Alec Baldwin’s Unbelievable Claim About His Negligent Homicide

In a new interview with George Stephanopoulos, Alec Baldwin insists he did not pull the trigger. NONSENSE!! That is a lie. Here’s the  ABC teaser:

The gun that Baldwin fired is a period revolver (you can read my original post about the pistol here)–F. Lli Pietta 45 Long Colt Revolver. You must open the loading gate to access the cylinder to load a cartridge. You then must cock the hammer manually, otherwise, it will NOT fire. Once the hammer is cocked then only slight pressure on the trigger will release the hammer and initiate the firing cycle.

[Note–There is a way to fire this revolver without cocking the trigger–you hit the hammer on the spur with a club of some sort and that can cause the firing pin to ignite the primer. But the point remains–this gun cannot be fired “accidentally.”  It does not fire itself.]

Baldwin is not the only one at fault here, but he is showing his true colors as a coward keen on avoiding responsibility for killing the cinematographer.

Baldwin is not the only one at fault here, but he is showing his true colors as a coward keen on avoiding responsibility for killing the cinematographer. Larry Johnson

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

38 Responses to Alec Baldwin’s Unbelievable Claim About His Negligent Homicide

  1. TTG says:

    The only way for a cocked hammer to fall without pulling the trigger is to have worn or broken notches on the hammer. The police have the pistol. This can easily be checked.

    • Larry Johnson says:

      Baldwin still had to jostle the gun (if your scenario is what happened) and he pointed it at people. While you and I have some differences on other issues, I’m pretty sure you’d agree that if a soldier did that on your firing line you’d have their ass. True?

      • TTG says:

        He wouldn’t have to jostle it. He would just have to let go of the hammer after cocking it. In other words, it wouldn’t stay cocked. I could see him doing something like that if he was practicing drawing the pistol up and pointing it towards the camera. Cocking it as he brought it up would be natural. Of course, if the hammer notches are fine, this means nothing.

        On a range or any live fire exercise, the weapon is always up and down range. During a force on force FTX, we regularly pointed weapons at opponents and fired blanks towards them. But even on battalion on battalion exercises, there was no live ammunition to be found. The only exception I ran across was working with the Philippine Marines. Their idea of blanks was firing ball ammo into the dirt. Come to think of it, the Italian 9th Parachute Assault Regiment only carried live ammo during Flintlock exercises.

      • TTG says:

        According to Baldwin’s interview tonight, he never fully cocked the pistol. He deliberately aimed at the point the director told him to as she looked through the camera lens. She then told him to thump the hammer back. He said he did so partially. The pistol then fired. He probably just let the hammer go without it engaging any notches or a single faulty notch and boom. He said his finger wasn’t on the trigger and the assistant director said the same thing. I’m sticking with my theory. None of that excuses a live round on a movie set or the lack of proper checks.

        • Larry Johnson says:

          Jesus! Idiot did not realize he was fanning the hammer and that it would strike with enough force to fire a live round. Did you mean “THUMB?” Or did he really say “THUMP?”

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I’m willing to bet against your theory. The gun would have to be very broken to do what you suggest- and it has been said that gun was used early for target shooting with live rounds. IMO, Baldwin and Smollett are cut from the same cloth.

          IMO, Baldwin cocked the hammer as one would normally do and then pulled the trigger. Now he’s coming up with some whacky and lame excuse. That said, if your theory is correct, it should be very provable by simply examining the gun, which is in evidence.

          • Pat Lang says:

            EN and TTG
            It is a simple matter to have an expert gunsmith disassemble the piece and determine if it is broken internally.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Baldwin said in the weepy interview that he was cocking the pistol and released the hammer which fell and fired a live cartridge in the chamber under the hammer. Does this pistol have a half cock stop in the hammer mechanism?

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Col Lang & TTG,
            A single action revolver has to have a half-cock safety position because the way you load rounds or unload spent brass is by putting the piece on half cock and manually rotating the cylinder after opening the loading gate – you align each chamber with the open loading gate and either place a live round in the aligned empty chamber or use the ram rod to push out the spent brass. The piece is necessarily on half cock the entire time.

            I’m thinking that if that half-cock mechanism was broken, the piece could not have been loaded in the first place.

            Caveat is that I could be mis-remembering (but I don’t think so). I don’t own a single action revolver. My brother did many years ago and we used to shoot it.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Having used guns from age 14 and owning several single action revolvers, I know that is generally true. Just checking that there is not something anomalous about this gun. Having considered that possibility my conclusion is that he pulled the hammer back with his finger depressing the trigger and released it dropping the firing pin on the primer of a live round which should not have been on the set.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Col Lang,
            The revolver in question is supposed to be an exact replica of the Colt single action. So I would say that it should work just as you and I think it does.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Yes, I think so. If the egotistical bastard had known anything about guns instead of just bitching about them, this would not have happened.

        • Deap says:

          Now he is claiming the woman he shot told him to do this – cock the gun and point it at her? Just following orders, eh Baldwin?

    • Fred says:

      The only way for that to make a round go off is if one is in the chamber. It was easy for Baldwin to check that; he didn’t.

  2. Niels Laughlin says:

    Perhaps it was handed to him cocked!

  3. Fred says:

    “Longtime Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, the father of the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, said in a statement to investigators that ammunition once in his possession “may match the ammunition found on the set of Rust,” according to a search warrant issued Tuesday by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office as part of the ongoing investigation.”

    Of course he didn’t do it. Oh, and actor sheds tears for story. If he had spent ten seconds checking the weapon as he should have he would not have killed anyone.

    • Mark Logan says:


      Thell Reid is probably speaking the truth, he’s effectively tossing his own daughter under the bus here. Seems unlikely he would speculate in this area without some strong reason to do so.

      I’ve read that set armorers on westerns are selected as much for their ability to coach actors on quick draw techniques as anything else, which might explain how the rookie got the job on the set of Rust. Her dad wasn’t just an experienced set armorer, he’s a world champion quick draw. Viewing some video of those competitions, these guys and gals have to draw and shoot absurdly fast to win. It seems logical to me the sport’s competitors would prefer very, even extremely, light trigger pressure on their weapons.

      There were press reports of numerous accidental discharges on the set of Rust as well, so bad people were walking off the job for because of it. Blanks can still do damage.

      I would like to examine the set’s guns. I suspect she may have stupidly set them up with competition triggers. Simply resting a finger on it during a quick-draw might cause what has been described.

  4. cofer says:

    Baldwin knows that when lining up a shot as he was doing, it is customary to use a toy gun. The real gun would be handed to him only once the set is safe and locked, meaning all personnel are out of harm’s way.

    • cofer says:

      Also, an actor should do his homework and come to the set prepared. That includes practicing draws. Trouble is, Baldwin is a star, producer and a man with a short fuse. The assistant director should not have allowed him to practice on the set and direct him to go a safe place to do so. I would speculate that
      he just didn’t want to get chewed up by the star.

  5. scott s. says:

    I would think in the movie business, even with prop guns there would be a protocol on how you transfer a weapon. The idea that a gun just “went off” is only what you see or hear on the news.

  6. JK/AR says:

    You got it right Larry.


  7. Monk says:

    Why on earth is Baldwin doing interviews like this at all? Why has his lawyer not told him to keep his mouth shut while the investigation is ongoing?

    • RHT447 says:

      I guess is that his lawyer told exactly that, plus a few more things Baldwin didn’t want to hear. But then Baldwin is smarter than everyone. Just ask him.

      Yeah, denial ain’t a river in Egypt.

  8. Deap says:

    6 minute video embedded in this article demonstrating this gun in question cannot shoot by itself:

    • cofer says:

      This expert has a different take, turned out these guns are notorious for misfiring without the trigger getting pulled. Still there were other safety rules violations that shouldn’t have happened.

      • Larry Johnson says:

        just shows you do not know firearms. the guy in the video is making the same point I made in my article. if the hammer is hit from behind it can ignite the primer and fire the cartridge. if you actually watched the video you saw him hit the spur on the seated hammer with the board. That is why it fired.

        • cofer says:

          My point was about the possibility of the gun firing without pulling the trigger.

          • cofer says:

            Also, I happen to have extensive knowledge and experience with firearms as well as movie sets.

          • Larry Johnson says:

            Yes, and my point was that Baldwin still had to do something with the gun in his hand to make it fire. He did not just pick it up and it went off. He pulled the hammer back and released it. Too bad he wasn’t pointing it at himself.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          I’m confused. Your article explicitly called Baldwin a liar for claiming that he did not pull the trigger.

          Are you now saying that this gun can indeed discharge without anyone pulling the trigger?

          • Pat Lang says:

            Yeah, right
            What LJ said is that if you beat on the hammer and there was a live round in the chamber you might succeed in making it fire. This is an absurdity and IMO he was trying to be funy.

  9. Reality? Reality! What reality?
    I thought that was obsolete.
    Isn’t it whatever you want it to be now?

  10. RZ says:

    His statement has made it clear to his followers that he is not responsible.
    A conclusion any independent observer would have come up with long ago.

    • Sam says:

      State media CNN brings on guest who demonstrates why Baldwin is lying.

      Now we don’t know what Sante Fe prosecutors and sheriffs who are investigating will determine. But considering that it is a woke bastion Baldwin may get away with criminal liability. He however likely has civil liability as the producer – the captain of the ship. Nothing insurance couldn’t cover I suppose.

  11. Fred says:

    It looks like the press is happily trying to preserve the employability of Baldwin as a lefty spokesperson while successfully distracting attention from the Waukesha terrorist attack which now has a death count of six. Neither Kamala or Biden has made a visit, unlike for Jesse Smolett or Jacob Blake.

  12. What I find completely mystifying is why use a real gun in the first place? There are innumerable replicas that look fine and the sound will be added later

    • Mark Logan says:

      Patrick Armstrong,

      True. Show business has access to all sorts of replicas which can accept only blanks, readily available and cheap. All less than a couple hundred bucks, and have been all but ubiquitous in the industry since the Brandon Lee tragedy.

      I believe the information in this “interview” is that Baldwin and his lawyer are confident he’s off the hook. For an actor to be handed a real gun with a live round in it on a set and also be told it’s safe is beyond extraordinary, it’s downright bizarre.

Comments are closed.