Alec Baldwin Shooting

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This topic was discussed quite a bit in the Rittenhouse thread, but obviously further discussion there is not related to the thread's topic. I realize this happened some time ago, but something new recently happened that I thought would spur some interesting discussion. Baldwin just gave an interview to George Stephanopolis and claimed the gun discharged even though he "did not pull the trigger". Now, I know some of you don't know a lot about guns, but this is literally on the cusp of impossible. The gun in question was a single action period era revolver. Being single action two things absolutely must happen for the loaded gun to be able to discharge; one, the hammer needs to be manually drawn back into the cocked position, this could not happen accidentally, and two the trigger then has to be pulled. Of course an obvious third point would be that even if discharged the bullet will not strike something that the gun was not pointed at (barring a ricochet of course).

A friend of mine, one of the ones I've mentioned who knows a hell of a lot more about guns than I do, literally said within a few days of the shooting that Baldwin, a rabid anti-gun advocate, would find a way to blame the gun and not himself. Looks like he was absolutely right.

Lastly, and I don't want to imitate the people in the Rittenhouse thread but, I am interested in how many people find Baldwin's tears "genuine". I know actors and actresses, some names you would absolutely know. One of best friend's little sister was a very long time working actress. I can tell you first hand they can cry at the drop of a hat, it's part of their job after all, and it's been demonstrated to me. Just something to think about. Also, I'd like to hear people's opinions on why Baldwin would even do this interview, although I think we all know the interview came with heavy preconditions.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/alec-baldwin-exclusive-trigger-pulled-pull-trigger/story?id=81491305

[BigPapaKain]

The only time I've heard of a gun discharging with no booger hook on the boom rod is when the trigger is too heavy and it falls at just the right angle to cause the trigger to be pulled by gravity.

The only reason I know about that is because it happened to the handgun I own (Sig Sauer P320) and they had a massive campaign to get the faulty guns fixed at no cost to the consumer and have changed production of the gun moving forward (my gun is one the moving forward models).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-02-2021, 08:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The only time I've heard of a gun discharging with no booger hook on the boom rod is when the trigger is too heavy and it falls at just the right angle to cause the trigger to be pulled by gravity.

The only reason I know about that is because it happened to the handgun I own (Sig Sauer P320) and they had a massive campaign to get the faulty guns fixed at no cost to the consumer and have changed production of the gun moving forward (my gun is one the moving forward models).

Yeah, the 320 had drop safety issues, which have been fixed.  As you illustrate, Baldwin is lying and I'll flat out say so.

[*michaelsean*]

I’ve never fired a single action, but I know you have to intend to fire one. Also maybe if he weren’t so anti-gun he would have known the first rule anyone who wants to handle a firearm is taught. Then there is the second rule that anyone who wants to handle a firearm is taught. Then there is the third rule that anyone who wants to handle a firearm is taught. He violated the first two and lied about the third.

[BigPapaKain]

(12-02-2021, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, the 320 had drop safety issues, which have been fixed.  As you illustrate, Baldwin is lying and I'll flat out say so.

Either lying or his brain is blocking the memory from being crystal clear to his recollection.

I'll actually stand on your side on this one, though. Even if it was a scarring memory, everything else that's been reported says he pulled the trigger.

The only way he didn't is if his sleeve caught the hammer and fanned it just perfectly to get it to go off (which is next to impossible). No, I don't know if he had sleeves at the time of the incident.

[Belsnickel]

So, a little more about this particular instance. The firearm that was on set was a replica of an 1873 Pietta. This particular replica was designed with enhancements over the original model that are specifically designed to prevent the very thing Baldwin is claiming happened. The original model did not come with a transfer bar. For those that don't know revolvers, the transfer bar is used to prevent discharges without the hammer intentionally being cocked and released. The hammer on the old revolvers was flat and came in direct contact with the firing pin. Newer model revolvers have a differently shaped hammer that never directly touches the firing pin, but instead strikes a transfer bar, thus transferring the energy from the hammer to the bar to the pin. The replica Piettas have such a transfer bar. Transfer bars are raised by the cocking action of the revolver and lowered as the hammer falls. Pulling the trigger releases the hammer in such a quick motion that it strikes the transfer bar, but you can lower the hammer slowly in a safe manner. Anyway, this is all to say that the revolver had to have been cocked in order to fire, and it is literally a one in a million chance for that hammer to fall without the trigger being pulled.

The other thing to me with all of this is it would be moot if only proper firearm safety was being followed. Mechanical failures are rare, but they do occur. The three "always" rules are there to reduce incidents like this and to prevent someone being injured if there is a mechanical failure.

Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction is rule number one. Loaded or unloaded, doesn't matter. It wasn't pointed in a safe direction.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This one is a little more difficult, but could you see how this could have been prevented if, say, immediately after the camera stops the armorer or another qualified individual takes control of the firearm and clears it?

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Simple enough. Keep your booger hook off the bang bang switch. Negligent discharges are much more common than a failure of the firearm, meaning that poor trigger discipline is the number one cause of a negligent discharge. Does Baldwin remember pulling the trigger? Maybe not. But I can say with 99.99999999% certainty that he did and it's because he was not following this rule.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-03-2021, 09:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, a little more about this particular instance. The firearm that was on set was a replica of an 1873 Pietta. This particular replica was designed with enhancements over the original model that are specifically designed to prevent the very thing Baldwin is claiming happened. The original model did not come with a transfer bar. For those that don't know revolvers, the transfer bar is used to prevent discharges without the hammer intentionally being cocked and released. The hammer on the old revolvers was flat and came in direct contact with the firing pin. Newer model revolvers have a differently shaped hammer that never directly touches the firing pin, but instead strikes a transfer bar, thus transferring the energy from the hammer to the bar to the pin. The replica Piettas have such a transfer bar. Transfer bars are raised by the cocking action of the revolver and lowered as the hammer falls. Pulling the trigger releases the hammer in such a quick motion that it strikes the transfer bar, but you can lower the hammer slowly in a safe manner. Anyway, this is all to say that the revolver had to have been cocked in order to fire, and it is literally a one in a million chance for that hammer to fall without the trigger being pulled.

The other thing to me with all of this is it would be moot if only proper firearm safety was being followed. Mechanical failures are rare, but they do occur. The three "always" rules are there to reduce incidents like this and to prevent someone being injured if there is a mechanical failure.

Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction is rule number one. Loaded or unloaded, doesn't matter. It wasn't pointed in a safe direction.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This one is a little more difficult, but could you see how this could have been prevented if, say, immediately after the camera stops the armorer or another qualified individual takes control of the firearm and clears it?

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Simple enough. Keep your booger hook off the bang bang switch. Negligent discharges are much more common than a failure of the firearm, meaning that poor trigger discipline is the number one cause of a negligent discharge. Does Baldwin remember pulling the trigger? Maybe not. But I can say with 99.99999999% certainty that he did and it's because he was not following this rule.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation than I was prepared to type. 

As you very accurately state, Baldwin is lying, or he's lying to himself to assuage his guilt.  I suspect the former.

[Goalpost]

I don't know how the law reads on accidental killings if beforehand you haven't taken precautions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-03-2021, 01:49 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I don't know how the law reads on accidental killings if beforehand you haven't taken precautions.

Negligent homicide.  You have to have been negligent in a way that a reasonable person could foresee someone being injured or killed.  For example, if I knowingly use defective steel in a construction project that later collapses and kills someone.  It's very difficult to prove unless you have a smoking gun as intentional negligence requires more proof than "they should have known".  You need proof that they did know and did it anyways.  I don't think there's any chance at all of criminal charges for Baldwin.  Someone may get sacrificed to make this go away, but it's almost certainly not going to be Baldwin.

[Belsnickel]

(12-03-2021, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Negligent homicide.  You have to have been negligent in a way that a reasonable person could foresee someone being injured or killed.  For example, if I knowingly use defective steel in a construction project that later collapses and kills someone.  It's very difficult to prove unless you have a smoking gun as intentional negligence requires more proof than "they should have known".  You need proof that they did know and did it anyways.  I don't think there's any chance at all of criminal charges for Baldwin.  Someone may get sacrificed to make this go away, but it's almost certainly not going to be Baldwin.

There is a little part of me that would like to see charges just because it's obvious to anyone with sense that he was violating the basic rules of firearm safety, but the other part of me knows that would be hard to really say because the nature of filmmaking with firearms is that those rules will constantly be violated. That's a whole other conversation.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

I mean unless he had a reason for wanting to kill the lady I would imagine the tears are very real. I don’t know much about guns though to talk about him pulling a trigger or not. He certainly could be misremembering it as it was a traumatic experience. Probably just doesn’t remember doing it and his panic driven mind is convincing himself that he didn’t touch it. Or he could be lying. I don’t really see the point in lying? How much responsibility of making sure a gun isn’t going to shoot is on the actor as opposed to the firearm handlers?

[Belsnickel]

(12-03-2021, 04:58 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I mean unless he had a reason for wanting to kill the lady I would imagine the tears are very real. I don’t know much about guns though to talk about him pulling a trigger or not. He certainly could be misremembering it as it was a traumatic experience. Probably just doesn’t remember doing it and his panic driven mind is convincing himself that he didn’t touch it. Or he could be lying. I don’t really see the point in lying? How much responsibility of making sure a gun isn’t going to shoot is on the actor as opposed to the firearm handlers?

The pull needed to make a revolver fire when the hammer is back is not much. 1.5 to 2 pounds. By comparison, my stock Glock triggers are about 4.5. Apparently, the hammer wasn't supposed to even be cooked on set, but it had to have been to go off. When it was cooked, it wouldn't take much to move the trigger.

[*michaelsean*]

“Someone is responsible for this but it’s not me”. Also he said he feels no guilt? How does a normal person not feel guilt at some level?

The guy comes across as a sociopath masquerading as a progressive. His inability to take any responsibility is astonishing, but pretty much in line with a sociopath.