Alec Baldwin Shot and Killed Female Cinematographer, Injured Director on Movie Set

[Brian4Liberty]

He contradicted the hell out of this eyewitness. If he was asked to point the thing at the camera and play with the hammer, the injured assistant director would know. I wonder if that person is more interested in his career, or justice?

It is conceivable that both the carrot and the stick is coming into play with the witnesses. Both bribes and threats of “you’ll never work in this industry again”.

[luctor-et-emergo]

There is far too much variety to call anything an “average” revolver. There is single action and double action. There are a variety of models, especially more modern ones, that have additional safety features such as transfer bar between the hammer and firing pin.

I just assume that he had some type of period piece, which would be a single action.

I tried to look at what it was... It was a Colt .45, but that can obviously mean lots of different models, even if it's period. Not my expertise beyond knowing there are many different ones.

You are correct, a gun won’t fire itself, but the gun can drop or be struck with an object such that it will fire, especially if it is an old western six shooter with the firing pin in contact with the bullet primer.

Baldwin admits to pulling on the hammer. Releasing the hammer back too fast can be enough force to ignite the primer and fire the gun. Or he may have pulled the trigger at some point.

In order to release the hammer after it's reached half or full cock, you need to squeeze the trigger ?

[pcosmar]

Maybe this will help.





Half Cock will put the hammer between cylinders.. could not hit a bullet.

Fully cocked,,trigger must be pulled.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
In order to release the hammer after it's reached half or full cock, you need to squeeze the trigger ?

We could make some generalizations, but the only way to know for sure would be to experiment with the actual gun Baldwin fired.

[acptulsa]

In order to release the hammer after it's reached half or full cock, you need to squeeze the trigger ?

If it's in proper working order, yes. I'm thinking Baldwin will soon be playing the "this was the armorer" card:



He certainly set that "defense" up.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Maybe this will help.





Half Cock will put the hammer between cylinders.. could not hit a bullet.

Fully cocked,,trigger must be pulled.

I understand how they are supposed to work, I'm just trying to see what kind of opportunity there could be for a gun to fire by just manipulating the hammer.

[pcosmar]

I understand how they are supposed to work, I'm just trying to see what kind of opportunity there could be for a gun to fire by just manipulating the hammer.

Only a "Slip Gun" that is modified so,, a malfunction perhaps on a gun badly worn out.

still a question of Live Ammo on a movie set.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

It could have been a supernatural experience that will never repeat itself. Heck people don't even know how the pyramids were built. It could have been an invisible enemy time traveler that wanted revenge.

[ClaytonB]

Baldwin's lawyers should have told him to keep his mouth absolutely shut, he's literally digging his own grave in these interviews. Given what we know about Baldwin, I would have thought he would be smarter than this, but people never cease to surprise me...

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Baldwin's lawyers should have told him to keep his mouth absolutely shut, he's literally digging his own grave in these interviews. Given what we know about Baldwin, I would have thought he would be smarter than this, but people never cease to surprise me...

111 Views, 2.2k likes, 391 comments. Must be some woke liberals doing the math for youtube.

[Intrepid]

Baldwin's lawyers should have told him to keep his mouth absolutely shut, he's literally digging his own grave in these interviews. Given what we know about Baldwin, I would have thought he would be smarter than this, but people never cease to surprise me...

Pretty sure if you pull the trigger and keep it pulled, you can then hammer-fire a round.

[pcosmar]

Pretty sure if you pull the trigger and keep it pulled, you can then hammer-fire a round.

Stated repeatedly..
and how I quick draw.

Baldwin claims otherwise.

[Brian4Liberty]

Only a "Slip Gun" that is modified so,, a malfunction perhaps on a gun badly worn out.

still a question of Live Ammo on a movie set.

If it was a vintage gun, no telling what condition it was in. Worn? Restored? Modified? New and/or tightened hammer spring?

Agree that it is more an issue of live ammo and pointing it at someone. Baldwin is directly responsible for pointing it at people. And indirectly as a producer of ignoring unsafe conditions, proven by previous accidental firing.

[pcosmar]

If it was a vintage gun, no telling what condition it was in. Worn? Restored? Modified? New and/or tightened hammer spring?

And was the bullet "vintage" as well?

I am sure a forensic armorer could determine the condition..

Baldwin is not a good enough actor to convince me.

[Brian4Liberty]

Baldwin's lawyers should have told him to keep his mouth absolutely shut, he's literally digging his own grave in these interviews. Given what we know about Baldwin, I would have thought he would be smarter than this, but people never cease to surprise me...

Good video example. But she did actually show how it is possible. Pull the hammer back to just before halfway and release. It does strike the ammo. The question is how hard, and how sensitive is the primer? Depends on many factors. In the video, she could have pulled the hammer back a little bit more before hitting the half-cocked position.

[pcosmar]

Good video example. But she did actually show how it is possible. Pull the hammer back to just before halfway and release. It does strike the ammo. The question is how hard, and how sensitive is the primer? Depends on many factors. In the video, she could have pulled the hammer back a little bit more before hitting the half-cocked position.

Try it.

Ain't happening.

and it still would need a Live round in the Gun..
Why was there? and who put it there?

[acptulsa]

Good video example. But she did actually show how it is possible. Pull the hammer back to just before halfway and release. It does strike the ammo...

...if the gun was just loaded, or if the cylinder was rotated since it was fired.

[Brian4Liberty]

And was the bullet "vintage" as well?

I am sure a forensic armorer could determine the condition..

Baldwin is not a good enough actor to convince me.

Yep, lots of variables. The actual gun and ammo would need to be tested.

I have never had a misfire, but I have had Ruger revolvers get dirty and start to have problems after not too many rounds being fired. One will start to slightly lose alignment on the cylinder, and it will spit back at you. Be sure to wear protective glasses when shooting...

Different type of gun, but a friend did have a misfire on a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. It went off as soon as he pushed the bolt forward.

[pcosmar]

Yep, lots of variables. The actual gun and ammo would need to be tested.

I have never had a misfire, but I have had Ruger revolvers get dirty and start to have problems after not too many rounds being fired. One will start to slightly lose alignment on the cylinder, and it will spit back at you. Be sure to wear protective glasses when shooting...

Different type of gun, but a friend did have a misfire on a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. It went off as soon as he pushed the bolt forward.

Had a DB12 with issues..
pull one trigger and fire both. Failure in the lock mechanism..

a revolver would be out of Battery as the cylinder would move on a partial cock..or the hammer would have no striking force.. AS Demonstrated.

Not happening as Baldwin describes..

I think he loaded it himself,, because he is just that arrogant.


BTW,,if I ever had a reason to shoot someone.. I will OWN it.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

From the little video and pictures I have seen I guess that that witch with a frown that kept interrupting him while he was pleading guilty is I think his wife or girlfriend? The lady that got killed was an eye catcher. Hmm. Suppose Baldwin having a thing with the eye catcher and wife/girlfriend puts live round in gun. Regardless this was not an accident as the media calls it.

[Working Poor]

Had a DB12 with issues..
pull one trigger and fire both. Failure in the lock mechanism..

a revolver would be out of Battery as the cylinder would move on a partial cock..or the hammer would have no striking force.. AS Demonstrated.

Not happening as Baldwin describes..

I think he loaded it himself,, because he is just that arrogant.


BTW,,if I ever had a reason to shoot someone.. I will OWN it.

I agree that he probably did load the gun. I have an actor friend that has worked with him who is grateful to have worked with him and refuses to say anything bad about him but, you can bet that I have questioned why he would work with such an arrogant and corruted SOB way before this shooting incident. I have not talked to him about it because I don't want to get into an argument with him over it but, if he brings it up I am sure I will tell him what I think about it.

Also, I don't own a gun but if some how I ended up intentionally or unintentionally shooting someone I would own up to it. So, cudos to you for that admission.

[Occam's Banana]

Why I think Baldwin DELIBERATELY Pulled the Trigger - Viva Frei Vlawg
My theory as to why I am now convinced Baldwin deliberately pulled tghe trigger.
https://rumble.com/vq9ror-why-i-thin...rei-vlawg.html

[ClaytonB]

Why I think Baldwin DELIBERATELY Pulled the Trigger - Viva Frei Vlawg
My theory as to why I am now convinced Baldwin deliberately pulled tghe trigger.
https://rumble.com/vq9ror-why-i-thin...rei-vlawg.html

This response is not directly commenting on the case or Baldwin's specific character flaws, public or private.

I want to point out that one of the imbalances in modern American culture is this idea that anger is an evil (and it is), but any amount of provocation is not an evil. For example, I don't necessarily see Baldwin in the wrong to be barking back at a paparazzi hound. I think that non-celebrities (that means you and me) generally do not understand (a) just how much physical and psychological pressure a crowd of paparazzi can create and (b) just how often the paparazzi are unleashed as hell-hounds by the invisible Hollywood power elite (e.g. Weinstein) against actors and other celebrities that get out-of-line. Once again, I'm not commenting on Baldwin's specific character flaws, I'm just saying that the general assumption that an actor losing their temper with a paparazzo is ispo facto evidence of having an anger-problem is, in my view, simply false. And I don't think that just any amount of provocation within another person's personal space -- especially from a crowd of multiple individuals -- is permitted without it eventually amounting to a reasonable belief of imminent harm. If you ask someone who has moved into your personal space to move back out of your personal space, and they don't, that is an implicit threat unless there is some material reason they cannot move (someone behind them or you're in a packed elevator, etc.) I guess the point I'm trying to make is that anger is a problem in American culture, but so is intentional provocation and rage-baiting. All of it needs to stop.

</soapbox>

[Occam's Banana]

This response is not directly commenting on the case or Baldwin's specific character flaws, public or private.

I want to point out that one of the imbalances in modern American culture is this idea that anger is an evil (and it is), but any amount of provocation is not an evil. For example, I don't necessarily see Baldwin in the wrong to be barking back at a paparazzi hound. I think that non-celebrities (that means you and me) generally do not understand (a) just how much physical and psychological pressure a crowd of paparazzi can create and (b) just how often the paparazzi are unleashed as hell-hounds by the invisible Hollywood power elite (e.g. Weinstein) against actors and other celebrities that get out-of-line. Once again, I'm not commenting on Baldwin's specific character flaws, I'm just saying that the general assumption that an actor losing their temper with a paparazzo is ispo facto evidence of having an anger-problem is, in my view, simply false. And I don't think that just any amount of provocation within another person's personal space -- especially from a crowd of multiple individuals -- is permitted without it eventually amounting to a reasonable belief of imminent harm. If you ask someone who has moved into your personal space to move back out of your personal space, and they don't, that is an implicit threat unless there is some material reason they cannot move (someone behind them or you're in a packed elevator, etc.) I guess the point I'm trying to make is that anger is a problem in American culture, but so is intentional provocation and rage-baiting. All of it needs to stop.

</soapbox>

No one said that Baldwin has an anger problem merely because he got really pissed off at a paparazzo once.

However, it absolutely is evidence of such a problem.

Being hypoglycemic doesn't mean you have diabetes, but being diabetic does mean you have hypoglycemia.

Getting pissed off at paparazzi doesn't mean you're a rage-aholic, but being a rage-aholic does mean getting pissed off at paparazzi.

Baldwin is notorious for his short temper, and (as Viva noted in his video) the incident with that paparazzo is just one of a number of reasons why.

[Occam's Banana]

RUST and the Abdication of Responsibility | The Ballad of Alec Baldwin (VL587)
Alec Baldwin has done the unthinkable, not just in wielding the gun that shot and killed Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in October of this year, but in giving a national interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News before the investigation has even run its course.
Why would someone do such a reckless thing? Why would his lawyers allow it?
Alec Baldwin has a lot to answer for, as we discuss...in Virtual Legality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmRF3uRvfo

[ClaytonB]

No one said that Baldwin has an anger problem merely because he got really pissed off at a paparazzo once.

However, it absolutely is evidence of such a problem.

Being hypoglycemic doesn't mean you have diabetes, but being diabetic does mean you have hypoglycemia.

Getting pissed off at paparazzi doesn't mean you're a rage-aholic, but being a rage-aholic does mean getting pissed off at paparazzi.

Baldwin is notorious for his short temper, and (as Viva noted in his video) the incident with that paparazzo is just one of a number of reasons why.

Again, not commenting on Baldwin's character, as-such. I know for a fact that there are spiritual mind-games being played using this very idea that anyone who reacts angrily after being provoked (and gets caught on camera) is ipso facto a bad person. It's very much like the dynamics on the school yard where the bullies gang up on someone and provoke them to lash out at them, carefully timing the provocation so that a teacher will just then be in view of what's happening. So, not only do the bullies actually aggress against their victim, but they send the victim up to be disciplined for being the "aggressor"! It's a dirty, low-down, cowardly cheap-trick and it's being used as an element of cultural warfare. If you carefully watch these Antifa/PB/etc. showdowns on the streets, this is precisely the kind of BS that is going on. Keep in mind that these street brawls are absolutely being used as a proxy war between the two main wings of hidden political power. This has to stop. I know it's not directly related to the case, but using the footage in the video to arrive at any kind of broad assessment of Baldwin makes me uneasy. He may be guilty as sin, and he sure is acting guilty of something, regardless of any past footage/recordings. But anyway, I just wanted to respond to those clips -- be very careful when judging from incomplete information even if it is presented in such a way as to show a "pattern"!

[Occam's Banana]

Again, not commenting on Baldwin's character, as-such.

Well, I will comment on his character: he is quite clearly an $#@! - an arrogant and angry $#@!.

I know for a fact that there are spiritual mind-games being played using this very idea that anyone who reacts angrily after being provoked (and gets caught on camera) is ipso facto a bad person. It's very much like the dynamics on the school yard where the bullies gang up on someone and provoke them to lash out at them, carefully timing the provocation so that a teacher will just then be in view of what's happening. So, not only do the bullies actually aggress against their victim, but they send the victim up to be disciplined for being the "aggressor"! It's a dirty, low-down, cowardly cheap-trick and it's being used as an element of cultural warfare. If you carefully watch these Antifa/PB/etc. showdowns on the streets, this is precisely the kind of BS that is going on. Keep in mind that these street brawls are absolutely being used as a proxy war between the two main wings of hidden political power. This has to stop. I know it's not directly related to the case, but using the footage in the video to arrive at any kind of broad assessment of Baldwin makes me uneasy. He may be guilty as sin, and he sure is acting guilty of something, regardless of any past footage/recordings. But anyway, I just wanted to respond to those clips -- be very careful when judging from incomplete information even if it is presented in such a way as to show a "pattern"!

Baldwin has long had a reputation for being an angrily foul-tempered person.

And the reasons he has that reputation are well-illustrated by the video/audio clips Viva Frei made reference to.

There is nothing objectionable about pointing out that angrily foul-tempered people like Baldwin are prone to becoming angry and foul-tempered.

[ClaytonB]

Baldwin has long had a reputation for being an angrily foul-tempered person.

And the reasons he has that reputation are well-illustrated by the video/audio clips Viva Frei made reference to.

There is nothing objectionable about pointing out that angrily foul-tempered people like Baldwin are prone to becoming angry and foul-tempered.

There is always good reason to be cautious when it comes to a matter of justice. That's why we originally had courts to begin with, to prevent trials in the "court of public opinion", which is virtually always grossly unjust -- you'd be better off rolling fair dice to decide whether to convict. And again, I'm not directly commenting on Baldwin, just using this specific aspect of the case to highlight a much bigger cultural issue that affects the liberty movement and the Right, whether you realize it or not.

[dannno]

[Occam's Banana]

There is always good reason to be cautious when it comes to a matter of justice. That's why we originally had courts to begin with, to prevent trials in the "court of public opinion", which is virtually always grossly unjust -- you'd be better off rolling fair dice to decide whether to convict. And again, I'm not directly commenting on Baldwin, just using this specific aspect of the case to highlight a much bigger cultural issue that affects the liberty movement and the Right, whether you realize it or not.

People having opinions about things - such as whether Alec Baldwin is prone to being an arrogant, angry $#@! who is capable of shooting & killing someone accidentally in a fit of pique and then fobbing all responsibility for it off on everyone else except himself - is not a "cultural issue that affects the liberty movement and the Right", It is an absolutely normal and typical thing that all human beings throughout history have done and will continue to do for so long as they remain human beings.