Alec Baldwin shoots/kills cinematographer and injured director after firing a "prop gun".

[bcla]

If you believe that your gun can fire without pulling the trigger, all the more reason to not point your loaded gun at the chest of an innocent co-worker.

Do you have any idea how a 19th century single-action revolver design works?

Again - it was a movie set and he was specifically told it wasn't loaded, and the absoute first rule of guns on a movie set is that real ammo doesn't get anywhere near the set. Good luck when it's something like a large war movie set where there are dozens to hundreds of extras with firearms.

But absolutely some guns have been known to fire without a trigger pull. Even modern ones that theoretically have firing pin blocks. There's a ton of discussion about how that's happened with the Sig Sauer P320, which a lot of police agencies were using. Some have tested it and believe that drops at certain angles can cause the trigger to move due to inertia of the trigger. That's pretty unique issue though. But it's really not that hard given how some older firearms were designed where the firing pin and hammer were never blocked. The Colt Single Action Army even had the firing pin mounted right in the hammer.

Something simply has to strike the primer with enough force to start the explosion. A hammer can be cocked and ready to fire. I noted that cocked in the holster was pretty common for quick-drawing even though it can be pretty dangerous - especially when dropped.

I've been reading about how these older single-action revolvers were carried. Some would actually carry them with one empty chamber so that there was no chance of the firing pin hitting the primer without advancing the cylinder (via pulling on the hammer) first. So having it go off inadvertently was somewhat common if loaded with a live round in front of the hammer. Especially riding a horse or doing anything that might cause a shock to the hammer, even if it was down.

https://www.technology.org/2019/05/05/why-cowboys-only-loaded-5-rounds-in-their-6-chamber-revolvers/​

The problem is that back in the day revolvers had pretty simple trigger mechanisms. They were so-called single action – you had to **** the hammer and then you could pull the trigger. This is why in old movies you see cowboys using one hand to **** the gun and another one to aim and shoot. The striking pin in these revolvers was integrated with the hammer. It was a good and simple design, but it did have a pretty dangerous flaw.​

​

Of course, safety mechanisms were not really there yet. This means that a hammer in its resting position was actually resting with the striking pin right on the cartridge. There is no other way of saying it – a little bump on the hammer could cause an unwanted shot. And there were many opportunities for such bumps. Can you imagine a cowboy riding on a horse with the revolver flopping around? An accident was waiting to happen.​

​

This is why up to this day it is recommended to load 5 rounds only and to leave one chamber empty. Then the empty chamber can be turned to be right in front of the hammer. In this way the revolver will never shoot by accident. Of course you can load all 6 if you are in a shooting range or are no planning on going anywhere. But if you are about to go on a walk or ride a horse, you should not fill up the cylinder.​

I have no idea what happened, but I won't dismiss a theory out of hand without understanding that it is possible for older firearms to fire without the trigger. And most importantly I think investigators would be very interested in seeing any footage (even if it's just crude video) of this scene. I don't believe they had production video running since it was a rehearsal. But it might be possible to see if his finger was on the trigger and/or it was pulled.

 

[Gamedog]

First thing I do when I get handed a firearm is make sure it's clear.

First thing I do when handing someone a firearm is make sure it's clear and the action is open.

Idiots shouldn't be handling firearms, "prop guns" or real. Again, money can't buy brains.

 

[Sinder]

Alec Baldwin said he let go of the hammer and the gun “just went off”

 

[bcla]

Alec Baldwin said he let go of the hammer and the gun “just went off”

OK. Again - this was a Colt Single Action Army (aka "Peacemaker") replica, but should be extremely similar.

I haven't seen the interview, but the various reports of it mention that he believed the firearm to not contain a live round, and that he pulled on the hammer to try and prime (I can't use the real word) it. Given his claim, it sounds like he didn't quite get it in that position and the hammer just dropped, which is normal when there's failure to get it in that position unless the hammer is slowly dropped with the thumb. Without a firing pin block, there's nothing between the firing pin (which is part of the hammer) and the primer as long as the cartridge is lined up properly.

One could even intentionally partially pull back the hammer and intentionally drop it to get one to fire.

 

[Sinder]

OK. Again - this was a Colt Single Action Army (aka "Peacemaker") replica, but should be extremely similar.

I haven't seen the interview, but the various reports of it mention that he believed the firearm to not contain a live round, and that he pulled on the hammer to try and prime (I can't use the real word) it. Given his claim, it sounds like he didn't quite get it in that position and the hammer just dropped, which is normal when there's failure to get it in that position unless the hammer is slowly dropped with the thumb. Without a firing pin block, there's nothing between the firing pin (which is part of the hammer) and the primer as long as the cartridge is lined up properly.

Exactly, he didn’t pull the trigger but he did fire the gun due to his own negligence.

 

[bcla]

Exactly, he didn’t pull the trigger but he did fire the gun due to his own negligence.

Again - he was informed that it wasn't loaded. I know you're going to say it was his responsibility to check, but we're obviously going to be going around in circles arguing whether or not the delegation of that responsibility was enough.

 

[kdonnel]

Alec broke so many gun safety rules and is doing his best to shift the blame.

Let’s ignore the one about personally verifying a gun is unloaded which he ignored as well.

He pointed the gun in an unsafe direction.

If he is to be believed, while attempting to decock the gun he continued to point the gun in an unsafe direction. Every single action revolver manual will list the steps for decocking. They will look something like this:





As a result he shot two people, killing one.

 

[dominiondad]

Do you have any idea how a 19th century single-action revolver design works?

Again - it was a movie set and he was specifically told it wasn't loaded, and the absoute first rule of guns on a movie set is that real ammo doesn't get anywhere near the set. Good luck when it's something like a large war movie set where there are dozens to hundreds of extras with firearms.

But absolutely some guns have been known to fire without a trigger pull. Even modern ones that theoretically have firing pin blocks. There's a ton of discussion about how that's happened with the Sig Sauer P320, which a lot of police agencies were using. Some have tested it and believe that drops at certain angles can cause the trigger to move due to inertia of the trigger. That's pretty unique issue though. But it's really not that hard given how some older firearms were designed where the firing pin and hammer were never blocked. The Colt Single Action Army even had the firing pin mounted right in the hammer.

Something simply has to strike the primer with enough force to start the explosion. A hammer can be cocked and ready to fire. I noted that cocked in the holster was pretty common for quick-drawing even though it can be pretty dangerous - especially when dropped.

I've been reading about how these older single-action revolvers were carried. Some would actually carry them with one empty chamber so that there was no chance of the firing pin hitting the primer without advancing the cylinder (via pulling on the hammer) first. So having it go off inadvertently was somewhat common if loaded with a live round in front of the hammer. Especially riding a horse or doing anything that might cause a shock to the hammer, even if it was down.

https://www.technology.org/2019/05/05/why-cowboys-only-loaded-5-rounds-in-their-6-chamber-revolvers/​

The problem is that back in the day revolvers had pretty simple trigger mechanisms. They were so-called single action – you had to **** the hammer and then you could pull the trigger. This is why in old movies you see cowboys using one hand to **** the gun and another one to aim and shoot. The striking pin in these revolvers was integrated with the hammer. It was a good and simple design, but it did have a pretty dangerous flaw.​

​

Of course, safety mechanisms were not really there yet. This means that a hammer in its resting position was actually resting with the striking pin right on the cartridge. There is no other way of saying it – a little bump on the hammer could cause an unwanted shot. And there were many opportunities for such bumps. Can you imagine a cowboy riding on a horse with the revolver flopping around? An accident was waiting to happen.​

​

This is why up to this day it is recommended to load 5 rounds only and to leave one chamber empty. Then the empty chamber can be turned to be right in front of the hammer. In this way the revolver will never shoot by accident. Of course you can load all 6 if you are in a shooting range or are no planning on going anywhere. But if you are about to go on a walk or ride a horse, you should not fill up the cylinder.​

I have no idea what happened, but I won't dismiss a theory out of hand without understanding that it is possible for older firearms to fire without the trigger. And most importantly I think investigators would be very interested in seeing any footage (even if it's just crude video) of this scene. I don't believe they had production video running since it was a rehearsal. But it might be possible to see if his finger was on the trigger and/or it was pulled.

To answer the question, I don't have any idea how the gun in this incident works. I can tell by the diagram you provided that it's pretty clear which is the dangerous end. Baldwin handles firearms as part of his profession, so he should at least understand that bullets leave the gun from the barrel end (part #4) and that bullets can hurt people. Based on that limited understanding, he should have known not to point the barrel end at his coworkers.

I do understand the concept of leaving an empty chamber for safety. Even then, I wouldn't point such a gun at innocent bystanders. If Baldwin had spent more time listening to gun safety experts instead of using his soapbox to tell the world how much he knows about guns, maybe there would be fewer dead people on the set of his movies.

 

[Sarah'sMomfrom PA]

Sounds to me like he has lawyered up and this is what his lawyer is telling him to say. I only saw part of his interview but he didn't look good and the tragedy is that someone lost their wife and mother.

 

[bcla]

To answer the question, I don't have any idea how the gun in this incident works. I can tell by the diagram you provided that it's pretty clear which is the dangerous end. Baldwin handles firearms as part of his profession, so he should at least understand that bullets leave the gun from the barrel end (part #4) and that bullets can hurt people. Based on that limited understanding, he should have known not to point the barrel end at his coworkers.

I do understand the concept of leaving an empty chamber for safety. Even then, I wouldn't point such a gun at innocent bystanders. If Baldwin had spent more time listening to gun safety experts instead of using his soapbox to tell the world how much he knows about guns, maybe there would be fewer dead people on the set of his movies.

Again - that would be interesting in a chaotic scene with dozens or hundreds of extras, especially any kind of war movie. They used to do reenactments of the shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ using real guns loaded with blanks, and with so many people it was inevitable that their guns would be pointed at someone even if their instructions were to aim slightly off the "target" actors. At least until someone screwed up and fired a live bullet.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...e-gunfighting-re-enactment-two-shot/74203774/​

Mayor Dusty Escapule said someone inspects weapons used in the gunfight skits to ensure the performers use blanks. But he said the actor who fired the live rounds showed up late, and his gun was not examined.​

​

“I was dumbfounded,” Escapule said of learning about the shooting. “I was just appalled the Vigilantes would allow one of the actors to not have their weapons checked.”​

​

Escapule said the town near the U.S.-Mexico border is drawing up an ordinance to provide more regulations for the mock battles. The new rules will mandate inspections to ensure blanks are used and require background checks of every actor involved.​

And Baldwin is not a firearms expert. He claims to have an average actor's exposure to firearms, and his IMFDB profile would indicate that. I'd hardly expect that he's an expert on it, like most actors who have gone skydiving for a scene aren't experts.

 

[rotlex]

First thing I do when I get handed a firearm is make sure it's clear.

First thing I do when handing someone a firearm is make sure it's clear and the action is open.

Idiots shouldn't be handling firearms, "prop guns" or real. Again, money can't buy brains.

This is spot on. Our family owns a lot of guns. We hunt and do competitive shooting. If someone hands me a gun and tells me it's not loaded, the first thing I do is check it myself. The 2nd thing I never do is point it at ANYONE EVER even if I have verified the chamber is clear. Hell, if I'm cleaning a gun and step away to use the bathroom, grab a drink or answer the door, when I come back, I check the chamber before continuing my work. (Unless of course I have it fully disassembled)

This is just basic gun safely which obviously was not adhered too at all in this case.

Me thinks Mr. Baldwin is simply following lawyers orders at this point. I hope he get the harshest punishment the law will allow in this case.

 

[dominiondad]

Agree that he's not an expert. That said, he is a professional that as part of his job requires him to handle firearms. The UPS driver in my neighborhood is not an automotive expert, but I expect him to be able to operate the truck in a manner that doesn't endanger the neighborhood. While somebody else may be actually maintaining his truck, if he is driving 90 mph thru the neighborhood, I don't want to hear that the brakes could have been better.

Baldwin lost any empathy I have towards him when he actively sought to undermine an organization who encourages and teaches safe gun handling. I can't speak to the OK Corral, but if they are using real guns with live ammunition, like Baldwin was, they should stop. Likewise, if they don't know if their guns are loaded with live, dummy, or no ammunition, they should also stop. In fact, I'll go one step further - nobody, regardless of how charming they think they are, should point a gun at somebody unless A. they intend to shoot them, or B. they have taken an absurd level of precautions to ensure the gun is safe (note: I think checking first to see if a gun is loaded is a necessary precaution). The fact that Baldwin says he feels no guilt tells me he is completely untrustworthy to be around any situation where somebody could be harmed.

 

[mjkacmom]

Agree that he's not an expert. That said, he is a professional that as part of his job requires him to handle firearms. The UPS driver in my neighborhood is not an automotive expert, but I expect him to be able to operate the truck in a manner that doesn't endanger the neighborhood. While somebody else may be actually maintaining his truck, if he is driving 90 mph thru the neighborhood, I don't want to hear that the brakes could have been better.

Baldwin lost any empathy I have towards him when he actively sought to undermine an organization who encourages and teaches safe gun handling. I can't speak to the OK Corral, but if they are using real guns with live ammunition, like Baldwin was, they should stop. Likewise, if they don't know if their guns are loaded with live, dummy, or no ammunition, they should also stop. In fact, I'll go one step further - nobody, regardless of how charming they think they are, should point a gun at somebody unless A. they intend to shoot them, or B. they have taken an absurd level of precautions to ensure the gun is safe (note: I think checking first to see if a gun is loaded is a necessary precaution). The fact that Baldwin says he feels no guilt tells me he is completely untrustworthy to be around any situation where somebody could be harmed.

I’m pretty sure he said that on the advice of his lawyer, as soon as I heard the question I knew what the answer would be.

 

[Gamedog]

And Baldwin is not a firearms expert. He claims to have an average actor's exposure to firearms, and his IMFDB profile would indicate that. I'd hardly expect that he's an expert on it, like most actors who have gone skydiving for a scene aren't experts.

Meh... Still can't tip toe around the negligence.

I hope they make an example of Mr. Baldwin so all these anti-gun actors who make money off of movies filled with guns educate themselves a bit more before they grab a "prop gun" onset.

 

[dominiondad]

I’m pretty sure he said that on the advice of his lawyer, as soon as I heard the question I knew what the answer would be.

As Denis Morton (Peloton) would say, lawyers make suggestions, clients make decisions.

 

[Sinder]

Again - he was informed that it wasn't loaded. I know you're going to say it was his responsibility to check, but we're obviously going to be going around in circles arguing whether or not the delegation of that responsibility was enough.

Alec Baldwin fired a gun that shot and killed a woman because of his own negligence. He wasn't the only one who was negligent in this situation, but he isn't free and clear of his part in causing her death because "he's just and actor doing what he's told"
He broke all the rules of gun safety, there is no reasonable argument against that.

 

[mjkacmom]

As Denis Morton (Peloton) would say, lawyers make suggestions, clients make decisions.

Personally, I’d decide to listen to my lawyer!

 

[JimMIA]

 

[LuvOrlando]

Still can't wrap my head around using real working weapons on a set or trusting other people to this extent, just senseless.

 

[TLSnell1981]

You got the facts right, but whether those facts constitute murder in New Mexico is another question.

I don't know either NM statutes or case law, so I'm not going to guess whether Baldwin will be charged...or if so, with what crime(s).

Alec Baldwin feels no guilt or responsibility for the shooting of Joel Souza or killing Halyna Hutchins. He is a victim. At least, it's the story he's trying to sell. Baldwin is a bad actor too. I'm not buying any of his excuses. It may not have been intentional but I believe he is liable. Maybe not criminally but morally and financially.