Alec Baldwin update
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
- Status
stagpanther
New member
There's a flip side to all this--and this might be what an earlier post alluded to--if in fact an actor shares in culpability every time a trigger is pulled--pretty much the end of firearms and firefights in film the way I see it--who'd want to take that risk, especially when they are not very experienced shooters? Everyone else on the set would also need to be waivered.
Jim Watson
New member
Why? It is not hard to modify a firearm to not accept ball ammunition, blanks only.
Transfer bar
Im guessing the gun is a uberti or pietta which have transfer bar safety’s built into the hammer. The hammer will not fall onto the primer unless the trigger is held back. You can pull the trigger and slowly release the hammer, letting it pass the half cock notch, then release the trigger and look sideways thru the recoil shield. The firing pin is not protruding. Slightly take the pressure off the hammer and pull the trigger and it protrudes and fires.....
Im guessing the gun is a uberti or pietta which have transfer bar safety’s built into the hammer. The hammer will not fall onto the primer unless the trigger is held back. You can pull the trigger and slowly release the hammer, letting it pass the half cock notch, then release the trigger and look sideways thru the recoil shield. The firing pin is not protruding. Slightly take the pressure off the hammer and pull the trigger and it protrudes and fires.....
As a matter of fact I did read the safety bulletin. I only quoted the first four lines because I was writing a post about Baldwin's direct responsibilities as the person holding the gun at the time and those were the applicable rules.
But you are quite correct, in his role as executive producer he's also responsible for many other failures of the safety rules you listed.
The gun is a Pietta, according to the AZ sheriff dept. REPORTEDLY, FBI testing said the gun was in proper working order.
"reportedly" because we do not have the FBI report, only "leaks" from the report published in the press.
Baldwin's lawyers have said the gun was broken and the FBI had to fix it, before they could even test it.
The real truth has not yet been proven. Personally, I'd put more faith in an official FBI report than in anything Baldwin's lawyers say, but that's just me...
"reportedly" because we do not have the FBI report, only "leaks" from the report published in the press.
Baldwin's lawyers have said the gun was broken and the FBI had to fix it, before they could even test it.
The real truth has not yet been proven. Personally, I'd put more faith in an official FBI report than in anything Baldwin's lawyers say, but that's just me...
I would normally agree until the McCloskey’s . No not the FBI but the firearms forensics team had to repair the movie prop gun in order to make it functional the wife was waving around . Then the DA tried to charge her as if she was brandishing a fully functioning firearm .
Although you should always be hesitant to trust what the government says . Over the last 2 to 5 years I’ve learned you absolutely cannot trust anything the government says at any level. That said you can’t really trust A defense attorneys press release either lol
"Seems like one giant hate fest of Baldwin is driving emotions and not rational analysis and everyone is wanting him to be convicted without really looking at repercussions or past events."
I agree with the above. I dislike Baldwin a great deal but I also believe in fair play. There's been so much conjecture and opinions floated around since the incident that nobody knows what happened except the person that put that live round in the gun. Whether it was accidental or a deliberate act by a disgruntled employee, something that I consider entirely possible, has yet to be determined. Considering Baldwin's reputation for being a king sized jerk, he just may have P.O.ed one of the employees who then finding some unwatched firearms loaded a round and we know what happened next. Whether he had pilfered a round during the target practice or the box of mix ammo was next to the guns none of us knows. Without the facts, it's all just speculation and conversation.
Paul B.
I agree with the above. I dislike Baldwin a great deal but I also believe in fair play. There's been so much conjecture and opinions floated around since the incident that nobody knows what happened except the person that put that live round in the gun. Whether it was accidental or a deliberate act by a disgruntled employee, something that I consider entirely possible, has yet to be determined. Considering Baldwin's reputation for being a king sized jerk, he just may have P.O.ed one of the employees who then finding some unwatched firearms loaded a round and we know what happened next. Whether he had pilfered a round during the target practice or the box of mix ammo was next to the guns none of us knows. Without the facts, it's all just speculation and conversation.
Paul B.
considering that it is reported that a number of people walked off the set due to flagrant and repeated safety violations that management did nothing about, I'd say its safe to assume the work environment was NOT a happy place.
It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that a "disgruntled employee" put a live round in the gun, POSSIBLY one they supplied, not one of the movie prop dept ammo.
Everyone is operating on the assumption it was an accident due to negligence, but it is not yet conclusively proven it was not deliberate sabotage, and possibly never will be proven.
If it was intentional, the guilty party stand a very low chance of being identified, much less caught and charged, unless they voluntarily confess.
Someone might, at some point be caught bragging about how they screwed over Baldwin, but that's not conclusive, though it might be a starting point for investigation.
Personally, I think Baldwin screwed over Baldwin, but that's just my feelings on the matter. What I wonder about is the armorer, is she actually unsuited for that job, or is she being made a patsy?? Either? Both??
Perhaps it is understandable, and perhaps its only the first thing we remember (or what got reported) but I seem to recall Baldwin's first statements were not "OMG what a terrible accident" they were "I didn't pull the trigger!"
Might not be as self serving as it looks, but it sure looks like that, to me.
It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that a "disgruntled employee" put a live round in the gun, POSSIBLY one they supplied, not one of the movie prop dept ammo.
Everyone is operating on the assumption it was an accident due to negligence, but it is not yet conclusively proven it was not deliberate sabotage, and possibly never will be proven.
If it was intentional, the guilty party stand a very low chance of being identified, much less caught and charged, unless they voluntarily confess.
Someone might, at some point be caught bragging about how they screwed over Baldwin, but that's not conclusive, though it might be a starting point for investigation.
Personally, I think Baldwin screwed over Baldwin, but that's just my feelings on the matter. What I wonder about is the armorer, is she actually unsuited for that job, or is she being made a patsy?? Either? Both??
Perhaps it is understandable, and perhaps its only the first thing we remember (or what got reported) but I seem to recall Baldwin's first statements were not "OMG what a terrible accident" they were "I didn't pull the trigger!"
Might not be as self serving as it looks, but it sure looks like that, to me.
Worked for state gooberment for over 25 years. Wouldn't trust most of them as far as i could spit. It was much better 20 odd years ago, but as societal values changed it seem gooberment employees got considerably worse. Gooberment employees like bureaucracy for power, private enterprise likes bureaucracy for profit.
Even if someone else intentionally loaded a live round into a random gun on the cart, all Baldwin had to do to avoid this tragedy is follow the most obvious, fundamental safety procedures suggested by both the SAAG and the NRA.
There is nothing, imo, that removes his culpability in shooting those people. If he hadn't pointed the gun at them, they wouldn't have been shot. It doesn't matter if the the gun was defective, as Baldwin claims (by all reports, it functioned perfectly. The hammer engaged the transfer bar that hit the firing pin that detonated the primer when the hammer was released) he still flagrantyly ignored the most basic, fundamental workplace safety rules.
And I really do not understand the 'well, it was an accident' line of saying he shouldn't be held to account here. His negligence is evident by that fact that a woman is dead.
He shot her dead. The most charitable view is that he didn't mean to do it. That is precisly the crime he is charged with. Negilentyly causing the death of a person. That is a crime.
It was most likely an accident. It is still a crime.
There is nothing, imo, that removes his culpability in shooting those people. If he hadn't pointed the gun at them, they wouldn't have been shot. It doesn't matter if the the gun was defective, as Baldwin claims (by all reports, it functioned perfectly. The hammer engaged the transfer bar that hit the firing pin that detonated the primer when the hammer was released) he still flagrantyly ignored the most basic, fundamental workplace safety rules.
And I really do not understand the 'well, it was an accident' line of saying he shouldn't be held to account here. His negligence is evident by that fact that a woman is dead.
He shot her dead. The most charitable view is that he didn't mean to do it. That is precisly the crime he is charged with. Negilentyly causing the death of a person. That is a crime.
It was most likely an accident. It is still a crime.
Totally agree. I remember as a kid, I thought the people in congress were some of the finest people this country had to offer. Now I think we could pick 535 random people off the streets and have a better government. If they were picked from rural areas, well that would be even better.I haven't put my full faith and trust in anything the government says since the Warren Commission report.
I do tend to put even less faith in what attorneys involved in litigation say. On either side.
Jim Watson
New member
Aside from the legalisms and logic chopping, and in addition to sympathy for the dead and wounded, I feel sorry for Thell Reed. His daughter got in over her head in his business and contributed to tragedy and scandal. He has to feel badly.
OldMarksman
Staff
I agree.
I don't see now she could have done her job in that environment without X-Ray vision and a way of intimidating Baldwin.
I don't see now she could have done her job in that environment without X-Ray vision and a way of intimidating Baldwin.
I’m betting we will be surprised how many official credentials the armorer has not to mention the years of experience working with her dad . My guess is that she has more firearms experience then most of us . I’m so hoping at least one of these goes to trial . I really would like to know the actual facts .
Thell Reed is legendary in both the film and firearms community, and while I don't know him personally, never have I seen his name mentioned in anything but respect and admiration for his skill, knowledge and competence.
Since his daughter went into the same line of work, I would expect her to be as well trained and educated as her father could make her.
That being the case, it makes me think that any errors or mistakes on the set of RUST were the result of events beyond her control. And since management is the ultimate guarantor of everything on a movie set, that points straight back to Baldwin being responsible.
As management, he might not have been personally aware of all the errors, but as management, he did hire the people who did screw up. Captain of the ship...
The 3rd mate might be at the helm in the middle of the night, and put the ship on a bar, but the captain is responsible for hiring that mate, and endorsing their competence. There is NO ducking that responsibility.
(and, if he didn't directly hire the mate, he did hire the guy who did hire the mate, etc.)
The legal level of responsibility is a matter for the courts to rule on. The fact that he is responsible is not.
(*note I am, in no way saying or implying he is the only one responsible, only that as the boss, he IS responsible for what happens "on his watch"...)
IMHO
Since his daughter went into the same line of work, I would expect her to be as well trained and educated as her father could make her.
That being the case, it makes me think that any errors or mistakes on the set of RUST were the result of events beyond her control. And since management is the ultimate guarantor of everything on a movie set, that points straight back to Baldwin being responsible.
As management, he might not have been personally aware of all the errors, but as management, he did hire the people who did screw up. Captain of the ship...
The 3rd mate might be at the helm in the middle of the night, and put the ship on a bar, but the captain is responsible for hiring that mate, and endorsing their competence. There is NO ducking that responsibility.
(and, if he didn't directly hire the mate, he did hire the guy who did hire the mate, etc.)
The legal level of responsibility is a matter for the courts to rule on. The fact that he is responsible is not.
(*note I am, in no way saying or implying he is the only one responsible, only that as the boss, he IS responsible for what happens "on his watch"...)
IMHO
- Status