Alec Baldwin’s Negligent Discharge – Actor May Face Involuntary Manslaughter Charges

Time to clean up the messy reporting on Alec Baldwin’s negligent shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and director Joel Souza. We still do not know what firearm was used, but the film was being shot on a movie set used principally for 19th Century westerns–Blazing Saddles and Jimmy Stewarts’ The Man From Laramie. So it is highly likely that Baldwin was shooting a revolver and not a semi-automatic pistol (e.g., Glock, Sig Sauer, Berretta).

Semi-automatic pistols are a 20th Century invention and became a staple of military equipment after World War II. There are two types of revolvers–Single Action and Double Action. Single Action means that when you pull the trigger the hammer is released and the gun fires. This was in widespread use in the West during the cowboy era. The cylinder that holds the ammunition is not easily removed and you must open a loading gate to insert only one round at a time into the revolver. Double Action is what most people associate with a revolver. That means when you pull the trigger it cocks the hammer and then, as you continue to apply pressure to the trigger, releases the hammer and fires the pistol.

If a revolver was used by Baldwin then a negligent discharge is not an “accident”. It is negligence. Whoever loaded the revolver handled each round. If the person loading the gun was paying attention, it is impossible to “accidentally” load a live round.

A round of modern ammunition has four components:

 15,197 total views,  5 views today

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Alec Baldwin’s Negligent Discharge – Actor May Face Involuntary Manslaughter Charges

  1. Barbara Ann says:

    Larry

    LA Times has an explainer on the term “prop gun”. The term can apparently include blank firers, which as yourself and the Colonel have noted can kill. If Hollywood is in the habit of calling real guns “props” and actors are in the habit of treating them as such and not as potentially lethal weapons, subject to the cardinal rules you describe, it seems miraculous that such tragic accidents are not more common.

  2. Harry Hobbes says:

    An appropriate remedial action for this tragedy would be a judicial requirement that parties found culpable (but not convicted as felons) be required to successfully complete Gunsite’s General Pistol course (on their own dime). Of course, such an action is predicated upon Gunsite’s acceptance of the parties, and that would not happen for a party that has a criminal record or is not of “good character.”

    But a little education may help prevent “next time.”

  3. Cliff Sullivan says:

    Is it true that the shooting victim was the wife of Latham and Watkins lawyer? If so, significance?

  4. fakebot says:

    It was a revolver.

    They had a young girl working as the armorer. The crew was working long hours and under unsafe conditions (some walked off in protest before the incident).

    There’s a chance Alec will be held criminally negligible, but probably for how the production unsafely operated, not for the shooting per se.

    The armorer and the director assistant who handled the revolver are probably going to face the more serious charges.

  5. Pat Lang says:

    Semi-auto pistols were a rarity at the time in which the film was set. Must have been a revolver.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      I looked at the ballistics of those 19th century center fire revolvers; both period ammo and modern ammo. They were/are powerful. The period black powder .45 colt was more powerful than than a .45 auto as used by the US military WW1 through VN. Same velocity +/- but a significantly heavier slug. Another common chambering was 44-40, which was more powerful than the .40 Smith & Wesson round used by many law enforcement agencies today. The 38-40, another, but less popular chambering, was fully the equal of the .40 S&W. There are modern smokeless powder loads that equal the period black powder ones. All of the modern equivalents can easily go through one person and into another.

      All that was required here was a single live round in the cylinder.

    • James Tibbetts says:

      Rarity? Impossible they weren’t invented

      • Pat Lang says:

        Tibbetts
        First automatic was evidently the Salvador Domos, 1891. You are new here. If you want to be nasty and confrontational you won’t be here long.

  6. longarch says:

    Some Internet commenters on other sites claim it is impossible to fire a revolver twice by accident.

    I used to believe that revolvers were easier to use than semi-autos. Then I tried to fire slow, aimed shots from a borrowed revolver that was almost certainly double-action. I tried to fire just one round by squeezing the trigger just once, but some combination of recoil and my own ineptitude caused me to fire at least three rounds in approximately one second. I don’t know if the revolver had a hair trigger or whether the recoil caused me to squeeze the trigger multiple times. From that time, however, I have had an elevated concern regarding accidental discharges from revolvers.

    Because the current version of the main post ends with “A round of modern ammunition has four components:” I suspect that the writer accidentally posted the article before he completed his thought. I presume that the components of ammunition are important for understanding the accident in question, but I am too ignorant to infer the intended meaning.

    • Pat Lang says:

      longarch

      I would agree it is impossible to fire a revolver twice by accident unless you have a double action one and have some sort of seizure.. In any event it is said that the projectile whether a bullet or the wad in a blank went through her and hit him in the shoulder.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      You have to click “pages: 2” for the rest of the post.

      • longarch says:

        Thank you for the info. I learn something new every day, and I am sometimes humbled when I miss things that are clear to other people.

  7. Jim says:

    TREAT EVERY GUN AS IF IT IS LOADED

    So how is this grotesque “SPIN” [equals intentional LYING] any different from Bill Clintion The Rapist [who was never then nor now held to account for his raping] — put forth by our criminal and partisan USA Big Media?

    Just this morning, these headlines:

    Alec Baldwin was told prop gun was safe before fatal shooting, affidavit says
    – Today 1 hour ago

    Warrant: Alec Baldwin Was Not Aware Weapon Contained Live Round Before Shooting
    -The Hollywood 2 hours ago

    The 24-year-old head armorer of Alec Baldwin’s movie ‘Rust’ told a podcast she ‘almost didn’t take the job’ because she wasn’t sure she was ‘ready’
    -INSIDER on MSN.com 18 minutes ago

    Alec Baldwin asked why was he given ‘hot gun’ after fatal film set shooting
    NY Post on October 22, 2021

    As a 15 year old boy, way back in high school, our Massachusetts public school offered hunter and gun safety courses; as it did driver education.

    We were all taught, as everyone having anything to do with guns have always been taught: TO TREAT EVERY GUN AS IF IT IS LOADED.

    Period.

    Like Rapist Bill, no one seems to be able to, yet, to produce a clear picture of what actually happened.

    Obviously any gun that discharges “blanks” or “live” ammo can injure or kill: this is not in dispute, even as, as above headline blare, the water is being muddied.

    It seem to me Baldwin fired the weapon, and no one should disputes this.

    At someone. At close range.

    And Baldwin’s ignorance of the most basic things about gun safety is on him.

    Are we to believe grown men including actors of his stature are absolved from a most basic and fundamental caution about firearms? I don’t believe it and cannot believe this for one second.

    And it is on the movie producer.

    LA TIMES tells us this: [[The low-budget production was not a major studio project but an independent film financed by BondIt Media Capital, with CAA Media Finance on board for domestic sales rights and Highland Film Group handling international sales.]]

    Really? Alec Baldwin in a “low-budget” production and “not a major studio”?

    Maybe.

    However, should this be taken at face value?

    https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-movie-explained

    For a “low budget” schtick? — [[Founded in 2013 by partners Matthew Helderman and Luke Taylor, BondIt has established itself as an industry leading film and media finance firm. Since inception BondIt has participated in the financing of over 250+ feature film and television projects ranging from micro-budgets to studio level projects.]]

    https://abspayroll.com/bondit-media-capital/

    That would be more than 30 movies per year, or more than two a month.

    Low Budget?

    As reported this morning by The Guardian: [[The risks and onerous responsibilities of prop firearms have led some productions to scrap such scenes entirely in favor of digital editing. ]]

    Baldwin wanted live shooting, on set. Despite all the known risks of firearms.

    He got it.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    [[“It’s such a burden. The protocol is going to become even stricter, rightly so, and safer. So why would you not do it all digitally?”]]

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/23/totally-preventable-and-shocking-props-masters-talk-on-set-shootings

    -30-

    • JK/AR says:

      Jim,

      Insofar as the headlines you’ve cited go I’m sure there’s some corollary whenever Hollywood’s in the equation in these sorts of things …

      ‘Whenever a Republican holds the Executive all the press wants to be is Woodward and Bernstein.

      When it’s a Democrat the press wants to be is Monica Lewinsky.’

      *We’re always subjected to the Hollywood shtick that, the actors – being so dedicated to their “craft” – go so far as, for example, sharing the deprivations and humbletudes right alongside say, the Dalai Lama up on some austere mountaintop (see Sean Penn) in order to “prepare for their role/to get into character” and yet we’re expected to believe these same dedicated role-players can’t take the time to attend a three hour firearms safety course?

      *(We’re – the general public.)

  8. Pat Lang says:

    If that is the weapon in the photo, it looks like a Colt Single Action Army. The weapon came into service around 1872 an was used in the US Army until the 1890s. It was made in many calibers for sale around the world. The one used in the army was generally .45 long case Colt. I have a very tough time believing that someone on the scene deliberately loaded ammunition with bullets. As LJ points out the difference between those and blanks is obvious, and why would they even have live ammunition on the set at all?

    • Eureka Springs says:

      “why would they even have live ammunition on the set at all?”

      This question is key. I know a few and I can’t imagine the head armorer would possess live ammo anywhere near their prop gear or a set location. That’s tantamount to a gas station attendant showing up to work with a live flame thrower.

    • semiconscious says:

      “why would they even have live ammunition on the set at all?”

      thank you! this’s the only question worth asking…

      which is, of course, why no one in the media is asking it…

    • James Tibbetts says:

      Hall passed the revolver to Baldwin claiming it was a “cold gun” which means empty of blanks, dummy or live rounds. Live rounds are rarely used on sets.

      • Pat Lang says:

        James Tibbetts
        A sensible man would check it himself.

      • Fred says:

        James,

        Halayna Hutchins is still dead because Baldwin didn’t do a basic safety check. Perhaps instead of complaining about the NRA all those years he should have taken one of their safety courses.

  9. Deap says:

    Worst case scenario – the departing, disgruntled official and experienced crew left it “armed”. Maliciously making their case they should not have been replaced by ill-trained amateurs. Assuming the new crew should have discovered the faulty loading, just as a sobering reminder of their critical duties. But it all went wrong.

    • Fred says:

      Stop making excuses for the failure of the man who pulled the trigger to do a basic safety check.

      • zmajcek says:

        Looks like your obvious dislike of AB compels you to assign the blame to the exclusion of everything else.
        IMO he should have some liability as a producer, but the chief armorer has some tough questions to answer first.

        • Fred says:

          zmajcek,

          I have no personal feelings for the guy. I believe was negligent. Yes the armorer has liability; that doesn’t relieve Baldwin of his. This isn’t his first movie using firearms or the first one he’s helped produce.

  10. fakebot says:

    I like Deap’s theory.

    They must have used blanks, but blanks can kill too.

    What I don’t understand is why he aimed a gun–loaded or not, real or prop–at a person. Anyone who handles a gun should assume it’s loaded. Even if someone tells you it isn’t, you still assume it’s loaded.

    • Larry Johnson says:

      Now that we know the firearm used (i.e., a single action revolver) it is certain that Alec Baldwin cocked the revolver and then pulled the trigger. The single action revolver will not fire without manually cocking the hammer.

      • TTG says:

        That not the only way to fire off a single action revolver such as the SAA. Here’s a video explaining how these weapons can fire uncocked or half cocked. This guy, Hickock45, did a lot of cowboy shooting competitions so he knows what he’s talking about.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHPNnsp-cs&t=0s

        Baldwin was drawing his gun from a holster when he shot it off. It could have went off or he cocked it and pulled the trigger. I’m sure he already told the investigators what he did. He supposedly reheated the action once without incidence and did it a second time when he shot it off.

        The chief armorer is definitely in trouble. She was the 24 year old daughter of a well known film armorer. This was just her second film as a chief armorer. There are several levels of blanks for films including a higher power round to simulate (or exaggerate) a cloud of black powder smoke. I have no idea how dangerous that one would be.

        No matter how it happened, Baldwin is responsible as one of the producers responsible for safety of his production.

        • Larry Johnson says:

          Look closer at the video. I don’t know if you’ve ever fired or handled one of these revolvers. I have. If the hammer is fully seated in the decocked position you cannot accidentally fire it off by pulling the trigger. You have to do something purposeful, e.g., strike the back of the hammer with a club, like he did. Baldwin reportedly pointed the revolver at someone and pulled the trigger. That means he had to cock. It does not cock itself.

          • Mark Logan says:

            It may be the weapons were set up with very low trigger force, and were being accidentally discharged by people thumbing the hammer quickly with a finger resting on the triggers, a typical movie “quick draw” action.

            I say “weapons” deliberately, as there had been 3 previous accidental discharges already reported on a set that had been in production for only 12 days.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Mark Logan
            This was a real pistol.

          • Mark Logan says:

            Pat,

            Yes, I’m speculating the ridiculously high rate of accidental discharges happening on that set indicate light trigger springs. Lighter than the cast was used to, anyway.

          • Pat Lang says:

            No. they are just California fools.

          • Larry Johnson says:

            Nope. The single action revolver must be cocked to fire. Or, you bang the hammer with a club and can get a shot off. Either way, it requires a purposeful act by the person holding the pistol.

          • Mark Logan says:

            Larry,

            Cocking the hammer could easily have been part of the scene they were rehearsing. Certainly if they were rehearsing a scene in which the actor was to fire a blank. Fair guess is everybody was cocking hammers but ADs were all over the place so I wonder about trigger force she set those weapons up with.

            Reports out now is some of the crew had taken to using the set guns to plink at cans. I suspect Pat has Occum’s Razored this. Stupendous dumbassery. Somebody is going to serve time. Just a matter of who.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Mark Logan

            If it was a single action revolver you must cock the hammer to fire it. Occam’s Razor? Oh sure, a bunch of flighty, undisciplined California lefties playing with guns.

        • Mark Logan says:

          My point is cocking hammers would be part of the scene being practiced if they intended to fire a blank when they were done rehearsing. He cocked the hammer, perhaps he was supposed to.

          I believe Baldwins are New Yorkers.

      • TTG says:

        That’s rehearsed, not reheated. Damned spellcheck.

      • JK/AR says:

        Larry,

        “We know this for certain–Alec Baldwin did not inspect the gun to verify it was unloaded ..”

        I would respectfully disagree we “know this for certain.”

        And as for “blanks”:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

        * https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-does-alec-baldwin-have-criminal-exposure-after-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/

        *Disclosure – I am a paying customer and on the mailing list of CCW dot – too I possess an active CHCL (in other states/jurisdictions often more widely known as ‘CCW.’)

        Perhaps apocryphal but in addition to that #1: All guns are loaded is #5[?] “Never aim a gun at something you do not intend to kill.” (Colonel Jeff Cooper – reputedly)

        • Larry Johnson says:

          Baldwin claims he was told the gun was “not loaded”. The only way to verify if that is true is to inspect the cylinder to see if any rounds are present. He did not inspect the gun. He trusted the word of someone else. Negligent.

          • JK/AR says:

            Larry I’ve followed your writings (SST &c) for quite awhile – even recognized your voice back on that dreadful day – and will continue to faithfully do so.

            I don’t care what Baldwin *claims. See above my reply to Jim. This ain’t – forgive the expression given the context – “Baldwin’s first rodeo.”

            But yes – negligent at the very least.

          • walrus says:

            Larry, is Baldwin qualified to inspect the gun for safety?

          • Larry Johnson says:

            If he is handling a firearm then yes.

  11. Anr says:

    I think the schadenfreude here is obscuring people’s memories of actors shooting firearms in tv and cinema; characters are often shooting “into” the camera, not into the empty background behind the characters where there is no crew. One would assume that in most productions there will always be people in the line of fire of prop guns. Like what happened to Brandon Lee.

    Which brings me to my question; is this like what happened to Brandon Lee? What exactly was the projectile that exited the barrel? To portray a loaded revolver more accurately you often see bullets in the cylinder, not crimped casings. Brandon Lee was killed by a bullet that was part of a casing, and accidently a primer, that got lodged in the barrel unbeknownst to the crew when it was “fired”. In a later seen a blank round loaded into the revolver propelled the bullet forward into Lee. I’m curious to read the OSHA report afterwards for all the details.

    • Mark Logan says:

      Anr,
      It was determined in the Brandon Lee tragedy one of the dummy rounds, real rounds with the power removed, used for a scene of the gun being loaded came apart, leaving a slug lodged in the barrel. Those rounds were removed and blanks loaded for the shooting scene. A blank propelled that slug.

  12. Jim says:

    Baldwin in fact shot several bullets while the scene was being filmed, this is why one dead and one injured.

    All in space of a few seconds.

    From what I was told, and file this under “back story” from folks actually in the film industry, as follows [feel free to take the below with a grain of salt];

    Alec Baldwin, net worth ~$60M was helping produce this film and on purpose did this in New Mexico to ‘cut corners.’

    1] There was staff of professional workers, all unionized that had already complained that the set was cutting corners and not doing things according to the very strict procedures, especially and including that this movie with firearms scenes.

    2] Their concerns were ignored.

    3] They went on strike.

    4] Only about 15% of the unionized workers actually honored the strike.

    5] Baldwin and company then proceeded to fire them all!

    6] So: Now there are replacement workers, who being replacements were either unwilling to speak up as more corners were being cut and/or lacked the specific knowledge of how to keep things safe, that the regular crew had, — that has been fired en mass.

    7] In USA film industry, camera person is standing in front of Baldwin, he for reasons of drama, and as is apparently ‘standard practice’, shoots and that is how this camera operator got killed. From whom I spoke with, I was astounded to find out that iy is standard practice to point gun right at camera and fire it.

    8] After [or before?] he killed her, in a matter of just seconds, he is shooting someone else, who was injured, again, how can it be that it is standard practice to shoot at a camera person under any circumstances.

    9] In any event, this is why there are such extremely rigid protocols on doing these types of scenes.

    10] Why live ammo is still used obviously makes no sense, since there is technology to simulate this.

    11] So, yes, Baldwin killed one person and injured another. And he wanted live ammo in the scenes.

    12] Baldwin and company knowingly cut corners, and fired the unionized and skilled workers.

    13] Baldwin will be charged with murder?

    People in USA movie industry are aghast live ammo [blanks or actual] are still used, and there is no excuse and for decades in Europe this is not allowed.

    Dear Alec: treat every gun as if it is loaded.
    -30-

    • Pat Lang says:

      Jim

      “He fired several shots?”

      • Jim says:

        Yes. Exactly.

        This is what I was told today by people in the industry.

        I was having trouble following the logic at first.

        So I asked: was all this damage done with one bullet?

        And then was told point blank: it was a scene in which bullets were fired, which would explain — why one dead, one wounded.

        I got a crash course in learning that shots are not fired at people that are in the movie, rather, right at the camera for increased dramatic effect.

        So I asked: isn’t pointing the gun at camera — enough to achieve this? And was told. . . dramatic effect is what they were looking for in shooting scenes.

        So, yes, I was told all this happened in a span of a few seconds. I was told several shots fired, not sure I will be able to get an exact number.

        Apparently there is an effort to hide this fact, at this time, from the public?

        And there would be motive to hide it, given, if true, that Baldwin and company fired the skilled workers en mass to save money.

        A short cut is the longest distance between two points.
        -30-

    • Clueless Joe says:

      “From whom I spoke with, I was astounded to find out that iy is standard practice to point gun right at camera and fire it.”
      It’s been done at least since the Great Train Robbery’s iconic ending shot, back in 1903 – but don’t ask me what kind of prop was used or if it was the same kind of blanks used in 2021.
      Though using basically real guns and blanks, having actors assuming they’re just harmless props instead of firearms, and shooting here and there, including straight on the cameras, is asking for trouble in the long run, imho.

      Like TTG said, Baldwin is producer of the movie, so he will be in some trouble; he would, even if someone else had fired the gun. With all the low-budget cuts and troubles with unionized crew, he will have some serious explaining to do.

  13. scott s. says:

    I don’t own a colt, but a ruger in 44 mag that is patterned after the SAA. The only way to really prove it is unloaded (for example to insert an ECI) is to pull out the base pin and remove the cylinder. Opening the loading gate would require rotating the cylinder 360 degrees while manipulating the gun to visually determine the cylinder is empty.

    Ruger uses a bit different fire control where there is a firing pin and transfer bar connected to the trigger. Operating the trigger raises the transfer bar so the hammer via the transfer bar contacts the firing pin. In the Colt, the firing pin is integral to the hammer (as you can see in the picture). The Colt “half cock” position isn’t nearly as good a safety IMO.

    The only revolver multi-firing I know of is with the older cap n ball (loose black powder) revolvers. With these it is possible for a so-called chain fire. The prevention is to put grease over the ball when loading. Cheap shooters use Crisco which stinks when it burns. I have some commercial stuff that smells like pine trees — not too bad but you do end up with grease all over your clothes after a range session. I saw a guy at the range in the position next to me who was shooting a brand new replica Colt 1860 Army from Colt (not a cheap Italian replica like I shoot) and he blew the loading lever off in a chain fire. Luckily no injury.

  14. JK/AR says:

    As Jim (above) has severally mentioned things about “the movie biz” I hadn’t ever the need (or real desire) to learn about, while reading on another blog I regularly visit (but don’t comment on) I thought perhaps placing a link here might be additionally enlightening.

    I must add – ‘the guy’ who Divemedic is .. er ‘critiquing’ is also somebody I read. Goes by ‘Aesop’ – but be aware, if y’all linkthru to his site, his use of “the queen’s English” can be depended on to be oh, “salty” is perhaps woefully inadequate:

    https://areaocho.com/this-guy-has-the-hat-and-the-shirt/

    • Artemesia says:

      Use of live- or not-live firearms on movie sets may be of interest, even concern, to more than those absorbed in Hollywood doings.

      Many cities and towns actively recruit filmmakers to use their otherwise barren industrial or quaint neighborhoods to shoot film. My small, transitional, inner-city neighborhood has been a favorite. We’ve had chase scenes on our one-block residential street and seen a nearby abandoned industrial building transformed overnight (and only skin-deep) into a thriving business center with branded store-fronts, even packing crates.

      In my town a local company runs a thriving business providing giant generators to supply lighting, cranes, and sound-stages, as well as residence-trailers for Talent. But except for the Name Talent, many workers are pick-up, temporary and transient. Forgetabout a highly trained armorer.

      These events are amusing the first time your quiet neighborhood is overtaken by miles of electric line, vintage cars and blocked streets, and dozens of extras taking coffee break on your front porch, but before long transients roaming about and trucks parked in your front yard become a nuisance.

      Point is, other than sounding like a whiney urbanized inner city dweller, the Alec Baldwin thing could happen closer to home.

  15. The first thing that occurred to me was why were they using a real gun at all? Surely there are plenty of replicas around and the sound is going to be added later anyway to make a bigger bang (a la hand grenades blowing whole buildings to pieces and Napoleonic era cannonballs blowing up in huge gasoline explosions.)
    I suspect there’s a lot more to this story.
    Thanks heavens we have a fearless free press that will dig hard till it gets to the bottom of the story.
    Just as soon as the Seth Rich investigation is finished, that is.

  16. Jim says:

    There is no dispute Baldwin fired a loaded gun that was aimed right at a person that was killed and a person injured. That is how the movie set is designed; him or anyone with a gun, aiming straight at the camera.

    There is dispute on how many shots he fired. But fire them he did.

    There is uncertainty on how many are directly at fault at this time.

    Were Big USA Media companies as curious about giving us straight answers, as they currently are possessed of minimizing the crimes of the gun-owner hating Baldwin, perhaps there would be less uncertainty and confusion at this time.

    The confusion is on purpose.

    There is no rational reason for any live gun scenes anymore, given technology now available. None, zero. These types of scenes, extremely dangerous and potentially deadly. No one knows this better than Baldwin.

    Baldwin knows this — yet took short cuts and now killed someone.

    This all to save money. Every minute on a movie set is $$$ — every second and every minute — they are counting the $$$. Baldwin knows this better than anyone. Baldwin I am told was helping finance this fiasco, called a movie production and opted for scab labor — and to hell with those they fired en mass during production. This is on him.

    It is this hypocrisy — bleeding heart and gun hating Hollywood Preachers like Baldwin that is as much the story as anything else.

    When it comes to gun safety, where was Alec?

    The anti gun crowd never wanted to hear about Law Abiding folks that legally possess and take gun safety seriously.

    And now that anti gun crowd has this train wreck — the reckless gun hating Baldwin –and penny pinching and union busting Alec — stinking up the room for them.

    Headlines like this are not to their liking:
    “Gun Control Activist Alec Baldwin Shoots and Kills Crew …”

    It is Baldwin’s personal choice to be a gun control fanatic.

    And now he can stew in his own juice.
    -30-

    • Larry Johnson says:

      Please understand that the only way that Baldwin could fire more than one shot was that he had to cock the pistol each time. It is single action. In fact, he had to cock it to fire the first shot.

    • James Tibbetts says:

      Baldwin doesn’t hate guns. He’s a gun owner himself. They were rehearsing a scene and he was handed what was referred to or called out as a cold gun that means no rounds empty gun no blanks no dummy rounds no live rounds. it was supposed to be empty the camera wasn’t rolling he was just practicing the draw and fire.

  17. Deap says:

    Life imitating art – story line of Rust was about an accidental killing. Baldwin tends to get preachy, so wonder how he revised history to tell his movie story.

    “……….Rust ……stars Alec Baldwin as an outlaw named Harland Rust. In the film, the title character goes on the run with his estranged 13-year-old grandson after the child is sentenced to hang for the accidental killing of a local rancher.

    Baldwin has compared the revenge drama to the 1992 Clint Eastwood western “Unforgiven,” and said “Rust” is of a similar revisionist history vein. The actor also serves as producer and co-wrote the story with Souza based on a story the director read about the youngest person ever to hang in the American West.” (LATimes)

  18. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    I am posting a comment from commenter, Harry Baldwin, from a post by Steve Sailer over at Unz Review about this incident. My remarks to follow:

    Here is a TikTok video posted by the set armorer Hannah Gutierrez-rReed. As iSteve commenter Nimrod said regarding the picture of Admiral Rachel Levine, “I would not be able to take that person seriously in any professional setting.”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ARmastrangelo/status/1452022179621638144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Me, again. Do check out the TikTok video found in the twitter post, and you will see whereof Harry Baldwin speaks.

    Informative comments following Steve’s post. It seems that the pro armourer, along with some other crew, went out on strike over a range of concerns. Spidey Grrl was brought on, possibly because of her daddy being a big to do in Hollyweird, as the pro’s substitute.

    The guns, due to fanatical concerns about Covid exposure risks from too many Dirt People on set, were on a cart, not supervised by Spidey Grrl at all times.

    The crew, during breaks out in the boring desert, had taken to removing guns from the cart, loading them, and plinking cans, and then putting them back on the cart. But what if a live round was still in the gun? As the incident occured immediately after lunch, were they examined by Spidey Grrl before possible use?

    As to why the two people were in a position in front of the gun being aimed toward the camera by Mr. Baldwin, one commenter suggested that they were assessing the view of him pointing the gun from as close as possible to the camera’s position.

    “Cold” gun? Oops.

    Half-assed people controlling the guns, Covid lunacy getting in the way. Well, mistakes might be made.

  19. Deap says:

    Even highly trained police officers can fire off a live gun instead of an intended and noticed stun gun, of all people should have known and felt the difference.

    DH was reminded of his boyhood lessons after getting a shot gun as a kid, living out on a ranch. The first lesson was to shoot a pumpkin off a post, just to get a very vivid introduction of how instantly explosive any shooting weapon could be. He can still picture that pumpkin disintegrating and spattering everywhere 70 years later.

    I remember my own first experience shooting a long gun of some sort and quickly landing on my backside from the recoil that I had not anticipated, nor was warned about. Not to be messed with was my own vivid first message.

    • Pat Lang says:

      Deap

      Oh, bullshit “trained police officers.” Any idea how many of them are incompetent with guns? After watching me shout on a range (Clark Brothers” several police departments asked me to teach their people. Wasn’t interested.

  20. JK/AR says:

    I was reading on another of the sites I don’t comment on and came across a tidbit which I had to run down owing to there was no [citing] link. Finding one I have to ask among this crowd, someone possessing of more knowledge of the ‘Hollywood Biz’ than I have.

    https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-rust-gun-accident-used-off-set-target-practice/

    An observation – y’all might recall that husband and wife [lawyers] defending their property (gated community proximate to St Louis) wherein the semi [pistol – appeared to me a Walther PPK … I didn’t keep abreast of anything past the earliest reporting – except that I’d read a blurb stating ‘as the pistol had been used in a courts proceeding it [the pistol] had been rendered inoperable and was thus, “a prop gun” ‘]

    (As I fully expect Missouri and New Mexico homicide statutes to be different I’m not particularly interested in the particulars of what differentiates a prop gun and a real gun)

    My question is more along the lines of … oh I guess the most convenient (aware there’s a number of never-mils:LEs reading and commenting here) At any rate what I’m curious about is a chain of command sort of thing here.

    On a set [movie, soap opera, &c] Who is in charge of setting such an allowance to allow prop guns at work but in off hours allowing real guns in, for example, “the blowing off steam” periods?

    (Apologies for my grammar construction – I pray y’all were able to follow.)

    • TTG says:

      I was wondering about all this talk about prop guns. Today I saw a video demonstrating the difference. The movie armorer showed a true Colt SAA type revolver prop gun. A live 45 Colt cartridge could not be loaded in the cylinder. A much shorter blank cartridge could. The prop gun cylinder is machined specifically not to load live rounds, only shorter blanks. Since the guns used on the set of Rust were being used for recreational plinking, they were obviously not prop guns. Given that it surely costs more to machine special prop gun cylinders, the Rust production company cheaped out by using real weapons. I bet that’ll change industry wide after this incident.

      Since the producers were cheaping out on everything else, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if those revolvers were old, worn out and poorly maintained. According to a gunsmith specializing in Colt SAA and clones, poor maintenance can lead to real problems with these babies.

      http://www.bozemantrailarms.com/faq.html

      Add all that to the criminally insane practice of having live ammo on set AND using the movie revolvers in unsupervised plinking sessions, the shooting was inevitable.

      • Larry Johnson says:

        True. The key point, my friend, is that Baldwin did not inspect the pistol before holstering to ensure it was not loaded. And, because it is a single action, he had to cock it to fire it. He’s the last link in a long line of incompetence. If one of your soldiers did something like this what would you do?

      • Pat Lang says:

        TTG
        Do you know it was not a real SAA?

        • TTG says:

          It could have been an actual Colt. It could have been a clone. The biggest difference is the price. It could even have been some other similar single action revolver. No matter what it was, I doubt it was maintained properly.

          • JK/AR says:

            In ordinary matters TTG (given our last exchange being to do Covid related – you correcting me where I’d said ‘Campbell MD’ – I’ll remain considering you among my ‘friendly cohort’)

            But that last “I doubt it was maintained properly” I’d think Sir should be considered self-evident and however the chain of command the collision of “that ship” is on – my opinion – whomsoever was financing the production.

            I’m just unsure of the admirals-staff.

            (I’m less caring of the specific type of weapon but very concerned ‘An Admiral’ fired the thing in that [general] circumstance. – General Zinni would have been very extremely pissed. Very pissed.)

        • Larry Johnson says:

          Well, the picture of the pistol collected is a Single Action.

      • Mark Logan says:

        I expect some regs on who can call themselves a film set armorer will come from this as well.

  21. mcdragoon says:

    Anyone following toebbe and smay spying case about nuclear subs and they all lived in a yellow submarine.I think a loud and clear message has been sent.dragoon in the lagoon

Comments are closed.