Alec Baldwin Rust Movie Shooting
Alec Baldwin on the set of 'Rust'

In yet another investigatory coup by the FBI, the bureau’s crack forensic boffins have officially determined what literally everyone else who knows even the first thing about firearms knew almost immediately after the movie set shooting last October. Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger on the revolver that day, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.

Since everything the FBI does seems to be an open book these days, ABC News got its hands on the bureau’s findings . . .

Accidental discharge testing determined that the firearm used in the shooting — a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver — could not have fired without the trigger being pulled, the FBI report shows.

With the hammer in the quarter- and half-cock positions, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger,” the report stated.

With the hammer fully cocked, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional,” the report stated.

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

You don’t say. It’s almost as if guns — especially functional firearms loaded with live ammunition on movie sets — don’t just “go off” as so many experts in the media are fond of claiming.

Of course, everyone knew that Baldwin’s heartfelt claim that he didn’t pull the trigger that fateful day was utter bullshit meant to deflect blame and shield himself from civil and criminal liability.

What happens next is up to the Santa Fe County Sheriff . . .

The forensic report is part of a criminal investigation into the on-set shooting. The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, which is leading the homicide investigation, received the report and other FBI documents related to the shooting earlier this month, the sheriff’s office said Thursday.

The documents have been reviewed by the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator, which has classified Hutchins’ death as an accident, a postmortem report obtained by ABC News shows.

What are the odds that Baldwin and/or the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, will face criminal charges?

The local district attorney has yet to make any charging decisions in the case. Detectives are awaiting phone records from Baldwin as part of their investigation, the sheriff’s office said Thursday.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

170 COMMENTS

      • A skier named Spider Savage was dating the sweetest French Actress ever. I mean she was tiny with big eyes and child like when acting.
        She found out he was cheating and blew his guts out. Did the big cry and weep, “I was cleaning it and it went off”, she got off.
        I have at least twice demonstrated gun cleaning to folks unclear of the dangers. They were very clear after I showed the obvious steps of unload, open action, inspect barrel that doesn’t include the step of aim gun at person to perforate, pull trigger, that cleaning a gun is actually very safe.

        • In my childhood, the “cleaning and the gun went off” concept was used as a cover-up for suicide. No one really believed that a grown man who was a veteran and avid hunter would accidentally blow his head off. It was more palatable to say “he was cleaning his gun and it went off.”

        • The ‘Gentleman’s C’ for cause of death. Suicides don’t pay insurance or some survivors’ benefits, and carry a stigma. An ‘accident’ saves face for the family and doesn’t leave them strapped for cash.

    • he may not remember pulling the trigger…it happens sometimes, producing a “What the Hell?” moment…but having it aimed in the direction of other people is always a no-no…poor safety protocol all around…

  2. Almost everyone who visits this forum already knew that Baldwin pulled the trigger. I’m not all that familiar with this particular firearm, but everything I’ve read about it says the same thing. It’s a very safe firearm, and it won’t discharge until the trigger is pulled. Baldwin would have us believe that he’s the victim of a poorly designed and/or faulty firearm. But, like many other celebrities, Baldwin is just another freaking idiot.

    Baldwin killed one, and injured another, because he didn’t need no stupid safety nonsense on his set.

    I’m about sick of hearing about Baldwin every other day. I hope the civil suits clean out his accounts.

    • “I’m about sick of hearing about Baldwin every other day.”

      I’m not, not by a long shot.

      I’d like frequent reports about others holding him responsible for his actions, preferably with video of the look on his face when he gets confronted by what he did to that beautiful young woman.

      “What’s it like to kill someone, Alex, to take their life from them?” – …exactly what he wanted done to us… 🙁

        • Alec, Alex, little difference when it comes to Leftist Scum ™ like him who refuse to accept the personal responsibility when handed a loaded gun.

          Because *all* guns should be considered loaded while handling them…

        • His given name is Alexander. He calls himself Alec. Alec is not a derivative of Alexander, it’s a separate name. He’s a phony from the get go.

        • O me of little faith,

          And his wife’s name ain’t “Hilaria”, either, and she ain’t “Hispanic”, so the whole damn family is fake.

    • Some thoughts:

      1) In the embedded video, note how deferential the police officer is to a movie star. Looking to Baldwin as an authority figure, not a suspect in a murder (or even a witness to a horrible accident). This is not how police treat the grubby, ordinary public. I’ve been treated worse during a traffic stop for doing five over the limit. There are two systems of justice in this country, one for “them” and one for everyone else.

      2) Baldwin was the producer of the movie and had overall responsibility for safety on set. He didn’t take personal responsibility for ensuring the safety of a gun in his direct control. He didn’t take responsibility for ensuring a safe operating environment on the set he was in charge of. It’s on him that live ammo was allowed on set, and that it was carelessly mixed with prop ammo. It’s on him, and probably due to his ignorance about firearms, that the armorer and everyone else were allowed to adopt a casual, “anything goes” attitude toward the firearms in their care. I’m not holding my breath that any of this will ever mean anything to anyone except the family of the victim. See above: two systems of justice, etc.

      • “live ammo on the set”?….never should happen…and reeks of poor control from the top down….it’s a circle, and no matter how much he points in another direction…it always comes back to him…

        • Agreed.
          My late friend told me if security continuity was lost (discovering a locked cabinet was left unlocked), he quarantined, paused, collected everything, went and got clean materials. He also made up dummy explosives and arranged real explosives so I guess had extra vigor. He was an engineer and documented everything and did failure modes and effect analysis to search for opportunities for events. For example if he had a vintage electrical detonation machine he would short out the output internally. So it would move correctly (the magnets swing like a lawnmower), but could not set of a detonator, even though it was not intended to ever be connected to a real detonator. Real pyro was done with modern equipment, which was covered with lock boxes etc etc. All as common sense would indicate.

    • @Paul,

      “Almost everyone who visits this forum already knew that Baldwin pulled the trigger. “

      I myself am wondering why this article is even being circulated on the Interwebs, as it isn’t anything new. We all know he pulled the trigger. Even he acknowledges he pulled the trigger. The issue was how he tried to place responsibility for the bullet on anyone else he could pin it on other than himself.

      Let me know when we finally see a conviction and proper prison sentence for criminal negligence…the same outcome any of us here would expect to be levied against us. Then I’ll be interested.

      • Haz,

        I think it goes back to the quaint days where most people believed that the FBI was a legitimate investigative agency, during which time such a conclusion from the FBI would have been more-or-less conclusive “proof” of causation.

        Personally, I was shocked that the FBI would be willing to come to a conclusion unfavorable to a Hollywood Leftist and Biden supporter. Baldwin musta p***ed off SOMEBODY at the DNC.

        • where most people believed that the FBI was a legitimate investigative agency

          The same people that “ignored” Hoovers proclivity for young men/boys and his “collection” of secret information on Federal lawmakers?

        • Agreed. Integrity and FBI do not belong in the same sentence unless the sentence is describing the FBI’s total lack of that virtue.

    • This is the process the cops have to go through in order to get and convict a rich criminal. Who can afford the best lawyers on earth.

      It’s always much easier to send the poor to prison. Kyle Rittenhouse would be in prison today. If it wasn’t for the money raised by strangers, to pay for his expensive legal team.

    • Pietta has had three different safety systems over the years, the last two of which I am very familiar. For a while they were using a Ruger style transfer bar, and with a transfer bar, the pistol cannot fire without the trigger being pulled to raise the bar into position to allow a round to fire. The most recent version is a take off on the Uberti floating firing pin, a system that lock the pin in place only when the trigger is pulled. On both of these, if you have your thumb on the hammer, the pull weight on the trigger is simply a flat spring with negligible resistance, so it is possible to pull the trigger without really meaning to. WE CAN BE REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT HE HAD HIS THUMB ON THE HAMMER BECAUSE HE HAD JUST COCKED THE GUN. Consequently, when he, in his words, took his thumb off the hammer, and with his finger on the trigger, the gun fired. No surprises there.

      Let me add one other thing. Other than the extra pieces used for the safety system, these guns are functionally identical to all of the colt handguns going back to the 1840s. Being single action, there are no internal gears or levers that one might find in a double action. The hammer spring is a single heavy duty flat spring. The hand springs are either Colt style or a Ruger plunger style built into the frame. The only moving parts are the hammer, the trigger, the cylinder locking cam, and the hand that moves the cylinder. The hand, the cam and the trigger all interface with the hammer and are operated when the hammer is cocked or uncocked. A very simple machine. I have little doubt that the gun was perfectly functional since the FBI found nothing amiss, no mater what Alec believes (or wants to believe to avoid the guilt).

  3. If he manages to escape prosecution, it’s up to the rest of us to hold him responsible for his shocking carelessness.

    Baldwin *loves* to go out-and-about. Make it miserable for him. Get in his face and ask him what it’s like to murder a beautiful young woman (and mother), because he was too fucking lazy to check that the ammunition in the gun handed to him was inert.

    Ask him what it feels like to take someone’s life.

    Treat him the same way he egged on his little Leftist Scum ™ buddies to treat us. If I ever see him in public, that’s would I would like to do. (provided his hired goons let me get close enough)… 😉

      • I believe in the Easter Bunny and that a fat white guy in a funny sled pulled by animals visits LA during the night time hours with his sled full of all kinds of goodies and doesn’t get mugged at his first stop.

    • I would not be surprised if he isn’t charged due to prosecutorial discretion. New Mexico is trying to earn more movie business. Santa Fe is ultra-blue, progressive.

      The armorer will get everything thrown at her, which is fair.

      Baldwin may escape criminal charges, but won’t likely on the civil side unless he writes some really big hush money checks.

  5. Anti gun idiot playing tough guy with a gun doesn’t know how to handle a gun. Big surprise with deadly consequences.

  6. We should keep all guns away from all anti gun zealots starting with all the anti Second Amendment morons in Hollywood beginning with that A-hole who did the “Taken” series of shoot-em-up movies.

      • With an elite leftist scum having pulled the trigger, my guess is “Pocket full of Gold” is more likely the tune that gets played.
        Those “pockets” will belong to the lawyers and judge.
        Heck, it wouldn’t be a first if a few jurors see some too.

    • Agree! Let ’em point with their fingers and go “Pew-pew,” or the classic “Rat-at-at-at-at” for auto fire. Dubbing and CGI can take care of the rest.

      • First time poster, welcome. 👍

        FYI, basic cinematographic camera technique can make it appear as if a firearm is pointing at someone/something, when in fact, it isn’t. No dubbing or CGI effects necessary.

  7. I know a guy that shot himself with a Glock and claimed he didn’t pull the trigger. I think he did, but I wasn’t there. I think most people would blame the gun and there are hundreds of stories online stating almost every make of gun has had dangerous deficiencies at one time of another. If no guns had issues, there wouldn’t be safety recalls.

    People are forgetting the incompetent armorer. I would be surprised if that dunce knew anything about guns, especially how to maintain them or conduct safety checks.

    I think its important to know without a doubt Alec pulled the trigger.

    • “People are forgetting the incompetent armorer.”

      This.

      I haven’t followed the story in detail so I’m probably off base, but tell me where I’m wrong:

      Actor is handed a gun on a movie set and told to fire it towards the camera.
      Exactly how much responsibility does the actor bear in this tragedy?
      How much is on the armorer?

      • “People are forgetting the incompetent armorer.”

        ABaldwin was the exec producer of the operation.

        Sooooooooooo, the hiring of an incompetent armorer falls SQUARELY in his lap. 😄

        • Yes and he is always so arrogant that he wouldn’t follow anyones instructions as far as safety no matter what.

        • Dumb.

          Would you trust Baldwin to check a gun and then point it at you? It would be beyond fucking stupid to trust someone who knows nothing about guns and ammo to be responsible.

          If that isn’t the duty of the armorer, why are they there? They are on set as the weapons expert, to make sure that people who know nothing about guns don’t shoot each other.

          I would never go shooting with someone that thought incompetent people should be the ones to trust, in any step, to make sure guns are handled properly.

    • The armorer. Yeah. From the various accounts I’ve read, Baldwin ran roughshod over the armorer. I wasn’t there, maybe the stories are BS, but, it sounds to me like the armorer should have never taken the job. It’s hard to do any job properly when you work for an egotistical bastard who won’t listen to anyone outside the voices in his head.

    • female,..and young, at that…sounds like they ran over her a bit…and didn’t respect her authority…but that’s still on him

    • Glocks have been known to produce “What the Hell” moments…happened to me once…may have even been what happened at the capitol….

      • Glock pistols fire when the trigger is pulled, whether by a finger, fabric, leather from a malformed holster. A true accidental discharge of the gun without any manipulation is extremely rare and a sign that the firearm needs service or has been tinkered with.

        • The famous “bubba trigger job”.
          I have held such pistols (empty) in my hands. The owner said, “oh I gotta wash the oil out or it does that” – the hammer dropped as you touched the trigger.

    • Cato,

      “People are forgetting about the incompetent armorer.”

      Unfortunately, none of us “know” the full facts of the situation, but this appears to be a “perfect storm” of incompetence – incompetent producer (Baldwin), incompetent armorer, incompetent actor (Baldwin, again), incompetent director, and apparently incompetent police investigators (since they found Hutchins’ death to be an “accident”).

      There is PLENTY of blame to go around. There were stories that the armorer allowed production staff to use the prop guns for target practice, after filming was over for the day, meaning a danger of “live” ammunition being left in them (which may have been what happened). That’s a GIANT no-no for “official” Hollywood practices in dealing with prop guns. Short of an actual problem with the gun, as the FBI concluded, the gun COULDN’T have fired without Baldwin pulling the trigger, and his described scenario was bullshit. Baldwin, as the producer, obviously didn’t enforce proper standards on the set. Baldwin, as the actor, didn’t observe normal and obvious safety precautions.

      But to rule this an “accident” is total bullshit, of the purest ray serene – hell, even a “dropped gun” discharge is negligent. Why the hell did you drop a loaded gun?? No matter how you slice and dice it, there is plenty of blame to go around, but under NO circumstances is that fat scumbag Baldwin not responsible in a BIG way.

      • It is an accident in terms of the legal definition. There was no malice or intent to injure. Accident and negligence are not mutually exclusive.

    • Apparently you didn’t read the article. The FBI proved conclusively that the gun had no defects and that Baldloser did, indeed, pull the trigger.

    • My guess is that they’ll allow Alec a defense claim that he had a right to ‘rely’ on the armor’s statement pronouncing the firearm as ‘safe’ because that person was employed in that capacity to ensure firearm safety on the set.

      If you employ a mechanic to repair your brakes and then run over a pedestrian because they weren’t repaired correctly, you aren’t charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide.

      • Pulling out of the mechanic’s shop, I’ll test to see if there’s at least some function while pulling out of the lot and into the street, at low speed.

        Baldwin neglected every one of the 4 rules of gun safety, because he couldn’t be bothered.

        And a young woman and mother is dead. Leftist Scum ™ like him and you make me sick.

        Get cancer and suffer… 🙁

        • “Pulling out of the mechanic’s shop, I’ll test to see if there’s at least some function“

          So 30 minutes later, after all your brake fluid has drained out because of a cross threaded brake line fitting, you smash on the brakes to stop for the four-year-old chasing the ball across the street and the pedal goes to the floor as you hear his skull crunch under your front wheel.

          And your position is that you should be charged with manslaughter in this situation. After all, you had verified correct functioning at the brakes when you accepted the vehicle from the mechanic so it’s all on you.

          Interesting perspective.

          Of course Alec Baldwin should’ve checked the weapon when he picked it up, and verified for himself that it was loaded with blanks.

          But the question under the law is, did he have a legal duty to check the weapon or could he ‘rely’ on the advice of the armorer who declared the firearm ‘safe’.

      • @Miner49er

        “If you employ a mechanic to repair your brakes and then run over a pedestrian because they weren’t repaired correctly, you aren’t charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide.”

        what planet do you live on?

        In all 50 states in the U.S. the one operating the car is the one responsible for its correct and proper function 100% of the time while operating the vehicle. Not the mechanic.

        If the mechanic intended to make the car malfunction then that’s on them and not the operator so the operator would (probably) not be charged if they had no knowledge of it. But in your scenario the operator is responsible.

        manslaughter is the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

        An accident is an accident. So if it was truly an accident due to ‘mechanical failure’ the driver would not be charged with manslaughter, but its not because the brakes weren’t repaired correctly and its because its an accident but that does not mean the operator escapes some sort of penalty and sometimes that could be criminal penalty anyway.

        You must live on the planet called ‘absolutely no context or knowledge needed for you to start typing” – its next door to dacians planet of ‘idiot’ which is in the Albert Hall galaxy of ‘pull my finger, wait, let me get it out of my butt first. One day I too will be queen.”

        • In the defective brake repair scenario, criminal charges are not likely against any party, unless there are additional facts not yet in evidence and/or some level of intent is proven. Civil liability is likely, at least against the repair shop.

      • Well…that depends, a blanket statement like that is misleading.

        Had this happen to me. Had a shop replace rotors and pads on my sedan. They did not have the caliper opted correctly. I was driving home when the caliper popped off the rotor. I was able to stop the car without incident.

        Luckily, I was only 1 mile from the shop. I made a conscious decision to drive the car there, with the brakes in their faulty condition.

        If there had been an accident when the initial fault occurred, that would fall to the fault of the shop.

        Thankfully, I’m an experienced driver and was able to get the car to the shop without further incident. Had there been an accident after that initial realization of brake failure – that is squarely MY fault.

        I made a decision that I could control the situation and safely get the car to the shop with out a tow.

        In AB case, I think it will be pretty damning that he has claimed that he didn’t pull the trigger and the FBI report is showing that the gun they had could not have been fired otherwise. However, not knowing how Hollywood operates fully, one could use as a defense for him that the armorer is responsible for securing all weapons on set at all times.

        Being a producer would leave him in a position to be sued for damages, but as far as personal responsibility, I think we’ll be lucky to see at the most involuntary manslaughter.

        As a martial artist and as a firearms user – I know that even in practice, it is always MY responsibility to ensure anything I’ve been given is in proper working order and if it is a firearms, even if they tell me it is a toy – it needs to be rendered safe if it is going to be pointed toward people.

        • Cars have dual hydraulic brake circuits. So if a caliper falls off you still have the other two wheels.
          Typically pedal goes very low or may need a pump stroke.
          My 1964 mustang came with dingle circuit which I modified to dual circuit for safety.

      • MajorStupidity,

        Tell us you know nothing about tort law, or respondeat superior, without SAYING you know nothing about tort law, or respondeat superior. Oh, you just did.

        Baldwin was the producer, thus ultimately responsible for hiring and supervising the armorer. If the armorer was incompetent, Baldwin is responsible for . . . hiring and failing to adequately set standards for and supervise an incompetent armorer. Equally, under the doctrine of “last clear chance”, Baldwin was the LAST PERSON in the chain of events that had the opportunity to prevent the shooting (by actually CHECKING THE F***ING GUN!!), and didn’t.

        Anything else completely stupid you’d like to say, to further demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law, or firearms, you drooling nitwit????

  10. From everything I read it appears that the working conditions on the set of “Rust” were far from ideal. And why was that you ask? Because the producers were squeezing the budget hard and hired folks low on the talent/proficiency scale. Because that’s how it works in oh so woke Hollywood – when it comes to technical talent the better you are the more you cost (with the “talent” side it’s not so clear cut – some fairly bad at their craft actors command some lofty salaries). The folks who can’t take enough time telling the rest of us that we’re hard-hearted “-ists” of every stripe who want to feed grandma cat food while we oppress the poor down-trodden immigrants and march about in our jackboots looking for “the other” to grind under them will shave every nickel to the penny to max out their profits. Hmm…big shock that hiring bottom feeder technical people and providing near zero proper safety oversight (all to save a buck) created the conditions where a nitwit like Baldwin shoots and kills somebody…

    • when you see them shooting a movie in your neighborhood it’s invariably because someone cut them a sweetheart deal…it’s all about the money…not because they’re fond of you or your locale…no matter how many times they say it….we’re all just “background” to them…..

  11. “Detectives are awaiting phone records from Baldwin as part of their investigation, the sheriff’s office said Thursday.”

    This doesn’t make sense, subpoena Baldwin and make him produce immediately. If needed, the cellphone service provider can provide toll information in 30 days or less. This is investigation school 101 stuff.

  12. Is ALEX BALDWIN a firearms expert or does he rely on the SET ARMOURER to do his job of checking both firearms and ammunition on set?
    I think that he was really really stupid to even suggest he did not pull the trigger but HE DID say it so the authorities have to check it out and that’s all they’ve done. I therefore fail to understand the implied and actual criticism for those authorites doing their job.
    Pick on a more suitable target next time! PERLEEZE

    • Totally immaterial – Baldwin is one of the producers and he pulled the trigger, he’s responsible for the death and injury. This angle has been beaten to death already. So sod off you git.

    • Dafuq are you even going on about? Who is criticizing the authorities? They did their job, proving that the weapon won’t fire unless the trigger is pulled. Are you simply illiterate? As for Baldwin relying on his armorer – actually he did NOT rely on the armorer. He overrode multiple calls made by the armorer.

      Target practice on scene with the weapon to be used in the acting? WTF?!?!? The armorer didn’t approve that.

      Mom says it’s time to take your meds, Weasel Face.

    • “Is ALEX BALDWIN a firearms expert or does he rely on the SET ARMOURER to do his job of checking both firearms and ammunition on set?”

      Gun safety is everyone’s on that movie set’s responsibility.

      If you actually were a British Army armorer, you would know that, you insufferable imposter.

      Do us a huge favor and just kill yourself, please? There’s a good lad… 🙂

    • “ Pick on a more suitable target next time!”

      Remember that time when the FBI politicized itself so much that no one trusted it anymore and stopped believing (fairly or not) that it was capable of doing a good job? Yeah, me too.

      • The release of this ” earth shattering” piece of forensic work is to attempt the diversion of attention off of the raid at Mar A Lago.

    • There’s going to be a colorable argument made that it was an industry standard on movie sets that the actor bears no responsibility for safe firearm handling and that the armorer has sole responsibility.

      A colorable argument, but not, I think, a winning one for a number of reasons.

      1. It’s not as of firearm handling is something exclusive to movie sets, such that nobody else outside Hollywood has any idea how it’s to be done safely. Literally every other organization, from the army to the NRA to the NYPD, teaches that the one holding the gun has ultimate responsibility. No industry is going to be allowed to get away with what others knowledgeable about that same hazard consider an unconscionably lax standard of safety.

      2. It’s highly questionable whether the claim is even true within Hollywood, with other actors describing having guns shown empty in their presence, rather than being told to rely on the armorer’s word.

      3. Nobody actually has the armorer’s word that these guns were safe. The assistant director took one from an unattended cart and handed it to Baldwin without checking or asking anybody.

      4. If the armorer was grossly incompetent, as she seems to have been, Baldwin shares blame for her hiring as one of the producers. He also shares responsibility for overseeing the quality of her work.

      • think back to the earliest western scene…a cowboy shooting directly at the camera..hollywood has been doing this for a long, long time…

        • Maybe peopke knew better how to spot a crimp blank back then?
          Or the camera man stepped away.

      • Not sure how it was done in the past, but currently, safety rules require that there not be a live cameraperson behind a camera when a gun is pointed at the camera. You want to work on blocking or directing the shot, use a firearm analog that is completely inert. You want a shot of the gun with real bullets in the cylinder, triple/quadruple check that those cartridges have no primers or power and make sure there is not a person behind the camera having a gun pointed at them.

        • This matches what my late friend told me about his work say 25 or 30 years ago. He said debris like bits of crimp metal or wadding or barrel inserts on semi can come out. He described Mylar mirrors or real glass mirrors. I think he had stories about expensive lens being ruined by skipping the mirrors.

    • Albert the Fake-Limey, Fake “military” Subject,

      Quote Gordon Ramsay, “Oh, f*** off!!”

      Baldwin was the producer, and responsible ultimately for ALL employees’ actions on the set – at least to the extent of his decision to hire them and his control over standards and how the employees were supervised. Baldwin was ALSO the person holding and pointing the gun when it “went off” (i.e., Baldwin pulled the trigger). Since you clearly know sweet f***-all about Hollywood OR firearms, your opinion is . . . ignorant blather.

      Sod off, swampy.

  13. I want to toss an idea into the ring that I am sure will send some people into a tizzy … But what the hell … Was Baldwin having an affair with Halyna Hutchins and she was threatening to expose him? An affair with someone else that if it came to light would destroy his acting career? Or some other bit of damaging information about him and he needed to silence her?
    Just wondering …

    • It’s hollywood…everyone fools around with everybody and everything…does anyone really care?

    • I think they investigated that angle and didn’t find anything. Never ascribe to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence…

  14. “Is ALEX [sic] BALDWIN a firearms expert or does he rely on the SET ARMOURER to do his job of checking both firearms and ammunition on set?”

    My question posted above is similar.

    At least I’ll admit that I don’t know jack about the situation and will rely on the knowledgeable folks here to explain it to me.

    • Well, even though Baldwin cheaped out by hiring an incompetent armorer, the 4 safety rules STILL apply. Or is it your contention that Baldwin is too ignorant to follow basic safety rules while cameras AREN’T running.

      Think professional is expensive? Try amateur!
      Alec has learned this lesson firsthand.

      You don’t pay a professional for what they do, you gladly pay the premium for what they DON’T do. 🤔

      • You are correct. One of my favorite quotes:

        “If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.”—Red Adair

    • The question is, did Alec Baldwin have a legal duty to follow the four rules, or could he rely on the declaration of the armorer.

      • Legal duty aside, if he was an actual gun guy instead of an idiot, this tragedy wouldn’t have occurred. With that said, it seems like the hired professional in charge of the firearms would be held liable, unless Alec wasn’t following the professional’s directions or industry norms.

        • professional’s directions or industry norms.

          Which he failed to do when he POINTED the gun at the deceased.

        • Then it sounds like Alec would be held responsible. The next question would be to what degree. Criminally negligent homicide perhaps?

      • Moot point.
        The four safety rules apply, even when the cameras are running………which, they weren’t.

        This makes the shooting rise to ‘next level’ neglegence on Alec Baldwin’s part.

        A movie production can’t even get set insurance without agreeing to abide by the FOUR BASIC SAFETY RULES!

        • Also, the property they leased for filming would have had a clause in the contract prohibiting LIVE ammunition being used by ANYONE, anywhere on the property, not just the set.

      • Note, I don’t necessarily agree, but here is what I think will be the outcome of the shooting on the “Rust” set.
        Because of movie history where firearms are involved and whereas actors are expected to act and are expected to take direction from others on a set and are only supposed to use the props handed to them while relying on the actions of others that safety is maintained. In other words, movie history proves that actors use props as handed to them and are not expected to be experts at any level, but are required to use props as directed.
        Therefore, the armorer or someone else who handled the gun before Alec Baldwin was given the gun will be held accountable for not doing their job properly. Keep in mind that at the time of the shooting Alec Baldwin was an actor, even though he was the executive producer, at the time of the discharge he was performing as an actor.

        We know that the last person to handle a gun is responsible; however, history on a movie set as it relates to props(including guns) surely will be an argument presented by Alec Baldwin’s attorney. In short, they will argue that actors are to act. In reality no live ammo should have been any where near the set and using a prop gun for target practice is absurd and that is the person(s) most likely to be charged. Any one of those people could have placed the live rounds in the box of ammo.

        • AB the actor might have an okay argument along the lines of what you suggest (“I’m too stupid to know any better, your honor!”)

          AB the executive producer is the person who hired the people who screwed up, and was responsible for ensuring a safe set in all respects. Will this make him criminally liable? Who knows. It should, but probably it won’t. But I’d expect a lot of civil liability or, more likely, a ton of quite hush money to make it all go away.

          I don’t envy AB his nightmares, although I do wonder if he has the self-awareness to actually have any…

        • napresto said, “But I’d expect a lot of civil liability or, more likely, a ton of quite hush money to make it all go away.”
          This should be no surprise and I can’t blame the family. Since the loved one is gone they could be offered the next best thing, a pile of money.
          If AB is charged, will he be charged as executive director, actor or both? How he is charged, should he be charged, will determine the direction the defense arguments take in a trial. As an actor, the time frame will narrow down to the moment when the gun was fired, thus history of established operating procedures will be an argument the defense will use, also at that moment AB was performing as an actor and not EP. If he is charged as E P, then the defense will argue that AB cannot be expected to micro manage every employee including the armorer and therefore AB is not responsible for employee errors at the time before the gun was handed to him.
          These are not the sum total of arguments by the defense. Like napresto, I don’t envy his nightmares or having to live with this the rest of his life.
          AB has not been charged as of this post and anything I have stated are my predictions based on my limited knowledge of this tragic event.

      • The one holding the gun is the one responsible, period.

        That’s how its applied to every law abiding gun owner/possessor. Baldwin is not different because he is an actor and had an armorer. If its in your hands you are responsible if it goes bang.

        If Baldwin is not held responsible for it going bang, its going to blow the whole anti-gun premise out of the water.

      • So, MajorStupidity has no idea about “legal duty”, firearms, firearm safety, or, apparently, anything else – quelle surprise!!

        I’d try to explain to you, MajorStupidity, exactly why you are being an ignorant idiot on at least half-a-dozen counts, but you are clearly incapable of understanding said explanation, so let me just give you a summary that even an IDIOT should be able to understand:

        1. Baldwin is the producer, and has ultimate responsibility (research the history of lawsuits arising out of production accidents – the producers are ALWAYS names as defendants, and quite often found at least partially liable, you nincompoop);

        2. Hollywood actually DOES have extensive written guidelines for set safety, particularly related to firearms. The guidelines were CLEARLY not following by Baldwin, EITHER in his role as producer, or as an actor.

        3. The Hollywood “official” guidelines for gun safety on set specifically include standards for actors using firearms (even prop firearms) on set, which incorporate the “Four Rules” (admittedly modified; you are permitted, under certain circumstances, to point a gun at another person on set, if so instructed – but there are a ton of rules around that, too, and the gun Baldwin was using, even IF fully functional, wouldn’t meet them). So, yeah, he had a “legal duty” to follow the Four Rules on set.

        Please, next time you feel a BURNING urge to flaunt your ignorance . . . go satisfy it somewhere else, you drooling moron.

    • the regular guy sent his daughter to do this job…she was young and inexperienced…and probably easily intimidated..

    • Baldwin may not be a firearms expert. However, he is a gun control expert/advocate. He, of all people, should know how deadly they are without any human intervention. When you add a human to a device that shoots by itself, mayhem ensues.

  15. Baldwin is a democrat douche hack and I despise him..But, I THINK THIS WAS A TRAGIC ACCIDENT…It was preventable and his insurance should try and settle it…I don’t believe he should be charged, because there was no intent provable…Baldwin may have been set up (or not)…Brandon Lee was a similar event..

    • Intent is to the only issue for culpability. There are 3 others that must be considered: Recklessness, negligence, and knowingly. Negligence applies here, therefore, he is culpable.

    • Hiring a known incompetent to be armorer so you can save money sounds kinda criminally reckless to me.

      If in fact there was off-set live firing with the props that he knew about then that would seem to be very bad news for him.

    • 24and7,

      On the basic issue, I disagree with your conclusion, but . . . is your argument really that he isn’t guilty because he had no “intent”?? Because, if that’s your argument, have you ever heard of “negligent homicide” (called by other names, in some states, “unintentional homicide: or “negligent manslaughter”, etc.)?? It was a criminal act, whether he had intent or not – different penalties. Civilly, he is responsible for the outcome both as producer AND as the idiot holding the gun and pulling the trigger.

      I’d save my “sympathy” for someone more deserving, but you do you.

  16. Of course, the entire thing has been a farce and just illustrates how the far left is above the law which I hope we will start changing in November 2022. They have been stalling in hopes that this will simply go away. The tone of this article is correct. It didn’t take the FBI all this time to figure this out. They are corrupt and know this is such a slam dunk that there would be a firestorm if they did not report the truth. I tried similar firearms and could not replicate Baldwin’s excuse on either of two single action 45 long colt firearms. I did that in about five minutes. All they had to do was call in a reputable gunsmith to check that the firearm was not defective and replicate what they were told. What difference does it make what was on his cell phone and why is that taking over six months. If someone commits a mass shooting they know everything about the person in less than a week. With the exception of ICE and the Border Patrol, no federal law enforcement agency is worth believing. They have all been corrupted and the officers who go along with that nonsense should be fired. All freedom loving Americans need to decide between the only two choices now left to you, fight or be enslaved and its just that simple.

    • dprato,

      “What difference does it make what was on his cell phone and why is that taking over six months.”

      A very important fact in this case is whether or not Baldwin wanted to kill Halyna Hutchins. If Baldwin wanted to kill Hutchins, then a first or second-degree murder charge is in order. If Baldwin did NOT want to kill Hutchins, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

      In case it is not obvious, prosecutors would look for text messages on Baldwin’s phone to see if he directed hostile comments at Hutchins and/or stated any intention to harm/kill Hutchins. That would provide evidence to support a murder charge rather than a manslaughter charge. And that is why law enforcement wanted Baldwin’s phone.

  17. After this incident I am firmly going to defend gun control.

    If Baldwin is near, i want to control all guns so he doesn’t shoot anyone else.

  18. “Of course, everyone knew that Baldwin’s heartfelt claim that he didn’t pull the trigger that fateful day was utter bullshit meant to deflect blame and shield himself from civil and criminal liability.”

    Needs intent for criminal

    From the way he’s shown in interviews he was holding the gun his finger is always ‘on the trigger’ and he says he was cocking the gun. If he had pressure on the trigger and let go of the hammer it would have fired. Maybe he just doesn’t remember having that pressure on the trigger. But he did pull the trigger by having that pressure on the trigger. If he intended to pull the trigger as a means to kill or injure, they still need to determine that.

    • There can be criminal liability without intent, just not murder or various other charges.

      If one is reckless that can lead to criminal liability even if there is no proof of intent to kill.

      …not like I expect anything like that to happen to someone so ‘important.’

    • @Hannibal

      That’s true, there can be criminal liability without intent. For example, reckless endangerment.

      In law, generally, there is a point where accident and crime intersect in case of a death called, broadly, ‘criminally negligent homicide’ where the guilty party need not have been aware of the potential danger of his/her actions. Manslaughter, too, is accidental in a sense: it indicates that harm, but not death, was intended.

      Some cases of unintentional killing and more clear than others. I’m reminded of the case of Representative Bill Janklow of South Dakota, he was sentenced to 100 days in jail for manslaughter after running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. A main point in his trial was if he had eaten that day of the accident, much was made of this in his trail because his lawyers argued that he was in a haze brought on by diabetes and low blood sugar. The jury foreman later said that even though the jurors had not wanted to convict Janklow they had to conclude that it did not matter if he had been afflicted by eating or not – that Janklow knew about his diabetes medical condition and he knew his personal responsibility to take care of himself.

      Like that, in a way, Baldwin knew his personal responsibility, if even tangentially, to ensure the gun was no loaded with live ammo. He was experienced with use of guns as props, he had seen them fire live ammo, this particular gun had even been used fire live ammo a short ways from the actual set by cast and crew members and he was aware of that so he at least knew that live ammo was somewhere in the area, he has spoken on behalf of anti-gun interest. As the top dog on the set he had a personal and professional and legal responsibility to ensure the ’employees’ were safe. Instead, standard movie set firearms safety procedures were curtailed and not followed, procedures Baldwin had been involved with many times himself in the past. Crew members had already quit the production citing lack of following firearms safety procedures. This whole environment was ripe for some type of firearms related mishap/incident. Baldwin had a personal, professional, and legal responsibility to enure the gun did not contain live ammo and he didn’t.

      The excuse of ‘well, the armorer …” or an assistant director declaring ‘cold gun’ when handing it to him (an assistant director handling the gun and giving it to him is not standard safety procedure) or “I didn’t know” doesn’t cut it because even tangentially Baldwin should have known it was possible a live round could be present and had, at a minimum, a personal responsibility to ensure a live round was not present. Whats that thing about firearms handling… even present in movie set firearms handing for prop guns – always assume a gun is loaded even if you think it is unloaded, always check yourself to see if it is unloaded and if unable to check a gun to see if it is unloaded then leave it alone, never accept a gun from someone thinking its unloaded based upon them saying its unloaded (e.g. ‘cold gun’).

      In my opinion, based upon whats publicly known to date; Baldwin, even if he did not realize he had had pressure on the trigger (which he did), is still responsible here in some criminal aspect, at a minimum, in a ‘criminally negligent homicide’ aspect.

  19. Criminal Negligence and likely Manslaughter would be what mere mortals would be facing under the same circumstances.

    Never forget, you are not allowed to point even blank firing firearms at anyone, while on a TV/Film Set. Mr. Baldwin and the Assistant Director that handed him the loaded firearm are both responsible for the homicide that occurred and the injury of the director.

    The Line Producer(s), who where present and in-charge of the daily operation of the set are also guilty of Criminal Negligence. Giving the armorer more that one job (unheard of in the industry), allowing the crew to shoot live ammunition (are you kidding me) and perhaps excluding the armorer from the church set because of Covid-19 (Stupid), are all important contributing factors that contributed to the death and injury that occurred that day.

    The fact that the Mishap that resulted in the death of one and the wounding of another person, as ruled an “Accident” by the FBI, doesn’t mean that anyone involved in the actions leading up to the event are guiltless, quite the contrary.

    Since “Good Old” Alec is a friend of Hilary Clinton and a big DemoRat Donor, I expect ZERO action form the George Soros funded prosecutor. The Democrat County Sheriff, Adan Mendoza could ask the State Attorney General, Democrat Hector Balderas to prosecute, but he will likely decline to do so or impanel a grand jury in the matter.

    It’s good to be a member of the ruling elite and one of their supporters. The death of innocents, don’t have a chance of receiving justice.

      • Thanks for your helpful comment, you get to be right once today. Maybe you deserve a cookie.

        “The documents have been reviewed by the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator, which has classified Hutchins’ death as an accident, a postmortem report obtained by ABC News shows.”

        The act committed was a “Homicide”, a death at the hands of another. The Medical Examiner is not supposed to make a judgement on whether the cause was an “Accident in this case, since someone didn’t fall off their bicycle, another person pointed a loaded gun at them and puled the trigger and they were killed. Murder, Manslaughter, Intentional, Negligence, Revenge, etc. that is up to the Sheriff, Prosecutor and/or Grand Jury.

    • My late friend in movie gun business told me (this was about 25 years ago) they would aim and fire blanks at the camera by setting up Mylar mirrors. The camera films the mirror. He said air currents were an issue.

  21. I didn’t have sex with that woman… I didn’t pull the trigger…. That worked so many times for the Clintons that Alec just had to try it…

      • If that happened today, the dictionary would have altered the definition of ‘is’ for him. No one would have stood for that back then, but now everyone’s too demoralized to notice or care.

    • Robin Williams when cast as Bill Clinton replied, “I didn’t have sex with that women….I wanted to!”

  22. checking a vehicle’s brakes before approaching a higher speed shows you know how to drive–it use to be a normal procedure when you learnt to drive. a leaking brake line would also be detected during the test —- it is too bad basic safety skills are not taught in schools anymore, such as the proper way to carry scissors—–but this world is now overrun with maroons, (ha ha), from govment , teachers, basically any type of official, workers, mechanic as stated — it’s no wonder its all going to heck——people wake up and take responsibility for your actions and your work –‘accidents’ like this will be less

    • if you’ve driven long enough, you’ve experienced sudden loss of brakes…a frightening experience that can occur with no warning…

    • i have experienced sudden brake loss without warning and still managed to stop the vehicle—there are 4 ways to do so…

  23. I don’t think there’s any serious possibility that he intended to kill Halyna Hutchins. That would mean he relied on both his armorer and his assistant director not to do their due diligence, AND that he relied on a single casually aimed shot to go through the director and still kill his target.

    • The truth of the matter is we really don’t know. A proper investigation would have looked at travel records, statements to friends, cel phone location data, emails of both the shooter, victim and the rest of the cast/crew.

      Part of cover-up is just not asking questions or turning over every stone. Having people tells investigators, “This is a case with a lot of eyes on it and I’m getting calls from powerful people, do your job with what’s in front of you, don’t go off looking for anything else. It’s clearly an accident, so wrap it up and let’s move on, etc.

      • Only in the sense of strict Pyrrhonian skepticism can you say “we really don’t know”. The sequence of events was so bizarre and involved so many variables outside Baldwin’s control that it practically couldn’t have been planned as executed. The gun not checked – by two people. The correct gun picked off the cart by the same people too incompetent to check it. The cylinder lined up just so. One shot, two hits, one fatality. How many single gunshot wounds from a handgun are fatal? Not a majority.

        Is it impossible? No. But it isn’t plausible either.

    • Didn’t (smart) Alec have a lot on his plate with being producer, lead actor, and director, and also keeping the serfs busy too?

  24. How does the state medical examiner find it to be an accident? Declaring it accidental seems to be in ab’s favor.
    They can say what killed her but not how the bullet ended up there or why.
    Just maybe their smarter than the fbi or know more about guns and movie sets.
    Really though how do they know he didn’t do it on purpose?
    Their job is dead body + bullet hole = leak

    • You need to consider what ‘medical examiners’ do. They don’t actually determine if its accidental or not. They give opinions as to cause of death based upon the information they have from their examination of the body and give opinions as to how that cause of death happened.

      ‘accidental’ is not a cause of death. ‘gun shot’ is not a cause of death. Causes of death are things like heart failure, exsanguination, etc… the physical things inherent in the body that stopped functioning properly and thus the lack of that proper function resulted in death.

      How a cause of death happened are dependent on many things, but how a cause of death happened is not ‘accidental’ or ‘gun shot’. How a cause of death may have happened may be, for example, ‘exsanguination occurred as a result of bullet severing artery’. But all this stuff from medical examiners, for example, of ‘bullet entered body at 21.39876239 degree angle as determined by multiple laser angle and blood spatter analysis and resulted in death’ or ‘bullet was fired from 6.32378 feet from gun that fired its self resulted in accidental death’ is pure holly wood movie script.

      A ‘medical examiner’ declaring it was an accident is like a plumber declaring it was an accident – both have no qualifications or standing to determine if there is such cause of death because there isn’t, neither one has qualifications or standing to declare a decision of criminality or not. A ‘medical examiner’ saying its ‘accidental’ is pure speculation grand standing, and playing to the public – its ‘holly wood movie’ ‘tv show’ script drama the public is used to seeing on TV or in movies where an intrepid ‘medical examiner’ solves crimes Sherlock Holmes style.

  25. Forgive me if someone’s brought this up already. Besides his ignoring of the Four Rules of Firearms handling, there is this: does anyone of honesty truly believe that, had the script called for Baldwin to place the weapon to his own head, and simulate suicide … that he would have neglected to inspect each chamber in the revolver’s cylinder?

    Of course, he would have. At the least, weasel boy is guilty of negligent homicide or manslaughter. His multiple lies to law enforcement make for additional punishment.

    • And that, right there DixieBoy, is the winner! You win the internet for all time concerning this issue. If it had been Baldwin’s toxic hide on the muzzle end you’re absolutely correct.

    • Please try to get the pistol to the head example to the DA.
      This is a brilliant way to bring focus to the criticality of pulling the trigger while aimed at a person.

  26. He needs to be treated the same way as of one is lowly peons did this. No special treatment because he’s rich, famous and well connected. That is white and wealth privilege after all, isn’t it liberals?

      • MLee,

        Never used a Pietti, which I believe is the firearm in question, but my understanding is that they do, indeed, have a transfer bar, which is why they are often used for prop guns in place of ACTUAL Colt SAA or Peacemakers (cost is also, obviously, a consideration). Can’t personally say that, but that’s what I’ve heard/read.

        • The firearm in question is a replica 1873 Pietta long Colt 45 revolver. In the FBI report, it states that the weapon would not fire from the 1/4 or 1/2 cock position. It would fire from full cock position when the trigger was pulled. It would also fire with a cartridge under the hammer with the hammer resting on the cartridge and the hammer struck. This is why you only load five rounds. My .45 Uberti Smokewagon SAA is loaded with FIVE so I don’t kill myself. The FBI report would be indicative of it being an exact replica of an 1873 Colt SAA, not a modernized version with a transfer bar as that type of modernized version wouldn’t fire in that condition with the hammer resting on a live cartridge.

        • They don’t have a SAA with a transfer bar in .45 Colt. only .22 and .44 mag.
          TTAGs bot stopped my previous comment for you and is awaiting moderation because of the I used the word “co-k” for 1/4 co-k and 1/2 co-k.
          That sh-t pisses me off when it does that. The weapon most certainly didn’t have a transfer bar or it wouldn’t have fired with the hammer resting on a loaded chamber in the FBI test. Might want to read it again.

        • I believe I read that USA blocks import of original and repro SAA unless they have a mechanism to avoid hammer strike ignition.

        • @ Richard
          No they don’t or I wouldn’t have one. Go the the Pietta web page and look at the 1873 lineup of SAA revolvers. Enlarge the pictures and you can see clearly the hammer pin visible between the rear of the cylinder and frame. Those revolvers are NOT equipped with transfer bars.
          If a person doesn’t understand the firearm, like super-douche Alec Baldwin, don’t handle or own one. It’s really just that simple.

        • MLee,

          Thanks for the info; what I had read about Pietta’s with transfer bards didn’t talk about caliber, so that may have been the issue, but I did read, a couple of places, after the Baldwin shooting incident, that the guns were often used as props in western films BECAUSE they had a transfer bar. My bad for not researching further.

  30. Being an experienced background actor having worked with actual firearms and fake firearms, having been killed on set many times, I have not a shred of sympathy for Alec Baldwin. If charging decisions are are iffy, I’d say charge him if for no other reason than to make clear to other actors or others on set to not be DOUCHE BAGS with firearms because you may be arrested.
    PS: I own a Taylors SAA Uberti IDENTICAL to the one used by Baldwin, only mine has the 4.75 inch barrel.

      • I’m saying it’s a trivial matter with two unreliable sources who’s history shows they can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
        Most of us are shooters so you know the answer yet some seek validation from a source that hates you and will not tell the truth about anything else.

  32. This is a routine investigative process done as it should be done. The FBI did the correct procedure here. Sure, everyone knew from the start that Baldwin is full of shit, he pulled that trigger. But this is a criminal case and that means the gun had to be tested and documented to prove it was working properly, to prove Baldwin is lying like we all know he is.

    Baldwin should be criminally charged. He cocked the gun, pointed at two people, shot them both, killing one.

    I am not convinced the armorer is at fault. Too many reports on how the producers (Baldwin being one) ran that production. If the investigation can prove she was without authority on the set, kept out of the loop deliberately, she may be in the clear.

    One change that should come out of this mess is that the armorer on a movie has all guns locked up and no one else can unlock them. So no director, producer or prop master can get a gun out without the armorer knowing about it.

    So far, it is sounding like that is a major part of what happened. The idiots in charge sidelined the armorer and had control over the guns.

    As more info comes out, maybe at trial, that picture may change. Wait and see……..

  33. This comes from the FACT I have been a movie crew member for over 30 years and the guy who taught me add 30 more!
    I came on board just as the Motion picture studios were FORCED at threat of jail time to have a safety program for each and everyone of their employees even if they thought at the time all of them were 1099 AND WERE NOT…(you are not 1099 if you NEVER did a 1099 even once and had the same job at a studio for 45 years! that is where they goofed!)

    and each of us has to read over those firearms rules, get tested on knowing them and have our tests kept in records and rinse repeat every 5 years or so…I may never touch a gun on set but I know the rules and SO DID ALEC!

    so with that as to this in the story “What are the odds that Baldwin and/or the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, will face criminal charges?”
    IMO no because she was not there and they took the gun unauthorized and used it!

    ALEC is so toast he knows the rules and violated at least 10 of them!

    here read them yourselves….due note this is the basic set and ALEC got a MORE intense set with even more rules to run by!
    https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

  34. In law, generally, there is a point where accident and crime intersect in case of a death called, broadly, ‘criminally negligent homicide’ where the guilty party need not have been aware of the potential danger of his/her actions. Manslaughter, too, is accidental in a sense: it indicates that harm, but not death, was intended.

    Some cases of unintentional killing and more clear than others. I’m reminded of the case of Representative Bill Janklow of South Dakota, he was sentenced to 100 days in jail for manslaughter after running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. A main point in his trial was if he had eaten that day of the accident, much was made of this in his trail because his lawyers argued that he was in a haze brought on by diabetes and low blood sugar. The jury foreman later said that even though the jurors had not wanted to convict Janklow they had to conclude that it did not matter if he had been afflicted by eating or not – that Janklow knew about his diabetes medical condition and he knew his personal responsibility to take care of himself.

    Like that, in a way, Baldwin knew his personal responsibility, if even tangentially, to ensure the gun was no loaded with live ammo. He was experienced with use of guns as props, he had seen them fire live ammo, this particular gun had even been used fire live ammo a short ways from the actual set by cast and crew members and he was aware of that so he at least knew that live ammo was somewhere in the area, he has spoken on behalf of anti-gun interest. As the top dog on the set he had a personal and professional and legal responsibility to ensure the ’employees’ were safe. Instead, standard movie set firearms safety procedures were curtailed and not followed, procedures Baldwin had been involved with many times himself in the past. Crew members had already quit the production citing lack of following firearms safety procedures. This whole environment was ripe for some type of firearms related mishap/incident. Baldwin had a personal, professional, and legal responsibility to enure the gun did not contain live ammo and he didn’t.

    The excuse of ‘well, the armorer …” or an assistant director declaring ‘cold gun’ when handing it to him (an assistant director handling the gun and giving it to him is not standard safety procedure) or “I didn’t know” doesn’t cut it because even tangentially Baldwin should have known it was possible a live round could be present and had, at a minimum, a personal responsibility to ensure a live round was not present. Whats that thing about firearms handling… even present in movie set firearms handing for prop guns – always assume a gun is loaded even if you think it is unloaded, always check yourself to see if it is unloaded and if unable to check a gun to see if it is unloaded then leave it alone, never accept a gun from someone thinking its unloaded based upon them saying its unloaded (e.g. ‘cold gun’).

    In my opinion, based upon whats publicly known to date; Baldwin, even if he did not realize he had had pressure on the trigger (which he did), is still responsible here in some criminal aspect, at a minimum, in a ‘criminally negligent homicide’ aspect.

    • Agreed.

      There can be no call for greater scrutiny on movie sets. There was already a system to ensure this did not happen. He simply circumvented the protocol to save money and time. And as you have laid out, is culpable.

    • “he knew his personal responsibility to take care of himself.“

      Ergo, every drunk driver who killed someone through an automobile accident should be charged with murder, rather than manslaughter.

      When they took that first drink and put the key in the ignition, they knew there was a high probability someone would be injured or killed because of their actions.

      Given these parameters, one wonders why drunken Dick Cheney was not charged with any crime whatsoever when he shot his hunting partner in the face.

      • @Miner49er

        One again you ignore context in favor of some self-satisfying agenda statements. In this case you ignored the whole context of intent vs accident vs responsibility.

        And once again, if you don’t understand the subject then stay out of the discussion.

        • .40 cal,

          By that standard, MajorStupidity would NEVER be able to comment on ANYTHING . . . say, I like where you’re going on this!!!!

          Hey, MajorStupidity, you mouth-breathing moron, have a BIG cup of shut the f** up, sit down, and stop commenting.

  35. Although they emphasized that the findings are preliminary, the FBI has a team researching water. They believe it may be wet.

      • We GET IT, moron; you don’t like Trump. But you’re just FINE with Senile Joe, the tapioca-brained serial child molester, and Barry Soetoro, aka “Black Chicago Jesus”, amirite???

        Save us your lame efforts at snark; your snark-fu is weak and pathetic, grasshopper.

        • Trump the man is a sociopath. But it’s not the man that people identify with, it’s core American values.
          The “not BLM”.
          People in a cult stop evaluating / critiquing the leader.
          Cognitively we know no man or team or group is “all good” or “all bad”. Trust no leader. Accept some faults.
          Stalin, Mussolini, Washington we’re all a mix of good or bad and that can be debated. But hopefully we have some basic values that are common good.
          Cannibalism is widely accepted as “not good”, and so on.

        • Richard Kudrna,

          I agree, and I am NOT a major Trump fan (I didn’t vote for him, either time) . . . but MajorStupidity’s knee-jerk “Orange Man BAD!!” reaction to everything, combined with his slavish worship of Senile Joe and Barry Soetoro the Fake Grifter, just p***es me off.

          If he ever ONCE made a substative comment about Trump, negative OR positive, I could try to take him seriously, but his bulls*** lame-ass HYPOCRITICAL snark is just annoying noise from an ignorant, lying Leftist/fascist. An old country saying: “That boy would gain from a good, old-fashioned @$$-whoopin’!!”

          If MajorStupidity couldn’t lie, he’d have nothing to say.

  36. The only question in my mind was whether he pulled the trigger before or after cocking the hammer. A know-nothing, like Baldwin, might have already had his finger on the trigger, pulled the hammer back, and then released it (or slipped from under his thumb). If he was wearing gloves, he might have touched the trigger on a cocked gun without realizing it. Of course, he might just be a lying sack of $#!+.
    Even if it was loaded with blanks, cocking a gun during rehearsal and checking camera angles is stupid. An unexpected blank going off is still loud and disturbing to the rest of the crew, and they have to stop to have the armorer reload.

  37. Any culpability has already been determined, the fix is in place, not guilty, no charges.
    Wait and see.

    Some years ago the Sheriff of the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Department was slapped on the wrist and had to resign because he was stealing property from the evidence room and from the department and selling it on Ebay. The Santa Fe Police have had multiple problems with evidence disappearing from their custody, all indicators of systemic corruption.

    Some entity should be investigating bank accounts, purchases, a blossoming of personal possessions and other indicators of wealth that indicate wealth beyond declared income.
    Not only in the Sheriff’s Department but also in the Santa Fe County’s District Attorney’s Office and also in the State’s Senate and House of Representatives. Might be of value to inspect all those who are involved with giving away taxpayer’s money and subsidizing Hollywood movie making in the State, millions of dollars.

    Killer Alec will win this “Gun Fight”.

  38. There has been WAY too much time spent on this assbag, IF the fucking DA decides to charge him AND he/she CAN get an indictment then they have to find 12 IMPARTIAL jurors to TRY to convict that fat stupid piece of shit. Probability of somewhere between nil and zilch of this asshole EVER seeing the inside of a prison cell. Yes, unfortunately some farm animals ARE treated as if they are BETTER than the others.

  39. Haven’t read through all comments so pardon me if this was covered.

    By best guess was that Baldwin was decocking the firearm, and the hammer slipped and hit the primer with enough force to discharge the round. Wiggle room to say he didn’t ‘pull’ the trigger.

  40. I’ve watched a couple of Baldwin movies where he handles weapons. Finger is ‘always’ on the trigger in theses movies. I’m sure he has been coached on this. I truly believe he doesn’t thing he pulled the trigger from the point of view that the hammer did not lock to the back (sear engage). But if you pick up this pistol, put your finger in the trigger guard, and hold the trigger back, if you then pull the hammer back and then let it go, it will go bang. Did he pull the trigger on a cocked hammer, probably not. Did he have the trigger pulled to the rear before pulling the hammer back, probably. He screwed up and so did the armorer. Allowing live ammo on the set, or at least not maintaining control of ALL ammo on the set, was her fault. That is not say someone with a grudge against Baldwin or Hudgens put a loaded round in the pistol. Again, the pistol was sitting on a cart for several hours unattended.

Comments are closed.