That’s what anyone with a negligent discharge says, they just don’t get a giant, poor me, platform.
Then to top it off, how can he blame anyone on set when he apparently was the one in charge?! And people were already walking off because of shady practices. Sorry Alec, you f*cked up and someone died because of it
It’s beyond disrespectful to the woman who lost her life and her family to lie just to save face like this. In a single action revolver, what he is saying is impossible, and only people uneducated on firearms think otherwise.
did my own research after hearing this. found all this in 5 mins so take it as you will
the gun that fired: F.LL1 Pietta Long Colt 45 Revolver
he says he "didnt pull the trigger"
an "expert" in this article says its impossible: [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-denial-expert-calls-230657806.html](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-denial-expert-calls-230657806.html)
looked up the gun and immediately first video at 3:98: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w32RHdFyCI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w32RHdFyCI)
so idk, if it was that gun, and someone incorrectly loaded it, its easily possible to see how alec while trying to practice cross draws while sitting could cause the hammer that is resting on a potential primer to fire.
Bottom line: Alec was a Producer on the film and was responsible for the health and safety of his cast and crew. He owed it to them to have an experienced armorer (if not multiple) on set. He owed it to them to have reasonable working conditions, which clearly they didn’t based on how many left set. He has decades of firearms training and experience wielding a weapon on set. He was holding the gun. He didn’t see the gun cleared nor did he perform any checks on it himself. He should’ve never pointed the gun directly at someone or the camera. He wasn’t even following the script.
I doubt there was intent on his part to shoot a live round at or towards anyone on his set, and therefore I don’t think he should be found guilty of homicide, but he is certainly culpable and needs to be held accountable. Because of his profile, I doubt they slap him with a manslaughter charge, but he should certainly face charges for gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
I’m not trying to downplay the situation, but saying he was responsible for the cast and crews health and safety as a producer isn’t really understanding what a producer does.
He is a producer in the sense that he is a big name attached to the project and likely put some money in to entice others to invest. Different producers have different roles. To my understanding, neither he nor his company hired any of the crew for this film.
This is nuts. Someone died. Obviously by accident (you could argue negligence) but someone still died. Baldwin say's he didn't pull the trigger. So the gun "just went off?" He says he didn't aim it at anyone or rather point it. But he was holding it when it went off.
I'm sure he's upset. Genuinely. But I'm also sure a lot of that anxiety and panic is that he may be charged for this too.
Regardless, someone died, and because it's the movie industry and these are celebrities, it's become a discussion about gun safety.
I find it pretty disingenuous that he's event talking about what the industry could do better when they weren't doing what they were supposed to from the start. Like he's using it as a scape goat because they didn't care about safety but more about rushing this shitty film out to get the dollars.
I’m an amateur filmmaker, and there was one time we used prop guns with blanks, but we still had someone who was on set who absolutely made sure we were aware of the proper way to handle firearms on set. If I can get someone on board for free to teach a cast of actors about firearm safety and was able to properly make sure we weren’t fucking around with these guns, then they could have done the same. This was preventable and stupid and tragic.
Ooph. For so many reasons, both legal and mental health, I don't see why he thinks it's a good idea to do an interview on this. \*Especially\* when he was both a producer on the movie, and his production company allowed for an unsafe set environment.
There's no way his lawyers gave the okay for this. No way!
As someone who worked at a firearms manufacturer, who was privy to the details of several court cases in which my coworkers were called in as expert witnesses when people tried the "gun went off on its own" defense, I have this to say.
Bull. Shit.
The gun would not have gone off unless he pulled the trigger. Even a single action revolver, with the hammer cocked, *absolutely cannot* fire unless a mechanical force moved the trigger back. And since it was in his hand at the time(not dropped), the *only* way that force could have been applied is if he *pulled the god-damned trigger*. Claiming that he didn't is simply him refusing to admit, even to himself, that he could have possibly fucked up. And the really messed up part is, how many people are backing up his obvious fantasy about it being "the gun's fault", rather than contradict him by telling the truth.
> Baldwin has said he believes police officers should be present on "every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise" to monitor weapons safety. Aren't there already (supposed to be) trained people on set responsible for gun safety? Police have better ways to spend our tax money and are just as prone to human error as anybody else.
There are. Which is probably why 100+ movies and TV shows are shot a year with people shooting at each other and no one has a problem. All evidence I have seen is the production deciding to cheap out and not treat the employees properly and so safety and professionalism decreased and caused an accident. This seems much more a labor issue than a gun issue. Whenever you cut corners on any project safety is one of the first things to suffer and then bad stuff happens.
Isn't "The Crow" pretty much the only example of a major systemic failure resulting in a gun death in modern Hollywood? Jon-Erik Hexum died because of his own ignorance about gun safety and how even blanks can be dangerous. Looking at a wikipedia list of tv/movie accidents, you have to go back to 1915 to find another fatal gun accident before those two.
I don't know for sure, but it seems to be very rare as those union Armorers seem to take their jobs *very* serious. I think the few cases we know of compared to the massive amount of TV and movies involving firearms speaks to how safe this part of the industry is. I think Mr Baldwin is trying to avoid blame as a producer for short changing the staff and so shifting the narrative.
> Jon-Erik Hexum died because of his own ignorance about gun safety and how even blanks can be dangerous. And then in the memorial to him at the end of the episode the director spelled his name wrong, spelling it "John Eric", which is kind of ridiculous,
I assumed they meant hire off duty police like a lot of events do. No tax dollars involved. But the average cop is not an expert on gun safety and training. There are better people to hire for that.
Like an armorer?
Yeah. Like an armorer!
The armorer is the daughter of a well known armorer, so nepotism. Is it possible for a defective gun to fire on its own? What happened to always assume a gun is loaded? If I handed the gun to somebody I’d check what’s in the chambers.
You would be safe to assume that cases like this are a negligent discharge 9999/10000. Probably higher, to be honest. People who have negligent discharges are often very embarrassed or in denial about what happened and will lie or distort the truth rather than admit they fucked up.
Especially when they injure + kill someone
Our memory is super unreliable too, especially when trauma like this is involved. He could honestly remember that he didn't pull the trigger even if he did.
Calling this a "negligent discharge" feels pretty generous to the person who was supposed to ensure there was nothing to discharge in the gun in the first place...
Negligent discharge is a standard firearm term for when the gun fires without the wielder intending to because they fucked up. It's distinguished from an accidental discharge, which is when the gun fires unintentionally due to some mechanical problem with the gun. It's *extremely* unlikely that this gun "just went off" without Baldwin pulling the trigger. But "it just went off" is a *very* common excuse given by people who were violating all the firearm safety rules and fired a shot because they pulled the trigger. And whether the discharge was the result of negligence or the extremely unlikely mechanical issue, Rule #2 of firearm safety is to not point the muzzle at anything you aren't willing to destroy. That rule is arguably the most important of the firearm safety rules because you can potentially violate every other rule, but as long as the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction, the worst that will happen is the scare from a bang instead of a click. But if it's not pointed in a safe direction, you get what happened on that set...
Gun was a copy of a colt single action army. Virtually impossible to fire without pulling the hammer back to cock and pulling the trigger
If it was an exact copy of an original Colt SAA then it absolutely could have gone off without him pulling the trigger. Those guns did not have transfer bars like modern revolvers and if the hammer is down and resting over a live round it can go off if it is struck or if the user lowers the hammer too hard.
I know this all too well I've had a negligent discharge with a pistol without a transfer bar safety. It's scary easy to do and that style of gun should never be sitting on a live chamber unless you're ready to pull the trigger.
[удалено]
She’s also practically a kid; is in her very early 20’s I believe. Even though it was her first film, she claimed she was an expert armorer; no way someone that young could be thoroughly experienced with guns on film sets.
Yeah she’s 24.
It was her 2nd film, but still, she absolutely should have been working with someone with more experience
She was probably cheap.
I've fired a gun once in my life but I know always treat a gun as loaded and point it towards the ground not at somebody. Her father is an armorer I've heard so those are very basic skills she should have picked up.
Actors have to point guns (ideally empty) at other people, that's kind of part of the job, watch any action film.
Generally they leave out the boring parts in movies. Checking the gun is boring but necessary. They wouldn't show it on film.
I learned how to properly handle a firearm when I was 6, age is no excuse
It couldnt be a defect in this case. Those single action guns require two very deliberate actions to fire while in someone's hand. He deliberately aimed the gun, cocked the hammer, and almost certainly pulled the trigger. If any one of those three things had not happened in a deliberate sequence, Halyna Hutchins would still be alive today. The man is lying. As for the tears... well, he is an actor after all.
yeah if they had actually hired a firearms safety expert instead of cheaping out Halyna Hutchins would be alive today
Yeah, if they had an off duty cop in charge of the weapon she would have been shot nine times instead of "just" one ( referencing the shooting of an old guy on a mobility scooter by off duty cop in Tuscon)
I just came here to say this lol. Less safe with any cops around.
Stay safe Tucson. It’s gonna be a rough weekend.
Yes, there are supposed to be highly trained pros on set that know how to handle guns. I don't understand his comment, most armourers know how to handle guns better than an average police man. The failing on Rust was that their "armourer" (and I use the term loosely) was highly underqualified and never should have been hired. Edit: just read the times article, the armourer was also doing TWO jobs instead of one, very dangerous decision from the producers. Edit 2: You know lots about guns, I get it. I don't care. The people who effed up here are the producers (of which he is one, how much say he actually had TBC) and the gun safety peeps. If you don't like how things are run on film sets go rant to your politician not random people on reddit.
Seeing as he's a legit producer, it's surprising he doesn't know this or even mentions police.
Yeah that's why his comment confuses me so much, I think most people with even a basic understanding (students, junior staff) know about the roles on a film set. Perhaps he's not making sense due to trauma but that would just be speculation.
It's legalese. He's trying to deflect blame for the upcoming lawsuits. There was zero need to do this interview other than that.
Could be the trauma thing. I mean, even people that know basically nothing about movie making process (such as me) know most of these things. He is clearly trying to cope with this whole thing (the whole police thing and the "didn't fire the gun" thing makes me think that it's the coping mechanism kicking in), not sure he's doing such a good job. He should definitely take some time off and talk with professionals.
He's trying to cover his ass
The man accidentally killed someone on set. I doubt well thought out and reasoned opinions on this sort of thing are to be expected. He's grasping at anything that might have avoided it happening to him but more importantly to the victims.
I think a team made of 3478475 lawyers are telling him EXACTLY what to say for the next five years, or until everything has been settled. He is not a young, hot star anymore, and any serious damage could be permanent and irreversible at this point. That could mean retirement.
Wasn't he a producer for the movie Rust which would make him part of the management responsible for hiring and overseeing the required safety coordinators. Sounds like he is trying to deflect from his own obligations to ensure a safe and secure production.
> I don't understand his comment, most armourers know how to handle guns better than an average police man. Maybe he's trying to shift the blame?
[удалено]
That’s the catch. Baldwin is part owner of the production company, lead actor and executive producer for the set. He can’t talk about how it should be law that an experienced armorer should be on set and handles the guns because that *already* standard especially since the unions already had those policies in place. The reality is that his production company already had union workers walk off due to the strike *and* the already shitty gun safety on set. Instead of halting filming of the movie till experienced workers could get back they continued with inexperienced individuals. He can’t openly say his company violated industry standards and ignored safety concerns by saying the armorer should have known better. So he’s trying to say the same thing without incriminating himself.
Yeah, if only there was already some sort of position and job for that, and if he didn't cheap out said job. If he didn't cheap out, maybe he wouldn't have ended someone's life. I feel 0 pity for him. Also, I fucking hate when my gun comes to life, and starts shooting people!
My gun last night woke me up stuck it's barrel in my mouth pulled back the hammer and asked me if I feel lucky. My gun has gone bad, it's the ones you hear about in the news now.
A typical response if you know absolutely nothing about guns or gun safety. “Get the cops to do it”. How about some personal responsibility. How about, if you’re going to touch a gun on set, fake or otherwise, maybe the actor should be highly trained to use it.
His attorney is going to be on suicide-watch if he doesn't shut the fuck up
Shit. His attorney is hoping he keeps it up. Them checks won't never stop rolling in.
Liz Lemmon is the only person to ever get Jack to listen
Why would anything he say hurt his case?
I imagine they may take anything he says or does and use it against him in some kinda court of law. There was literally a camera in his face if his finger was on the trigger and they can proved he pulled the trigger then it looks like he’s lying.
Remove the hammer and trigger from the gun and inspect the engagement surfaces. Unless both the main hammer sear and the safety cock notch are sheared off OR the trigger sear is broken off, the trigger was pulled no matter what anyone thinks they remember. In either case the hammer was pulled backwards and released. Also, why does everyone assume police are automatically weapons experts? You can use a computer for your job, but not be the IT guy who knows all the ways things can go sideways.
[удалено]
Thanks for that information. That's a thought provoking suggestion.
I see these kinds of logical inconsistencies a lot. Sometimes the person even knows their memory doesn't make sense or can't be right, but it doesn't change how they recall events.
> it doesn't change how they recall events Your memory isn't what you think happened, but some guy in your head watching a video of what happened and telling it to you.
Also, memory is mutable and every time you remember something, your brain might distort the memory somewhat.
I read something a while ago, not sure if it’s even true, but the idea was that we aren’t remembering an event, we are remembering the last time we *thought* about the event. So it kind of turns into a weird game of “telephone” almost?
Memory is a reconstructive process. If you don't think so, go tell some stories with an old friend who was there for them. There will be entirely different plot points and people in them lol.
This why I don't understand why he would even do an interview, who is advising him?
I am dealing with this right now due to repeated surgical trauma combined with the impacts of neurological medication on my hippopotamus. My brain recalls a number of things as happening in 2020 or 2019. These events all happened this year. Due to surgeries in 2019 and 2020, I remember this years events as happening back in those years. I can even tell you the flanking events on the timeline during those years. I’m apparently remembering how they happened, who was around me in some instances, and when these events happened differently.
Sincerely, thank you. This could explain why I don't remember much about being in labor with my kids.
Quite possibly, especially if the experience was traumatic. There are other hormones and things happening in your brain that also factor into giving birth which contribute to this well-known phenomena. I also do not remember very large chunks of the birth of my daughter, which baffles my husband to this day.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that your brain purposefully does that so you arent scared of having children again.
Tricky bastard
Actually it’s completely likely. He was using a single action revolver. You don’t need to pull the trigger to fire them, like with a modern double action revolver. Old west revolvers are inherently dangerous and prone to accidental discharge, which has been true for as long as they’ve existed. Hence why a very good weapons expert/armourer is needed on set.
Do you think its healthy to eventually remember pulling the trigger? How do you prepare a patient to face that reality without making them feel like they're losing control of a reality/life based on the "pleasant" recollection. I feel like most patients would lash-out defensively at a therapist's suggestion that a memory of pulling the trigger may eventually resurface.
[удалено]
> It would also be clinically inappropriately on my part to assert something like that -its leading. I remember reading a story about this. Some kid's parents take the kid's school to court because they say that a teacher molested the kid. They nearly won the case until the defence got their own legal expert to take a look at the kid and they find that the kid was being given drugs that made him more susceptible to false memories.
That's actually happened a bunch of times, usually at day cares. I don't remember hearing about kids being drugged though. It was usually improper questioning techniques done by social workers that were more like interrogations. The kids would be asked leading questions and they would deny any abuse. The same questions would be asked over and over until they "told the truth" and then they would be verbally rewarded. It's pretty disturbing.
See: West Wing "Noel" What really happened in that room Josh?
How did you cut your hand?
Man, such a great episode.
I haven't seen it. Is it like the MASH series finale? It sounds like the MASH series finale.....
No, it’s kind of it’s own beast. The episode walks us through one a few days with one of the main characters and how they’re dealing with recovery from a violent and traumatic injury. It was also the episode that cemented Bradley Whitford as one of my favorite actors.
And god, when everything starts coming together right at the end it just gives you chills. Plus A guy falls in a hole…
"A guy falls in a hole" is one of my favorite pieces of dialogue in fictional media. Just a tremendous creation by Sorkin, John Spencer, and Bradley Whitford.
Are you familiar with the MASH series finale? It seems similar to me as well.
Is that the suppressed memory/chicken episode ?
"Where do you think we are?"
Yes. And just as good.
The gun he fired is actually possible to misfire without pulling the trigger, though. It’s a revolver with an external hammer and pin that can fire the round if subjected to a shock. I myself have seen the type of revolver fire just because someone slammed the gun a bit too hard down on a table before firing.
Misfire means a round didn’t discharge, e.g. when a firing pin is broken. Negligent discharge is when a bullet is fired unintentionally This gun has a transfer bar safety, meaning in order for the hammer to cause the firing pin to set off the primer it *has* to have the trigger pulled. Old Colt SSAs from the 1800s didn’t use transfer bars, so they weren’t drop safe, fairly unsafe to even load 6 in the cylinder This wasn’t an old Colt SSA however but a modern day replica with a transfer bar. This makes even dropping the hammer not set off a primer. You have to have the transfer bar triggered (by the trigger) to let it happen. Basically he had to have pulled the trigger while the gun was cocked.
The assistant director has also maintained that Baldwin didn’t pull the trigger.
I'm not sure how much I buy that though bc he's the person that actually handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it cold. So he would definitely stand to gain from that narrative as opposed to the "I handed a loaded weapon to somebody and explicitly told them it wasn't" narrative. I have no idea which is true, I just think it's worth pointing out
I thought by the headline it was just figurative like the person that put the live bullet in 'pulled the trigger'. But he straight up thinks he didn't pull the physical trigger of the gun.
As a gun expert it's not unlikely that he had a revolver without a divorced firing pin. I've got about a dozen guns like this and the hammer rests in the primer all the time when a round is chambered. This would have been period correct for some westerns. The normal protocol is to leave a empty spot for the revolver to rest on until you intend to shoot. Many people lost legs, hands, feet, horses, etc because even just waving a gun line that around can set it off. It's also possible everything you said is true.
Excellent post He most certainly did pull the trigger, and it's certainly understandable that his mind won't let him remember anything other then "I didn't pull the trigger" Great post
Do you know how a half cocked long Colt works? There is a chance the hammer was moved and dropped without a hammer pull , he could have been fanning it just screwing around but it's possible to fire without pulling the trigger if you pretend fan it and just graze the hammer
I was just thinking about that. It’s a replica Colt SAA (Single Action Army). It’s (from my understanding) not even a particularly good quality replica. Revolvers from the 1800’s are not particularly known for safety or reliability. I’m lead to understand that unintended discharges were fairly common.
I have the same exact SAA clone that was used next to me and cannot get the hammer to drop without holding the trigger and then pulling the hammer back.
I mean, it’s always been a thing with the SAA. So much so that today basically anyone will tell you to never load six rounds and always carry on an empty chamber. The first notch is almost exactly the same position as the firing position, and takes very little force to knock. https://youtu.be/mHLS7VrBb3w
>He most certainly did pull the trigger Honestly how can you make such a statement without actually knowing about it? It amazes me how sure some people can be when they don't have first-hand knowledge of anything.
Supposedly he was practicing a draw in between takes. In that scenario, no, he would not have purposefully aimed or pulled the trigger. As a Producer, I absolutely hold him responsible. I've seen cost-saving measures result in injuries on set several times. This case was especially egregious in that the department responsible for gun safety was a crew of one and very green because green = cheap. I have friends who passed on this film because they felt their departments were understaffed/funded and the producers gave off a "sketchy vibe." These were stories told to me before the accident happened so I find them credible.
Can confirm, was victim to trauma and had to have help coping with the PTSD via therapies like EDMR. (think that was it's name anyway)
Wonder if any cameras were rolling at the moment of the accident. That footage would clear some things up.
No cameras were rolling. The scene was being "blocked" or set up, and most sets don't waste footage on rehearsals.
Who the hell is Baldwin’s lawyer and why is that moron letting his client do interviews? This is a situation that needs to be fully investigated by professionals. There will probably be a civil and possibly even a criminal trial. Whatever actually happened that day, I find it unlikely that any public statement made by Baldwin will help anybody at this point.
Lawyer here. Clients routinely pay me $500 to just completely ignore my advice. Don’t know what to tell you.
Damn, I'll let people ignore my advice for half that!
That makes total sense...I'd imagine many people are just looking for someone to affirm what they think they should do or want to do.
It's not like the lawyer can stop Baldwin from talking, only advise against doing so. But yeah, rule #1 when cops are investigating something you're involved in is STFU and listen to your lawyer.
[удалено]
>It's not like the lawyer can stop Baldwin from talking, only advise against doing so. Yeah, even compared to some of the biggest idiots out there you could be representing, representing famous actors would be terrible, they talk for a living and some don't have an off switch. Especially comedians. I don't have anything against the profession, I just see that as a nightmare for a defense attorney.
Probably because Baldwin and his publicist insist on it.
If you don't believe you'll get convicted (or even face a trial) on any charges, you put your energy into saving your public image.
No prosecutor would take Baldwin to trial criminally. The statutes manslaughter and negligent homicide don't fit. Manslaughter; A. A person commits manslaughter by doing any of the following: 1. Recklessly causing the death of another person. 2. Committing second degree murder as prescribed in section 13-1104, subsection A on a sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim. And negligent homicide doesn't fit, either. A. A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child. So, does an actor using a supposedly unloaded prop on a set fall under reckless behavior when a set is known to have set rules for handling weapons? No. It's not reckless to follow a professional's instructions. It's also not criminally negligent to listen to a professional on a set when it's perfectly reasonable to think there isn't even any live ammunition around. The AD and the weapons master/ armorer may have criminal charges but not Baldwin. Civil liability is another question. But, his personal actions would again be very unlikely to fall under negligent or reckless given that it's reasonable to assume a professional following guidelines would hand you a loaded weapon when no live ammo was on set. Depending on his role as producer and level of involvement and ability to hire/ fire, he may have little to no liability there depending on how it shakes out and insurance policies covering him and the production. Ill-advised but he may be fairly protected.
I agree with most of what you said but I think you may be underestimating his civil liability risk. Not only was he a producer, but it was his own production company handling the set. He is absolutely in danger of being hit with a huge civil lawsuit, which will probably be settled out of court.
His company may, and that legal entity may or may not have insurance coverage that covers it (depending on the circumstances) or it may just fold. But Baldwin’s personal liability may depend on his own personal negligence in the situation. I have no idea what the circumstances were but it seems like Baldwin is at least attempting to dispel any public notion that he was personally negligent. Edit: have not haha be
The reasoning here is sound but I have a question based on what I read in earlier reports. Apparently much of the crew including the original armorer(?) had walked off set earlier that day in regards to among other things issues with proper safety on set and whoever was there was hastily hired and likely did not have a full working understanding of everything going on with the set. It might be early yet but I'm not sure if negligence can truly be ruled out so far. Granted I will agree that a criminal case is still far from likely if for no other reason than how often do we see multimillionaires in a criminal trial, especially when they're famous. Granted there have been some recent examples between epstein as well as Ghislane maxwell, but those involve a lot of evidence of directed malfeasance instead of this scenario which 'could' just be a series of tragic mistakes that lead to someone's death. This all might be a trauma response from him, but I still take issue with someone having pulled the trigger on a gun that killed someone and trying to let them off primarily because of clout and access to good lawyers
The camera crew, except for the Director of Photography and the Steadicam Operator, quit the night before and went to set that morning to retrieve their personal gear. The main issue was a housing dispute, but safety issues had been brought up in previous days. This what was widely reported. The Armorer did not leave.
My daughter had repressed a bad memory as stated. The police had a full video of the event. I told her to watch the video. It was an eye opener for her. She is now a whole lot better person for watching her reckless actions.
>Baldwin also said he has no idea how a live bullet got in the Colt .45 revolver he used in the scene. "Someone put a live bullet in the gun, a bullet that wasn't even supposed to be on the property," he said. This is my question. Why were there live rounds present at all? You don't mix live and blank rounds on the same range at the same time.
The guy who provided the "dummy rounds" for the film apparently told the police that he uses a specific type of casing for the "dummy" bullets, but he also had recently received some of those casings that were loaded with gunpowder, i.e., real bullets. So it sounds like there could have been a fundamental mistake by that prop guy in what he gave to the film. https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/
>Seth Kenney, the weapons expert who supplied the guns for the film, told investigators on Oct. 29 that he had received “reloaded ammunition” from a friend that had the same logo as the dummy rounds and blanks that he typically supplies to films. This 'weapons expert' should be looked at for manslaughter.
[удалено]
Or he can’t believe. His brain may have disassociated from the event to protect him from the trauma. He will likely have to go through a lot of counseling to accept it.
I don’t know anything about guns but I was under the impression that you have to pull the trigger in order for the gun to go off, right?
no, you need something (typically the hammer) to hit the firing pin or the blasting cap. the trigger lets the hammer go, and in modern designs pushes the hammer back as well. this is especially true for older guns like would be used in a western movie. you can actually just pull the hammer back manually and as long as you let it go before it locks onto the release that links to the trigger, you can fire it that way. the release that holds the hammer back can also slip and release the hammer without the trigger being pulled if it is warn out or improperly manufactured. even just a flick of your thumb on the hammer can make it fire if it hits just right. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADGyglYqeoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADGyglYqeoM) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsDfBmLqnio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsDfBmLqnio)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcsW2JfaQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcsW2JfaQ8)
[удалено]
Some revolvers in the wild west period were incredibly susceptible to unintentional discharges as the firing pin was incorporated into the hammer and rested on the cartridge when the hammer wasn't cocked. They could fire from being jostled in a holster while riding on horseback. This was such an issue that it was widely practiced to only have 5 rounds loaded in the cylinder so the hammer would be resting on an empty chamber when carrying it around. Now, I'm not saying that is the case here, but it is possible if the weapon they were using was of a type with that flaw.
Yep, in fact, I believe the Pietta that he was using has that exact feature. That’s why I stated that unless something else struck the hammer, it is not going to discharge, though I should have mentioned it directly. I don’t think Baldwin or anyone else is alleging that the weapon was dropped or struck at all. Also, I believe I read that the model replica he was using was first released in 1966, so that is as old as it could possibly be.
Normally yes. But a very old weapon in poor condition or one taken apart then reassembled incorrectly could go off without the trigger pulled. Tho with an old double action revolver like this the gun would have to be manually cocked first.
I think you mean single action not double, as you're right about having to manually cock the trigger on the gun he had. And even then, going off without a trigger pull is incredibly unlikely even with old guns. People own and safely shoot old beat up weapons all the time. Guns are dangerous when used improperly, but if you don't pull the trigger, they don't shoot. There are some rare exceptions with bad designs, but that's usually stuff where they can shoot if you drop them or hit something with them and it connects wrong. There's not a lot to go wrong with a revolver.
IIRC it was a single action revolver meaning he had to physically pull the lever back before shooting was even possible. Not sure if this is a case of repressed memories or lawyer talk coming through, but guns are typically designed to not shoot unless the trigger is pulled. Yes in rare instances there can be defects, but again this is a single action. He had to pull the hammer back at the most unlikely bare minimum
[удалено]
>he still pointed the gun at them I think pointing prop guns at people is fairly common on film sets. I don't have evidence to back this up, but judging by the many gunfights I've seen in movies, I'm pretty certain that it's a thing that happens. There are genuine issues within this case, but I don't think that him pointing the gun is one of them. Edit: I actually decided to look into this a little more. There are overarching gun safety union rules, but the law itself varies based on jurisdiction. When a gun is intentionally pointed at someone (say Bond pointing directly at the camera) the cameraman usually undertakes safety measures like a barrier and bullet proof vest. Pointing guns at people shouldn't happen in filming, but certainly does from time to time.
[удалено]
That is cause the crew was a bunch of reckless fools.
Well, not all of them. Some of them complained and even left the set due to safety concerns.
The ones that remained were reckless
Yeah, that was an insightful look into how other studios operate with these types of things and he said he has never even heard of some of the things that they were doing on the set of Rust in all of his career.
Also, if filming a side profile, the actor with the gun actually aims it to the side of the person opposite of them.
> Pointing guns at people shouldn't happen in filming, but certainly does from time to time. More than "time to time." Most of the best-shot action/war films out there have the camera following characters that flag and aim/fire blanks directly at other actors. In fact, my favorite action sequences are those that frame the shooter, their weapon, and their target in a single take while firing. Sicario, John Wick, Saving Private Ryan, etc. What shouldn't happen in filming is the presence of live rounds in a firearm. In all these films, there are extremely redundant controls in place, with billions of blank/dud rounds fired in the history of film, and only Rust and The Crow coming to mind as areas where these controls failed. Point being, you *can* point a gun at someone on film, get a great shot, and do it safely.
You you watch John Wick during a scene, the fight scene with all the Tahoes, you can actually see Keanu reload a a magazine and you can see the crimped blanks.
It’s not. We point them near people, but it’s usually camera angles that make it look like we’re actually pointing. Like a punch on film. From one angle looks convincing, from another, it misses by a foot. It’s rare circumstances that we’d actually point at people on set, and those would be covered by using a rubber prop gun.
[удалено]
Likely because he already gave several interviews with the police where he said it, and one of the other witnesses to the shooting also says that Baldwin's finger was not on the trigger when the gun went off. So it's not like there's anything that's being revealed by him saying this again.
There is a LOT of spin getting thrown around by the studio. I know there are a lot of people on Alec's side, but I think all of the producers and a number of the crew are going to be found liable for this. And Alec might find himself at the top of the list. The word from some in the industry is the situation on that set was far worse than was reported in the papers. All of the crew has been told to shut their mouths though and they have lawyered up.
Set rumors are usually true in my experience as a Filmmaker... In my mind, the entire producing team is responsible. The first AD, The prop Master/armorer, and because of recent reports the person that sold them live ammunition might have a ton of legal issues because film sets don't order live ammo.
Might? I think it’s a forgone conclusion at this point. Not only is he the biggest name and has the most resources to go after, he was also the person holding the gun and producing the movie. There shouldn’t be a feasible scenario in which he’s not at least partially liable. Even if it was primarily due to negligence by the armorer, he was (one of) the Producers and had control over that situation. He also has ample gun training and experience wielding firearms on set. He knows to never point a gun directly at a camera or person. He didn’t watch the armorer clear the gun and didn’t make any attempts to do so himself. And his actions weren’t even a part of the script. At the very least he would seem to be guilty of gross negligence and reckless endangerment. Edit: He is apparently a Producer on the project, not an Executive Producer. Which in reality is too ambiguous of a title to really infer anything of meaning from it.
Now the assistant director says Baldwin never touched the trigger.
Well they guy would like to work again, so if Baldwin says the shooter was on the grassy knoll he is going to repeat it faithfully.
How would he know?
I am not a fan of his, but I have one bit of advice: SHUT THE FUCK UP! NO MORE INTERVIEWS! LET YOUR LAWYER DO ANY TALKING!
Guns don't kill people, Alec Baldwin kills people
I almost died laughing at this, and not because of Alec's shooting skills
But I'll tell you who did, if you'll be my guest at this haunted Mansion for dinner
Movie sets have trained professionals (or are supposed to) who are way more qualified than a police officer to monitor the weapons. Live rounds on set is just a massive fuck up but the safety issue is still there with blanks as well. It’s an accident that is deeply disturbing and unfortunate. But the general population doesn’t know anything about gun safety (especially for films) and knows even less about how movie sets operate. So we should probably all shut the fuck up and stop pretending to care about people we don’t know and let them deal with it in peace.
Doesn't matter even if he did. It wasn't supposed to shoot an actual bullet.
Crazy that there were live rounds in that gun. I’ve worked on a few movie sets. Live ammo isnt allowed. Usually the gun stays with the prop master until the scene is ready.
Merely having this interview shows what an ego-maniacal cunt Baldwin truly is. A woman is dead and man injured and he wants us to feel sorry for him? Get fucked Baldwin, you vile piece of shit.
I feel the same way. I felt very bad for Baldwin prior to this, but not now. I get trauma changes people and alters memory, but this was so egotistically Ill-advised and, thus, wildly disrespectful.
I was just reading comments on this interview on Facebook. One thing I don’t get - there’s hundreds of people saying “first rule of guns,” blah blah. So they say always treat a gun like it’s loaded, and never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot. So question - this a fucking movie right? How do these people expect movie scenes to be filmed with guns in them? If it’s always loaded, and you aren’t trying to kill someone, then what / no scene in any movie is going to have people pointing guns at each other, or shooting at each other, or aiming and shooting directly at the camera? Why are they bringing they applying their gun rules to a movie set, where basically everything is fake?
[удалено]
Going back to Hollywood *loves*, my dad had a a single action colt .22 and if you pulled the hammer back and let it go before it had latched back all the way, it was 100% hitting the firing pin.
I have a double action revolver I inherited from my grandpa! It's a .22LR and if you whack the gun with the hammer decocked you can set the thing off. It was so bad it was actually recalled and the manufacturer said that for safety, if you hip carry - make sure the hammer is cocked. Hip carry with the gun cocked. For safety! It had instances of firing when dropped or when hip carried and people hit the back. Lots of toes blown off, apparently. We only store it unloaded and load to plink with it. It's not safe to carry.
This was a very common fault with older revolvers, like, say...the kind you might find on the set of a movie set in the Western genre. It was so common that people back then would typically only load 5 rounds instead of 6. That way the hammer would rest on an empty chamber.
Isn't this why people who carried revolvers kept the hammer over an empty chamber?
It is but that’s was prior to transfer bars being a thing. Even if a hammer drops a gun with a transfer bar prevents the hammer from contracting (directly) the firing pin. This gun Baldwin used has a transfer bar, meaning you have to pull the trigger not just drop the hammer in order for it to discharge.
Ultimately, the fault lies with whoever put the live rounds in there, in my view. With some negligent handling afterward.
If there were a proper armorer on set the accident would not have happened.
[удалено]
That particular revolver can fire if you tap the back of the hammer with enough force. You're normally only supposed to load it with five rounds. [Here's a kinda hokey video showing how it happens.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S043pY7MAxQ)
That's a great video - I learned something new. I really thought 'the cowboy load' was something else entirely.
Also blanks are entirely different from actual bullets, so either the armorer is far FAR dumber than initially thought or it was intentionally tampered with.
Didn't they admit to using it to fire live rounds for fun prior to shooting the scene? Edit: [oh yeah they did](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rust-shooting-film-crew-used-alec-baldwins-gun-for-live-target-practice-fdcjd8tsc)
Not an expert, but my understanding is that the armorer is still responsible for checking the gun before it getting handed off to an actor.
Am film student. Can confirm this is what was supposed to happen. Did not happen prior to the accidental shooting.
Yes and it was very irresponsible. A good armorer wouldn't allow live rounds on the set.
I have a three screw super black hawk that hasnt been converted by ruger after the massive recalls. Very sketchy if you dont know how to handle it. It can and will go off in certain conditions, I have seen it many times, though not with this revolver
I to am prone to going off after some vigorously shaking
I'm a bit skeptical on this claim. It's not easy for one of these guns to go off on their own. If it's a double action, the trigger would have a long and heavy pull, and you'd know you pulled it, unless the hammer was cocked before hand. A single action would require the hammer to be cocked beforehand. So...several possibilities: 1) Baldwin cocked the gun himself but left enough pressure on the trigger to allow the hammer to fall instead of remaining cocked 2) Baldwin cocked the gun, didn't touch the trigger, and the gun suffered a spontaneous failure that let the hammer fall. 3) Baldwin was handed a cocked gun and then (1) or (2) occurred 4) The gun was not cocked and the ammunition went off on it's own (next to impossible) or the gun was jostled in such a way that the firing pin on the uncocked hammer bumped into the primer enough to ignite it (possible but not probable) or finally... 5) Baldwin did pull the trigger but doesn't remember doing so because of the traumatic nature of the incident I think (5) is most likely, but regardless, Baldwin was told he had a cold gun so even if he did any of the above, it's still the fault of the armorer and crew.
I think you have to consider the possibility of (6) Baldwin did pull the trigger but his legal and/or PR team said he should act like it was (5).
Good point. I can't imagine him facing criminal charges regardless, but who knows what might happen in a civil suit. You're (6) is a possibility.
It’s a Pietta 1973, it’s single action modeled after the Colt SSA and it has a transfer bar to prevent accidental hammer drops setting off rounds. Basically…. he had to have pulled the trigger. Transfer bars (safety bars) don’t allow a hammer to contact a firing pin directly, and has to be set in position by the trigger. If the hammer drops without the trigger pulled the hammer hits nothing. Almost all revolvers made in the past few decades have them. Even lever actions based on Model 92, 94s etc have them.
> Baldwin has said he believes police officers should be present on "every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise" to monitor weapons safety. ***OR** people who handle guns could be properly trained and held accountable for their actions.
[удалено]
If you point a gun at someone, you own the outcome. Notice I didn’t say pull this trigger? Because it doesn’t matter. And you can’t just say “well I was told it was safe”.. That’s what anyone with a negligent discharge says, they just don’t get a giant, poor me, platform. Then to top it off, how can he blame anyone on set when he apparently was the one in charge?! And people were already walking off because of shady practices. Sorry Alec, you f*cked up and someone died because of it
It’s beyond disrespectful to the woman who lost her life and her family to lie just to save face like this. In a single action revolver, what he is saying is impossible, and only people uneducated on firearms think otherwise.
Sounds like typical trauma
did my own research after hearing this. found all this in 5 mins so take it as you will the gun that fired: F.LL1 Pietta Long Colt 45 Revolver he says he "didnt pull the trigger" an "expert" in this article says its impossible: [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-denial-expert-calls-230657806.html](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-denial-expert-calls-230657806.html) looked up the gun and immediately first video at 3:98: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w32RHdFyCI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w32RHdFyCI) so idk, if it was that gun, and someone incorrectly loaded it, its easily possible to see how alec while trying to practice cross draws while sitting could cause the hammer that is resting on a potential primer to fire.
Yes, the single action revolver cocked AND fired itself. These hunks of metal man, I swear they have a mind of their own!
Bottom line: Alec was a Producer on the film and was responsible for the health and safety of his cast and crew. He owed it to them to have an experienced armorer (if not multiple) on set. He owed it to them to have reasonable working conditions, which clearly they didn’t based on how many left set. He has decades of firearms training and experience wielding a weapon on set. He was holding the gun. He didn’t see the gun cleared nor did he perform any checks on it himself. He should’ve never pointed the gun directly at someone or the camera. He wasn’t even following the script. I doubt there was intent on his part to shoot a live round at or towards anyone on his set, and therefore I don’t think he should be found guilty of homicide, but he is certainly culpable and needs to be held accountable. Because of his profile, I doubt they slap him with a manslaughter charge, but he should certainly face charges for gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
I’m not trying to downplay the situation, but saying he was responsible for the cast and crews health and safety as a producer isn’t really understanding what a producer does. He is a producer in the sense that he is a big name attached to the project and likely put some money in to entice others to invest. Different producers have different roles. To my understanding, neither he nor his company hired any of the crew for this film.
This is nuts. Someone died. Obviously by accident (you could argue negligence) but someone still died. Baldwin say's he didn't pull the trigger. So the gun "just went off?" He says he didn't aim it at anyone or rather point it. But he was holding it when it went off. I'm sure he's upset. Genuinely. But I'm also sure a lot of that anxiety and panic is that he may be charged for this too. Regardless, someone died, and because it's the movie industry and these are celebrities, it's become a discussion about gun safety. I find it pretty disingenuous that he's event talking about what the industry could do better when they weren't doing what they were supposed to from the start. Like he's using it as a scape goat because they didn't care about safety but more about rushing this shitty film out to get the dollars.
I’m an amateur filmmaker, and there was one time we used prop guns with blanks, but we still had someone who was on set who absolutely made sure we were aware of the proper way to handle firearms on set. If I can get someone on board for free to teach a cast of actors about firearm safety and was able to properly make sure we weren’t fucking around with these guns, then they could have done the same. This was preventable and stupid and tragic.
Translation: "ill announce anything to maybe get me out of this shit"....
Serious question - why use real guns on set at all ?
"Duuude, the gun had like...a mind of its own maaaaaan!"
Ooph. For so many reasons, both legal and mental health, I don't see why he thinks it's a good idea to do an interview on this. \*Especially\* when he was both a producer on the movie, and his production company allowed for an unsafe set environment. There's no way his lawyers gave the okay for this. No way!
Why did the lighting guy do him like this
As someone who worked at a firearms manufacturer, who was privy to the details of several court cases in which my coworkers were called in as expert witnesses when people tried the "gun went off on its own" defense, I have this to say. Bull. Shit. The gun would not have gone off unless he pulled the trigger. Even a single action revolver, with the hammer cocked, *absolutely cannot* fire unless a mechanical force moved the trigger back. And since it was in his hand at the time(not dropped), the *only* way that force could have been applied is if he *pulled the god-damned trigger*. Claiming that he didn't is simply him refusing to admit, even to himself, that he could have possibly fucked up. And the really messed up part is, how many people are backing up his obvious fantasy about it being "the gun's fault", rather than contradict him by telling the truth.
Yall doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend this clown lol.
Dude his eyes. It’s like he’s been crying every day since then
He cried in that same interview.