He is protected by the movie industry. A normal person would've been arrested and charged with murder. Who wants to go to prison if they know they could get away with negligent homicide?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda…obviously, there are no do-overs in killings. Whether it was purposeful w/malice of forethought is something for NM state investigators to rule in/out. Second, I believe this vid captured what most likely happened in relation to Baldwin’s account. He lied. Third, foolishly narcissistic of him to do a tv interview, friendly or not (but I’m glad he did.) Whether he does prison time, we’ll have to wait and see. But, I’d be willing to bet he will be sued for all his worth and he will lose, regardless. I’m just curious if he had a previous relationship with the victim that soured and she threatened him. Has that been ruled out yet?
Regardless of who pulled the trigger, there's still the issue of why the firearm wasn't checked by the armorer to ensure it was safe and how live rounds made it onto a movie set and into a gun in the first place.
That is the main question, and if you think about it, there was definitely something shady going on. How does one accidentally bring live rounds to a set? Unless intentional.
Not according to the guy Baldwin accidentally shot. The armor was responsible for arming the weapon and responsible for making sure it was loaded with either blanks or dummy rounds.
Yep, it's incumbent, yep, it's a golden rule, no, it's not the law. Alec is a victim here, and not liable for what happened. Quit trying to pin this on someone just because you don't like them personally
I've watched several explanations as to why Baldin's account was false, but this one is the clearest, most definitive demonstration. Thank you, Kevin! It's another reason I'm so glad I recently signed on with USCCA.
Agreed, this is an excellent demonstration and it covered some points I had questions about. In particular, about the manufacture of the replicas (which he says here they are 1:1) and any possible reasons why the gun could actually go off accidentally (worn hammer sear). Now, it's just a matter of what the investigation will find.
I also was an army inspector, procurer, quality inspector of Army weapons and auxiliary items. There are procedures and safety controls and levels of certifications. Many steps can be compromised to accommodate schedules, time constraints. Procedures and safety controls are compromised at large and small companies. Quality inspections were sometimes pushed aside. Turnovers of people, misplacement of safety bulletins and last minute training all are contributors and/or impacts. Safety should be in capital letters and supprted by mngmnt throughout manufacturing, testing and inspections.
All attention seems to be focused on Baldwin and what he did or didn't do. Yet the BIG question seems to be buried inside the controversy. How the ding dong hell did a live round end up in the pistol to begin with?!
@@jerk5959 There are some reports that there was no target practice, that this was just a story to take attention off of the armorer or anyone else who had access to the gun.
@Walter Alter: *Irrelevant* - Baldwin didn't check the firearm, pointed it at someone, and fired it. Baldwin is responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins. Period.
The truth in any statement can be found in history. I watched "The hunt for Red October" again last night, despite Baldwin being in it. I noticed that every time he is on camera with a gun in his hand, he has his finger on the trigger. I wonder if anyone has ever seen him on screen without his finger on the trigger? Habits like that are hard to break and I would expect that this behavior is probably ingrained in him as this is what Hollywood portrays. I'm going to guess that he wasn't even aware that his finger was on the trigger. It's just bad training which leads to irresponsible, dangerous behavior.
@@weldmachine yup! I see a few main questions 1. As you said, why was it loaded? (Treat every gun as if loaded) 2. Why was it pointing at someone? (Only point at something you intend to shoot) 3. Why was the trigger pulled? (Only pull the trigger once you have a target to shoot). Sounds like 3 of the 4 rules of firearms were not followed.
@@glukeFlywalker obviously in a movie you're going to pull the trigger if the script calls for it without intending to shoot someone. Hence the use of blanks. So you obviously can't follow all 4 rules when filming a movie or nobody would ever pull the trigger or point a gun at someone. The same rules can't apply when you're using a gun loaded with blanks for a movie. The rule that is most important in this case is make sure the gun isn't loaded with live rounds.
@penny neal Try it yourself. You won't be able to do the motion he was doing in the interview without your trigger finger doing that motion. It was a meaningless video by just another grifter attempting to make money on the tragedy that happened. I dont think that's what USCCA is doing because their channel is demonetized. Also Alec is a liar, it doesnt take an expert in anything to know that.
I just watched your video with Colion Noir in which, after going through a training scenario, he was convinced he had fired only three shots when he really fired eight. Noir trains regularly with real guns. If he was that confused after a training session that went well (everyone was perfectly safe), imagine the trauma Baldwin must've felt after killing someone with a gun he assumed was perfectly safe. One can imagine his memory of what happened at that moment could easily have been distorted by the tremendous shock and horror. Where his real error was, was in not checking the gun thoroughly before using it on set. Had he bothered to take the ten seconds it takes to open the cylinder and look at what was in it, he would've instantly known there was at least one live round in there. He didn't do that.
In his Liberalism mindset he didn't pull the trigger, however, the trigger with his finger in the trigger guard was already pulled. My question is, why were there live rounds.
@@CH-qf3kn it definitely sounds like some idiot was taking that gun off-set and using it for sport. Guns on movie sets are never supposed to leave the set and very few people are supposed to have access to them. Whoever brought the live ammo on set deserves a second degree murder charge but it doesn't sound like they've figured out who did it, hence why they are going after Baldwin since he's the second most responsible person for this tragedy since he was the one that pointed the weapon at the woman and pulled the trigger. Live rounds or not, if Baldwin would have followed standard gun safety protocols for movie sets, that woman would still be alive.
Question must be how did live round get loaded into the gun and who did that. Also surely an armourer would have presented gun on set and he /she should of supplied ammo as well.? Would that not be the case
Big expert on firearms and their safe operation, Mr. I hate guns because I'm a Leftist Hollywood big shot who remains clueless about most things... Well Look at that... Not good, not good looks like you just murdered someone with a firearm there Alec buddy. Turn in your Democrat I.D. card right now! Also, being an actor you would think you would understand the importance of at least acting shook up for killing somebody for Christ's sake.
@@wanaraz It is not the actors that use them, it is done by professionals. Nobody is in front of the guns when they are used. For just 1 example, in the movie The Longriders there was a scene where a shootout occured between a posse and the James-Younger gang in a farmer's shack. When filming was finished and the shack was empty, live rounds were fired in it for effects. That is just as on the set as you can get. Plus, l can give you more examples.
@@johnharris8191 SAGAFTRA SAFETY BULLETIN #1 "LIVE AMMUNITION" IS NEVER TO BE USED NOR BROUGHT ONTO ANY STUDIO LOT OR STAGE. In those very special circumstances LIVE AMMUNITION may be used ONLY if the following criteria and special circumstances have been met. #3 This special use of LIVE AMMUNITION shall only be performed at a site that is suitable for the use of LIVE AMMUNITION ie Military, police, or private gun range, the deck of a vassal , or in an area deemed safe for this procedure.
Regarding 6:34 versus 3:24, Alex Baldwin said he did not pull the trigger. However if Alec Baldwin's finger was already resting on the trigger when his thumb released the cocked hammer, then it would have fired the fatal shot which was what happened. Therefore Alec Baldwin was trying to be clever by saying that he did not "pull" the trigger since his finger was already resting on the trigger when he let go of the cocked hammer. Nevertheless his finger should have never been inside of the trigger guard. Furthermore another implausible statement from Alec Baldwin was when he told George Stephanopoulos in his televised interview on ABC News, "The notion that there was a live round in that gun did not dawn on me until probably 45 minutes to an hour later." That was absurd, because as soon as his revolver fired and the loud bang of the explosion as well as the recoil jolt of the gun in his hand would have immediately let him know that he had shot Halyna Hutchins as she collapsed and later died on October 21, 2021.
When doing a western movie and with revolvers and true to the time period nobody draw their revolvers with the trigger finger laying outside and above the trigger guard, very naturally the finger enters the trigger guard and press onto the trigger for a quick life or death shot. Alec apparently had his trigger finger inside the trigger guard when he drew the revolver and when he released the hammer at full cocked position the revolver fired because the trigger had already been pressed. This was totally gross negligent and disrespect of gun handling safety. And hell yes Alec should and will be responsible for taking a life and wounding another.
Yes, alec isn’t telling the truth. He’s just starting to point fingers and blame someone else. He wasn’t even really crying. USCCA shows good videos. 👍🏽
While i agree and you are proba ly correct, we have to acknowledge the possibility of the gun failing. They will not release this info until after trial so we will have to wait and see. This is very unlikely, but we shouldnt do like the left and the msm and assume we know everything before the facts come out.
I'm guessing he had his finger pinning the trigger back as he cocked it and then when he released the hammer it fired. So in his mind he didn't actually pull the trigger. It was already pinned to the rear so no separate action was required.
Yes that mistake coupled with the fact he was pointing at someone even though he was told the gun was "cold" THEN we get to the question of WHERE did a live round come from?
He specifically said he never had his finger on the trigger. He is 100% lieing, just another leftists unwilling and unable to take responsibility for their own actions.
That’s what I was thinking. If the trigger was initially pinned against the rear of the trigger guard as you suggested, what happens to the hammer when it is then moved 1/8 inch back? Half cocked? I realize that with the hammer fully cocked and the trigger already pulled back that the gun will consequently fire the round.
@@josephcremeans I didn't watch the interview - did he really say that he never had his finger on the trigger? All I read is that he said he never pulled the trigger. Slight difference.
Hey Kevin, At 3:20 watch his hand as he describes his actions,. He's showing his index finger pulling a trigger,. Sympathetic finger response ! I believe he did pull the trigger by his description. That's a beautiful gun Kevin
I grew up with single actions because that’s what Dad had. I learned this lesson early on. Excellent explanation, especially addressing the proper condition of the hammer.
When I heard of this tragedy my first thought was, the only way it could go off without his finger on the trigger was if the part you mentioned in this video worn, or had been ground down on purpose. What makes me suspicious is; if they were just setting up the shot, why were there rounds in the pistol? Especially live ones?
I was thinking the same. As incompetent as it appears the armorer was, I wouldn't put it past them to modify it. If they didn't modify it, then they would have been negligent for allowing a defective firearm on the set.
its all pretty sketchy, there had already been 2 other accidental discharges on set by that point, and many of the staff had walked out and was on strike that day due to safety reasons
Long before Alec Baldwin was born, the gun safety rules were: ALWAYS treat EVERY gun as if it was loaded, and NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING or ANYONE that you do NOT intend to shoot. It may not have been Baldwin's JOB to check the gun, but it was his RESPONSIBILITY to check the gun. Alec was merely the LAST person in the chain to make sure that the gun was NOT loaded!!! Alec Baldwin did NOT check the gun to see if it was loaded and he pointed the gun at someone....... GUILTY! The only question is whether it is involuntary manslaughter or MURDER! Either way he should be behind bars.
Those rules are instructed/taught to people. They are not inherent knowledge. If he was not instructed on proper handling of firearms and relied on the expertise of an armourer then it falls on them or the studio.
@@F16_viper_pilot You are absolutely right, and maybe it might be worth mentioning that A.B. received 90 minutes of personal briefing from armorer H.G.-R.
@@mbogucki1 You're correct that gun safety rules have to be taught, but the onus is on Baldwin to get the training, not for someone else to foist it upon him.
It was obvious to anyone who knows anything about guns, etc., that he was lying and that he had to have pulled the trigger to fire the gun. Whether or not he intentionally tried tp harm is another issue, but he fired the gun at her period! Obvious questions include: why did they have live ammo on the set, why not a prop gun, why a fully functioning gun, and why didn't they have protocols in place to insure all prop weapons were safe for use on set?
He was relying on the left's ignorance of scary firearms to sway public opinion. If you imagine an angry Baldwin describing the incident (many videos of angry Baldwin online if an aid is needed) instead of calm Baldwin, it makes sense what happened. He was tired of filming, wanted to be home instead, mad that the crew walked out that day, was taking direction from a cinematographer which was insulting to his ego for something that most likely wasn't going to be used in the film. Given that scenario I believe angry Baldwin intentionally aimed and fired. It was probably meant to scare the cinematographer if he believed blanks were loaded, intentional murder if he thought real ammo was loaded.
The weapon could be malfunctioning. If it isn't, he lied in an interview, but nothing happened to people that lie on national television. Adam Shiff does it, every president does it, every single intelligence agency employee does it, every politician does it, and every general does it, like Colin Powell.
Well in regards to "why not a prop gun" typically it is a lot cheaper and more realistic to just rent the actual thing and use dummy rounds as opposed to making or buying a genuinely convincing fake.
@@richardwicks4190 Technically it could have malfunctioned, but what are the chances that this malfunction just happened to occur when the gun contained a live round? What are the odds of that? The gun works just fine for all the time it's used the way its supposed to be used, but the one time it has a live round in it, that's when it fails to work as it should? I don't buy it.
@@TheStapleGunKid It could have been malfunctioning all along. It was explained HOW it could have. There would be physical evidence of it, if it had. I'm not defending Baldwin. It's the HEIGHT of stupidity to be handling even a FAKE weapon without having training in gun safety. Any weapons on set should have been TRUE prop guns. No live ammo should EVER be on set. He didn't know how to clear the weapon either. I think Baldwin should go to prison. I know what happened to Brandon Lee. The weapon was loaded with bullet with the primer and propellant removed. The bullet fell out of the casing, and the same gun was loaded with a blank, that didn't have a bullet, but had the primer and the propellant. Now, I can understand how THAT accident happened, and that was an awful accident, but it was an accident. This case at least is 3 layers of negligence. Here's Baldwin shooting his stupid mouth off about the evils of guns, and he just killed somebody because he couldn't take 10 minutes to get a basic understanding of gun safety. 1) always verify the gun is unloaded. 2) never point the gun at something you're not willing to put a bullet in. 3) assume the gun can fire off at any moment. 4) even after you've verified the gun is unloaded assume you've made an error and it is loaded 5) don't trust anybody not to make an error when they say "this gun isn't loaded". 6) don't rest your finger on the trigger, and assume that no matter what precautions you've taken, when you pull the trigger, it's going to fire a bullet. Takes 10 minutes to memorize that. Baldwin has been doing acting for years with guns. It's professional incompetence that killed that director. If we had a functioning judicial system he would be going to jail - but he's not going to jail. It's entirely HIS FAULT that director is dead. He killed her. It's entirely his responsibility.
His memory might have created a false narrative. He may truly believe his finger wasn't on the trigger, but in actual reality it was. He doesn't want to be blamed or feel responsible for taking someone's life.
Why are they trying so hard to charge everyone except, the ARMORER! It was her job to secure weapons and make sure they were safe, and it's obvious that she didn't!
@@australian8579 The interview is out now. Watch the whole thing. About 26 minutes in she's babbling on about how bullets work like she's talking to a dog. How the "nipple bit at the end comes out" (talking about the bullet). It's insane! At one point she pulls a load of dummy rounds out of her dirty pocket and dumps them on the desk of the police interview. I'm not even joking! She's a sulky teenager with permanent vocal fry. Every second word is "like" No joke.
The Armorer Hannah Reed was NOT notified by Baldwin who is the co-producer. Baldwin decided not to inform the armorer before this impromptu scene of his with a LIVE firearm smh. The investigation into it says she was not given adequate time to do her job. She's off the hook.
I see your point but any prosecutor could say that Alec could have knowingly put bullets in the gun any time after it was handed to him so that he could shoot someone and blame it on the armorer. The person with the weapon is at fault.
Basic stuff: open the chamber, in this case, swing the cylinder of the revolver open and inspect the 5-6 chambers. Are there any rounds in the gun? If it's a semi-auto pistol, slide the magazine out and rack the slide back. If there are no rounds present in the magazine or were ejected from the chamber, the gun is not loaded. Even when a gun is NOT loaded, NEVER, EVER point it at a person. Any questions???
unless they show intent to harm you or anyone else. Then and only then is it ok to point the gun at them. Or a animal under the same actions and intent, ANY Questions
Great video! I also noticed that he deliberately talks about her agreement with his actions. As though she agreed to have the gun pointed directly at her while he manipulates its functions. I'm disgusted with it because it will be used to say she accepted the risk of being shot and killed. He's lying about pulling the trigger with the muzzle aimed at her body so there's no reason to believe he's being honest about her agreeing to it multiple times as it was happening. Heartless!
He also said in his interview that he didn't know he shot anyone for ~45 minutes...and that was after explaining how he was trained to "create" recoil when filming because there's not enough kick unless there's a live-round. And so he fired a live-round, but somehow didn't realize he hurled a ~230grain bullet and hit two people, and didn't realize it immediately, and was gripping it tightly enough to not have it fly back into his face but wasn't expecting to shoot? Um, ok...he incriminated himself with his description of getting training about the recoil and exaggerating it with dummy-rounds. Good job!
Yeah, don't they also have slightly cooler loaded blanks than training blanks because they don't have ear protection on set? Ill look up, but i think they do because I can guarantee that actors are going to complain about hearing damage. If they do, then that would only add to your argument. Not only is the specified blank supposed to have significantly less recoil due to not having a projectile, but they also wouldn't even have as much noise as a real cartridge.
@@johnstrickland3933 keep in mind it's not 45 acp, it's 45 long Colt. If I'm not mistaken it's one of those cases where it was originally black powder (weaker, dirtier and lower pressure with a faster burn rate) and was later made in smokeless. (slower burn rate but higher pressures and a LOT less fowling) Funny thing is: the BLACK POWDER cartridge flippy as hell for it's day, and now it's smokeless? Needless to say it's gonna have a LOT of kick. Not 50AE or 500S&W but still pretty jarring especially for someone like Alec Baldwin who actively avoids firearms.
According to AB, he didn’t have his finger on the trigger and his thumb slipped from the hammer, so he was holding the gun with only three fingers when it went off unexpectedly. It strains credulity that he maintained control of the weapon let alone that he didn’t even know he shot her.
WHAT?? You think he should admit he accidentally killed someone and go to jail for manslaughter? Of course he's not going to do that when hollywood is going to do whatever (and thats a lot) they can to make sure he isn't charged? The only way they will throw him under the bus is if they (hollywood) are facing some kind of charges for deadly, hazardous, work environment.
Are you serious? He can't do that. That would mean actually taking responsibility for his action! And you can't do that in Hollywood unless everyone in Hollywood suddenly comes out with a story about how "Alec Baldwin almost shot ME TOO."
I've had some experience with pyrotechnics, including a few movie shoots. The movie pyro guys were always the most terrifying and required the most scrutiny. He's either a liar, or the gun was modified in some bs manner, or whatever...bottom line is sloppy sloppy sloppy incompetence and now someone is dead. 1,000,000% absolutely avoidable, foreseeable, and jail time is called for.
For those who might be overly fearful of firearms being dangerous, it's important to note the Baldwin didn't just violate one or even two basic safety rules for handling firearms, he violated ALL of the basics. If he had enough sense to follow Any of them, as a parent could expect from their average ten year old, then a woman would still be alive today.
@@beardedbomber9862 My dad trusted me, with his strict supervision, to handle the single shot .22 rifle he had cut down to fit me at age 7. I was never allowed to touch that or any gun until he knew gun safety was in-bedded in my mind! As for trusting according to age, obviously that didn't matter in Baldwin's case. There can be no doubt there are 10 year olds out there who are much more gun safety wise than this turkey.
@@beardedbomber9862 You are supposed to earn that kind of trust. I wasn't allowed to learn how to shoot as a kid until I had a track record of being moral and ethical, on top of knowing the basics of gun safety.
@@beardedbomber9862 you mean the one with the ozzie? I know of that one.. And ther was no reason to let her shot that by her self with out assistance holding it with her. And even then its still uncontrolable.
In all my experiences with firearms a person who hasn’t had proper training or any training at all has a natural urge to place their finger inside the trigger guard. They almost never realize that they are doing it until it’s pointed out to them.
From what I can gather if you minorly depress the trigger like he might do without knowledge like ie: pulling it out of pocket during set trying to get a shot in the film he can by pass the sear on the pistol atleast from other videos I've watched I'm not entirely sure though
People like you make me sick, he is an actor and doesn’t deal with guns especially guns with full rounds. The guy was in tears and then there’s someone like you who comes around and wants to make everybody believe he did it intentionally. If you ever been put in his position? All of you gun toting lunatics want to always come up with some ridiculous reason why something happened. This is no more than a conspiracy theory. Why don’t you stay off the Internet spreading lies that you know nothing about. You were not there you don’t know who handled the gun before him you don’t know anything about the situation yeah you want to go on the Internet and tell thousands of people stories to make it look like he did this on purpose. Don’t you think he’s hurting bad enough. Sometimes you’ve gun toting fanatics need to just stop and keep it to yourself
Actually, he wouldn't have...because he genuinely doesn't know that he's supposed to. In that situation, Alec Baldwin would be dead, the D.P. would be alive, and the armorer would be in jail.
I don't get it he is not responsible for loading the gun so why should he know how to handle it he's an actor the real question is who the idiot was that loaded that gun with live ammo that's the killer it doesn't really matter if he pulled the trigger or not unless he loaded the gun himself someone explain to me please
@@masel4578 because every person that picks up a gun, of any kind, for any reason, becomes personally responsible for it. The fact that he is (again WILLFULLY) gun ignorant doesn't give him a pass, nor does it make anyone else more responsible than him. People who know about guns don't wave them around without making ABSOLUTELY certain that they are completely safe. People who know about guns verify FOR THEMSELVES the status of a firearm, they do not take anyone else's word for it; and that is literally one of the very first rules of firearm safety. It takes nothing but willingness to learn the rules; but since Baldwin himself is so vehemently anti-gun, he just never bothered. And now it's come back to bite him on his ignorant ass...at the cost of an innocent life.
@@NCBikerBoy well I totally agree with what you're saying but I think legally speaking it doesn't matter because I don't think that there is an actual law that says you have to know how to handle a gun but yeah I understand what you're saying but also I don't think that every actor in every action movie checked their magazines in my opinion the one who loaded that gun and confirmed it was cold is responsible for this.
@@masel4578 That's not how it works. If I take a gun from you, don't verify that it's cleared and safe; then turn around and shoot someone, I AM HELD RESPONSIBLE, not you. I'm not suggesting that every actor that handles a firearm in a movie is gun savvy; but I am saying that most of them aren't so gun illiterate as to be waving a gun around, regardless of whether they've been told it's a "cold gun" or not. Also, whether "cold" or not, behaving the way he was with that firearm is unacceptable. On the set of the Matrix movies, how many firearm injuries were there? None, despite exponentially more gunplay. Why is that, do you think? Because firearm safety was observed to the letter, and most importantly, because the cast members (all of them) learned the rules, and followed them to the letter. 20+ years later, Keanu Reeves is effectively a competitive shooter, because he learned the basics back then; and then built onto those skills when preparing for the John Wick movies. I'm not sure I believe Baldwin was even told "cold gun", I believe he just assumed it was safe, since it was a "prop", and proceeded to act in a grossly unsafe manner. As far as the deadly round itself is concerned, I don't believe it was actually a full bullet; but in fact a fragment of a dummy round that was fired. A similar scenario is exactly what cost Brandon Lee his life while filming "The Crow". Every safety rule was followed, in that case; however a dislodged dummy bullet head got stuck in the gun, and was subsequently pushed out when the blank went off. All proper loading and unloading procedures were followed, so ultimately no one was to blame; and it was ruled exactly what it was: a fluke, tragic accident. The Baldwin shooting, by reason of the level of ignorance at play; was negligence, pure and simple. And that's not what defines an accident.
USCCA member and retired US Army SF TM SGT. I've watched almost a baker's dozen of these explanations, and this was by far the best videography. Camera, audio, presenter...clear and concise. Great job.
I worked in Hollywood briefly, did two movies with guns on set, we were so careful and I was happy to see how controlled it was. Baldwin's production failed miserably on many safety points. Here's what I saw on set I worked: 1. No gun went into the hand of an actor until 4 people verified it was unloaded (clearing chamber and dry firing); the actor, the prop master, a crewman (me several times), and an assistant director. Rubber guns were verified too. Prop master would often take the weapon between scenes and repeat the safety check every time it went back to the actor. 2. If a gun was to be pointed towards a camera, the camera operators were behind bullet proof glass, even if the gun was unloaded (or, the camera was setup, turned on, and the operators left the area). 3. Blank ammunition was verified by the prop masters and producers and then came to the set straight from the armorers and they would handle the guns when the cameras were off. 4. If someone was in the path of the barrel firing blanks on camera, it was 99% of the time a stuntperson with cleverly concealed body armor. 5. If shooting towards off camera, obviously no one was in the path of the barrel. 6. (bit of an extension of #1) Prop guns used in non-shooting scenes were often mechanically inoperable. No firing pin, no springs, etc.
@@gbolt111 production mistake is an obvious at this point...it not an actor job to know the gun is real or not...can't imagine when a cow boy actor point gun and pew pew came from his mouth...the prolong the suffering of the actor who did not know the gun was armed with live round
@@gbolt111 Guilty of shooting yes but guilty of killing is a no....all this can be avoided if the two suspect do their job...plus why would Alec want to kill film crew? when he pull the triggered as he was ordered to so in his job as an acdtor in western film which involve guns...plus he became an unintentional killer because two idiot does not do their job properly which make them the actual killer not the actor...just because he felt guilty does not make him the suspect or an actual killer...if you were in his shoe would you felt guilty on something that can be avoided if the people you trust to work with do their job completely?
I remember reading in my local paper that a witness testified that the "Gun expert" told Mr. Baldwin the phrase, "Cold Weapon" as he handed him the gun, it's my understanding that THAT phrase means the weapon is safe for use for that scene. That actually takes the murder charge off the table as, in Mr. Baldwin's mind, he thought there was no danger of him pointing the weapon as the script directs him to do. But in my military training, when one is issued one's weapon, the first thing you do is check to ensure the weapon is clear. For a Soldier, that means NO ROUND is in the chamber, but this is about a civilian movie set, so even if Mr. Baldwin had checked the weapon, (pretty sure this was a western revolver), he cannot actually remove the bullets to ensure they were blanks, because if he HAD DONE so, he could've been accused of replacing them with a live round in the gun, (and that's assuming he's trained to know the difference between a live round and a blank). That means the final safety check MUST be done by the "Safety expert" for that movie. This is just my opinion trying to follow a logical train of thought regarding safety.
If our lives hang in the balance when we are handling firearms, so should the elites. It’s a huge responsibility every time you pick up a firearm. It is YOUR responsibility to ensure it is safe. Consequences are needed for the idiot who caused this innocent person to die
If I go to a gun range as a novice its the range officers responsibility to make sure the firearm is safe and to instruct me how to use is properly. That is what I paid for. If they hand me a firearm and say its safe or unloaded why should I doubt them? And how am I supposed to know how to make it safe? Same thing applies here. Baldwin relied on the expertise of the armourer. Liability is with them.
@@mbogucki1 A range officer is not there to instruct, but to enforce safe gun handling. That is what you are paying for. If you want instruction take a gun safety class.
Like you said, a full examination of the gun by an independent professional gun smith would definitely determine if the gun had an issue. ( lack of, or poor maintenance ) Based on those findings one could then be confident that Mr Baldwin is not describing the incident truthfully. Regardless, why was there live ammunition on location in the first place. Many factors added up to make this a bad scene.
@@endermata1952 Many things Alec said in his interview spoke volumes but his implying he essentially ending up aiming at the producer (which he must have done at some point), at the instruction of the producer, supposedly (that's what he said), is bonkers and ridiculously irresponsible. "Oh btw, you've got me aiming at you now btw, just so you know" - or.. "I cant aim there, that would be aiming at you". All whilst he proceeded to fiddle with pulling back the hammer (with his finger on the trigger it seems). I guess she didn't notice since she was watching her producer screen and not him.
@Jacob Craven Fair points, though that theory as to how it went off if the gun was somehow faulty is yet to be proven which presumably is then the responsibility of the armour? Granted this sounds like a tragic accident but there seems to be a chain of issues, reports of misfires earlier in the filming and each not taking what they're using seriously and the gravity of the "what if" scenario of something going wrong. I believe the lady who got shot was also the co-producer? Or director? (and cinematographer, ok). Regardless she was directing him at that moment and all were presuming the gun was "cold" as he said but he never checked it himself which sounds risky to me given he was put in charge of it at that time. No doubt the whole tragedy and how it happened so it can't ever happen again will be investigated fully.
@Jacob Craven I'm actually from the UK and we're not allowed to own firearms (well you can but have to jump through infinite hoops) but what is the law when you're using a gun that's not registered to you (given these prop guns seem to have identical capability as the real ones, using blanks or real bullets)? What does the law say in the US in respects to using a gun not registered to you and who is therefore responsible?
You can’t dismiss the possibility he put a bullet in the gun! Sure it’s almost an old Columbia plot but if we didn’t know it was a famous star, we’d be thinking all these possibilities. I’m sure the cops are.
My two thoughts on this tragedy. 1) Why was live ammo anywhere near the set? Whoever brought it shares the blame in this. 2) Why does a prop gun even need to be able to accept real ammo? Yes, I understand the desire to be as authentic as possible so the gun looks real. Why can't an authentic barrel be made with a non-standard caliber bore that will only accept a blank made to that caliber? A gun in a movie or TV show really only needs to do a few things. Look authentic. Make a 'bang' when it goes off. (Even that can be added in post production) And a puff of smoke (Again, can be added post production if need be, though may not look realistic) It doesn't need to accept real ammo to do these things.
I've seen another video from a gun expert who claims that live ammo cannot "fit" into a prop gun. I wholeheartedly agree with you. The big question looming: What the hell was live ammo even doing on the set?
@@lorinwegand6324 the "gun expert" you watched is either lying about being an expert, or lying about whether live ammo will fit. A prop gun is just a gun used on set. This is how several deaths have occurred on set
Mike Tristano has supervised firearms on film sets for more than 30 years, keeping a close eye on the guns used during the filming of “The Purge,” “Harsh Times” and hundreds of other movies. When it comes to guns and ammunition on sets, Tristano said, “the buck always stops” with the armorer, the licensed professional - sometimes credited as a “weapons master” - tasked with making sure movie firearms are safe and secure on set.
If you’ll also notice, every time he demonstrates in an interview how he was holding the gun, his hand and finger are in the position to pull the trigger. And he said in his police interview multiple times that he shot her. He will sometimes say the gun went off, but several times he said he shot her. I’d love to be on this jury.
It’s gonna take forever to pick a jury for this one. If he does get convicted chances are he will die in jail. He’s looking old right now, them conditions can worsen 10 fold; without the proper care. Not a good situation for him
Technically, that could just be seen as semantics. If you're holding a gun that spontaneously goes off and shoots someone, it's easier to just say I shot this person or I accidentally shot this person or this person got shot as opposed to the gun went off in my hand and the other person got hit. Our brains are lazy and will use whatever comes shortest/easiest when it comes to language/pronunciation
@@samuelelliott8453 semantics could be the difference bt life and death in a murder trial. I bet the DA will drive home the point that he kept saying he shot her.
@@donnanelson9181 except this sint testimony at a trial, this is an interview. They can't use this testimony 100% at a trial. The defendant would get to clarify what they meant before it was used if it's going to be used at all.
The irony is so thick on this one. Alec being such a pita to law abiding gun owners. Now its exactly them who hold Alecs fait with real knowledge like this video. Priceless.
I think it was his lack of gun comfort that contributed to his rushed and sloppy handling/safety which along with the mystery bullet resulted in a death.
I think you meant to spell "fate", however on a positive note, if you were French then you would have spelled it correctly!!! Also, the live round got on that set, by someone's human hand, the question is, who was that someone??
@@user-hd1qx2bd1r Your right, I'm not French. But If I did have any French in me I would hope that it would own the smallest percentage. No matter how people want to spin this, its the person who pulled the trigger that is responsible. Alec can and has blamed everyone but himself, but at the end of the day he pulled the trigger.
@@brockisoverrated CC, Come on! use that un french brain of yours, LOL, Inspector Clouseau, there's absolutely no sense or gain, in him doing this, absolutely NO motive to do this. Give me a break! Somebody set him up (and really well) so that there's no leads! It was professionally set-up because who ever did it, made sure everybody on the set, either touched or had something to do with the murder weapon, and that makes everybody a suspect!!! It's going to take one amazing Detective, to uncover this well thought-out murder. This was no rookie murderer, whoever planned this, even understood how it would look when, and as, the News would portray it out to the Public. Gotta be Organized Crime, because they have lots of experienced lifetime guys in the murder racket. Better believe it. I don't know why they've done this to Baldwin, but whatever Baldwin did, This Murder Set-Up was done to #1 Go after him specifically, on the Movie Set, and maybe more incriminatingly important, It's a Message to the Movie Industry. Murdering just Baldwin in his usual life, alone somewhere would have been very easy and quiet, indeed for a Professional killer, because Baldwin wouldn't have even known it was coming, totally easy routine Target, for a Pro. #2 Whoever did this, wins two (2) ways because they now have ruined Baldwins life forever even whether he's found guilty or not, AND they've sent a HUGE Lovely message to ALL others in the Movie Industry, This same thing can happen just as easily to you too! DON'T DO WHAT BALDWIN DID. The United States has a long, long history of never finding, especially important peoples, killers. The whole United States Police forces, never found John Kennedy's killers, and they've also never found Martin Luther King's killers either. Probably the two most prominent figures in the world at that time, especially in United States, and both Murders remain 55 years on, unsolved.
Could the trigger seer be worn out simultaneously do you think. It’s a long shot. I think he’s lying, personally. He definitely put his finger on the trigger somehow for sure.
@@fistfighter2652 If the tip of trigger/sear were indeed broken off, it surely should have been obvious the last time the armorer handled the firearm. Same for the leg of the trigger spring and the notches in the hammer, themselves. I've been shooting/carrying single action revolvers for over 20 years, and I've never had either of these happen to any of my guns. I've had the bolt leg of the spring break. I've had the bolt leg itself break. I've had a hand spring break, but never anything that could cause what Alec claims to have happened, to happen. Hopefully that gun is being closely examined and guarded so that we'll know for certain whether or not he is telling the truth.
@@bigrob6076 "sear" generically refers to whatever mechanical interlock surface which functions to hold the firing mechanism in the energized position. For a hammer fire weapon, this is what locks the hammer back against the hammer spring. For a striker fire weapon this is what holds the striker (firing pin) back against the striker spring.
Yeah he straight up lied, he did pull the trigger! He needs to be responsible for his actions a real man would step up and face the music!!!!! Takes a man to admit he was wrong... Obviously Baldwin isn't a man.
Yeah, he lied.. it's kinda stupid that he avoids this admission.. I see what you're saying.. (He's trying to avoid partiall liability .. which makes sense .. would you want to possibly get sued because of someone elsed major error . ) However, he shouldn't have been given loaded live ammunition. It is not his fault. There was a major fuckup, and there should not have been ANY live ammo on set. This armorer was her first movie (her father was famous in the industry ... So there was some nepotism going on.) and admittedly she was in over her head. She's gonna be held liable and likely never work in that field again.
@@edwardhanna86 he's still at fault, no mater who hands you a firearm loaded or not you must check it and practice safety always! Never point it at anyone or anything you don't intend to destroy, Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot and always be aware of what lies behind your target. Safety is paramount there are many parties responsible here ultimately it falls on the last person to verify what they are being handed.
Two points. One, you said he lied about not pointing the gun at her; he said in the interview that he didn’t point it at the camera. He said he aimed it slightly off, “in her direction “. Two, you said a gun can not go off on it’s own which is simply not true. We had several accidental discharges from dropping a gun, at a sheriff’s department who’s county seat is in the city where I was a city officer.
READ: Initially, the Baldwin story was that he was to point it directly at her, in the precise direction of her and the camera for the desired camera shot. And of course, he did point it at her, pulled the trigger, with the bullet striking her, and killing her. Colt revolvers do not “go off” on their own, and this gun was examined and found to function normally, as expected. Numerous gun experts have examined the story and evidence, and conclude that Baldwin bears some responsibility, as does the Armourer, and the non-qualified individual who handed Baldwin the gun with live ammo. Attorneys obfuscated, diverted attention, and clouded issues with their encyclopedic document cesspool for the Court to wade through, and eventually toss the case. This is a common occurrence in the American system…..and we will see it again.
We all know baldwin is lying, however, we do need to give him his rights of due process. There is a possibility, albeit small one, the gun was in disrepair as you suggested, which would ve easily proven and will come out in court. Aside from that, he pulled the trigger. The armorer needs to face charges as well for the live ammo issue.
Yes, he gets and deserves due process, BUT, that small possibility you cite does not relieve him of ultimate responsibility for the tragic outcome. He had the BASIC firearm safety responsibility to: 1. Check the allegedly "empty" firearm when it was given to him, and 2. NOT TO POINT THE GUN AT ANYTHING THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT! He is an activist clown that obviously chose NOT to learn or practice basic firearm safety in spite of handling many firearms for his job over the decades of his career. The armorer is certainly negligent also, as was anyone (assistant director) who reportedly handled the Pietta directly before handling it to him. Also, that begs the issue of why ANY live ammo was anywhere on the set. Baldwin was also the producer and ultimately responsible for ensuring that was the case. -An experienced single action competitive shooter and RO.
@@davidjaniec3838 totally agree. But i would say, i hate baldwin as much as the next gun guy, but he hired an armorer. The rules of gun safety do apply, to guns. I wouldnt assume that was a real gun and maybe he didnt eother. I had no idea real guns and ammo were used on sets. They dont even use real ice cubes or real paper grocery bags on movie sets. Again, the fact will come out, but applying range safety rules to a movie set isnt, or atleast shouldnt, apply really. How in the world real ammo was there is beyond me, but he holds responsibility for that as a producer. Ultimately he hold some responsibility, but this is more complicated than me just picking up a 45 and pointing it at you and saying i didnt pull the trugger. You are mostly correct tho.
@@davidjaniec3838 also consider this. Your rule 1, check the gun is unloaded. Well, in a movie it would need blanks, and in a revolver some type of ammo looking thing the would make the visible chambers look loaded. Kinda different from the range. Your rule 2, in movies they point guns at each other all the time. Litterally every single movie ever made with a gun in it. See the difference from range rules. Your rulws are correct and the ones we all live by, we just dont film movies lol. Again lets wait for the facts.
Exactly. Weird how people are acting like he showed up on set to kill this person. When in reality he showed up to work and then his life changed forever in a split second.
@@adamgardener8624 yeah murder, check out the penalties for someone dying in a negligent discharge of a weapon it can come from felony to 3rd degree and in some cases you'll find 2nd degree murder. It doesn't matter who loaded the weapon, as soon as a gun is in your hands it is your responsibility to check it and treat it always as if loaded. He should have known the basic rules of firearm safety before getting real guns into that set. Well even better he should have never brought real life guns into that set. Plus he was the producer so he can't pass the blame up cause it would fall back on him, also the rookie armorer he employed.
@@rainchazzer6308 Imagine people getting away with the Baldwin defense which is he didn't load the gun and didn't pull the trigger. An ordinary person would be in jail.
@@chuckles3265 The better question is whether those filming movies have experience with firearms. I have 60 years of firearm experience and have never shot anything I didn't intend to. Also. I've never killed or injured anyone with a camara either.
@@michaelschneider6106 that is the better question. Baldwin was not the firearms expert. There were "experts" on set. This Baldwin witch-hunt is political.
He didn't say "I didn't have my finger on the trigger" he said "I never pulled the trigger" ... Which we both know it doesn't take much tension on the trigger for hammer release.
The most dangerous gun is the gun that the one the holder believes is "safe" i.e. unloaded. One of the most basic principles of clearing a firearm is to point the gun in a safe direction, and then clear or proceed to make the gun safe. No one is asking - why would you keep the gun pointed at someone else while lowering the hammer, which happens to be one of the most dangerous actions performed by those using any revolver ? I can only think of ONE reason to keep the firearm pointed at someone else while attempting to lower the hammer, which is his latest story. That is - you would keep it pointed at that other person SIMPLY because you want to intimidate that other person. As far as Alec Baldwin being a newb; well, he's been handling firearms of many sorts over the past few decades, to say he's should be absolved because < insert whatever excuse you like here > is ridiculous. Any other regular person in the US would be already charged if they intentionally pointed a firearm at someone else, regardless of or if they pulled the trigger and the projectile injured or killed someone else. Many have gone to jail or prison for EVEN less than that. Alec has changed his story so many times, it's beyond ridiculous. That too would be grounds for most DA's to put the perp behind bars and in front of a judge and jury.
I think it was murder. I get to choose between that and just clownish levels of mass incompetence and negligence, and murder simply seems more plausible to me.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 Can an action occur from subconscious impulses ? Did he 'unintentionally ' pull the trigger ? Because his explanation is physically impossible, an obvious lie to anyone familiar with SA Colt Army revolvers. This could be ' the perfect murder '..A B is lying like a rug..minimizing his accountability..passing the buck to the Armoror..who everyone knew was overworked and sometimes sloppy with firearms on set.. The perfect ' fall girl ' for his act ?
That's the biggest problem I have with these video's by many people on RUclips. They are telling people it's impossible for a gun to go off without pulling the trigger and having no discussion about gun safety and why it's important to treat every single firearm like it will. It's not about if he pulled the trigger, in the end it doesn't really matter unless the people prosecuting him think he planned her murder. He was negligent in his hiring of the armourer, he was negligent in his handling of the gun, the armourer was negligent and underqualified and allowed conditions on set to become unsafe. That's what matters but everyone is anxious to tell billions around the world that it's perfectly fine to point a gun at people because it's impossible for it to go off if you don't pull the trigger. It doesn't matter that this isn't the message they intend to send out, that's the message that's getting to people. Nobody should be having this discussion without first listing gun safety procedures. They should also point out that even if there is a problem with the gun and Baldwin didn't pull the trigger, if he followed proper safety procedures with the gun, nobody would have gotten hurt. The people on these channels including this one are violating rule #1 for anyone who teaches gun safety. This video needs to be taken down and done again with actually having a brief talk about procedures and why they are important.
I know nothing about guns and have never seen one that wasnt on a policemans hip. I could not understand how it could be fired without pulling the trigger and felt there was much more to Baldwin's story Your explanation was fantastic Thankyou
You should go to a range some time just to experience it and the accompanying gun safety training you will receive from anyone there if you ask for help. Every single person on the planet who knows how guns work knows the guy is lying. Even if he wasn't they also know this was still only his fault. Not the armorer or anybody else. They may have been negligent too. But they didn't shoot anyone either. Baldwin did. Whenever you assume control of a gun, that gun is your responsibility. A lot of people miss that about this case. Anyways, I think you'd enjoy shooting at least once, so I definitely recommend it. If you're nervous about it before, you won't be by the time you leave. Guns are safe and fun once you learn the basic rules of it. You should respect them, but not fear them. It's people you should worry about, and they can kill you just fine without a gun. Particularly the gun grabbers.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 thank you so much for reply. Where I live there are no gun ranges at all. I'm not in the USA but if I lived there I think it would be a great idea to take all your kind advice Thanks again.🤗
I worked as a medic with the movie, television industry for 25 years. I was also a certified NRA rifle and pistol instructor and I am currently a National Muzzle Loading Association artillery instructor. On a movie set actors are given a gun by the armorer and told what to do. They do what the script says with the gun. The scene is performed by standins before the actual scene is filmed. The presence of live rounds on the set is never done. Live rounds are only used at safe locations. I worked for a week with the actual gun training for Robert de Niro and Al Pacino at the LA Sheriff range as they prepared for a movie. They trained with live rounds for their movie. The movie used blanks. On set the armorer loads the gun with proper blank rounds. They may be light, half or full loads depending on the script. The director will announce the use of gunfire and the type of load before the filming starts. The actor with the gun never, never loads the gun unless that is to be filmed. He/she is an actor being filmed with a prop gun and is told how, when and what to do with it. The armorer who supplies the gun and the ammunition is totally responsible for the condition of the gun and what ammunition is used. So what that Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. He was supposed to do that for the film. To him the gun was just a movie prop. That gun was reasonably safe as far as he, the director, the camera operator, or any other of the dozens of others on the set were concerned. It was still a gun and blanks can be dangerous as Jet Lee found out. He was killed by a bullet that had been left in the gun barrel from a previous scene that was then fired by a blank. The problem and the negligence lies entirely with the woman who brought live rounds to the set, She loaded the gun with them. Of course she then announced to the crew that the weapon contained real bullets.
Somewhat addressed in the video itself: It IS actually possible for the gun to fire by only drawing the hammer back (if certain mechanisms are worn). So we don't yet have proof Baldwin was lying or "not telling the truth". Also worth noting is that for trick shooting or less scrupulous/rational reasons, revolvers can intentionally be altered into "slip guns" that fire without need of the trigger-- drawing the hammer automatically releases it, the trigger doesn't matter. At issue is that some of these older weapons have exchanged a lot of hands, are possibly in disrepair, may have possibly been customized and need to be inspected. *source: my grandfather was a trick shot competitor Into speculation: if the hammer was not catching it would actually play into the director asking Baldwin to keep drawing it back. It would have a lot of tension so keep slipping and not look/sound right. Eventually, he would have pulled it back farther and releasing it Would fire the weapon. An armorer present and aware would have immediately recognized something was wrong if the hammer was doing this.
there´s something easier that the amourer could have done instead of noticing that the hammer was potentially worn... check that the gun is loaded with live fire, and that the guy was cocking a gun while aiming it at someone. it´s criminally neglegent by everyone. my questions are, why would someone alter the hammer to be a slip gun? when all you need to do is hold the trigger while operating hammer for the same effect? it seems odd. also, if the hammer was so worn, how was the weapon able to operate when it was fired earlier? considering that the gun couldn´t be cocked without firing?
For what you say to happen the gun would have to have the safety/loading notch sheared off on the hammer. That would have been immediately obvious to anyone trying to load it. You can't turn the cylinder manually to load the gun if the hammer isn't held back to the exact position required to disengage the bolt that locks the alignment of the cylinder chamber to the bore of the barrel. That notch is a deep one, meant to both prevent a slipped hammer from setting off a cartridge, and hold the hammer in the position needed to retract the bolt to facilitate loading the gun. A single action modified to easily fan the hammer has the hammer spur knurling smoothed so it doesn't tear up the palm of the off hand. And even *those* have to have the trigger held back for them to fire.
I haven’t looked into this whole situation much cause I tend to stay away from BS. But where is the footage of him firing the weapon? Either way, you absolutely nailed it. There is absolutely no such thing as an accidental discharge where an injury or death is related. That will always be a negligent discharge. Even if a weapon does utterly and totally malfunction to the point of literally just going bang, nobody would be in the line of fire if basic firearm safety measures are being practiced
If there is any footage it would be considered evidence and is probably going to be locked away until the trial is over. Even when the trial is over, they may not release it to the public at the family's request and such. So it's going to be a while before we see it, if we get to see it.
Too bad this is worthless as that’s not the gun. Who knows if it was a clapped out movie set gun. Also guns don’t use live rounds on movie sets. How many movies exist where firearms are used? This is so stupid to play “look at meh gun looks same” or “I’m so cool becuz I shoot real guns”. Who cares?
@@audimaster5000 it is suspected that a real bullet was used. Even if it wasn't blanks are still very capable of killing people, and still doesn't discount the fact that it was powerful enough to penetrate two people in a row. It is not uncommon for real firearms and bullets were used in filming for various reasons. Prop gun =/= toy gun Whatever the case gun safety procedures exist for a reason. He didn't follow them and now someone is dead.
It was said a live bullet was used. How it got in there is a mystery. Plus the gun should have been checked for defects. If there are any, which stated in the video, can be proved. If the gun is indeed a defect, someone didn't do their job properly
There are actually 3 mechanical situations that could lead to the events Baldwin describes: the gun had a broken sear, broken/worn sear notches in the hammer (as you say) or a broken/weak sear spring. These possibilities should all be easily verifiable in the investigation
It's going to be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation. It will be very awkward for Alec if they declare the gun completely functional.
Exactly, although unlikely there is a possibility that the firearm broke/had a mechanical failure for the reasons you listed. Although the fact that a live round made its way onto set, into a firearm and then into Baldwin's hands is such a colossal failure of safety protocols I am going to lean towards that he had his finger on the trigger. He may not be conscious of doing it but the odds are still that its operator failure and not a mechanical failure.
Am i the only one who noticed the gun (and diagram) he was using had a transfer bar, or that the hammer spring does not sit in the notches the sear on the trigger does that?
I am retired (thirty years) from the Army Infantry. I was Special Forces for fifteen of those years. In 1982 I was at a firing range in Sedona, Arizona. A friend owned an old H&R 22mag. single action pistol. Since my own gun was a shoulder rig I was able to put his western rig on. I was not experienced with a single action although I knew how they worked and had fired them a number of times. On this particular gun I began cocking the hammer as I was "drawing" it from the holster. I pulled the hammer back and removed my thumb as the gun was clearing the holster. It fired a round down through the holster, entered my thigh behind the holster and exited my leg to the left of my knee cap. After my trip to the hospital I got my hands on that gun to try and figure out how it fired without my finger even on the trigger. I tried "dry" firing it. About nine out of ten times the hammer locked back as it was supposed to. About one out of ten times it didn't lock and would have discharged a round when released. I disassembled the gun and found that the hammer block was badly worn through years of use and the edge was rounded. I agree that the H&R is a fine gun, but ANY gun that is used will cause parts to wear. It IS possible to fine a single action by releasing the hammer an not pulling the trigger it the hammer block is worn through excessive use. I know, I have the scars to prove it.
I am grunt with a total of seven combat tours over my thirty-year career. One of the first things I learned, and lived, was that the person holding the weapon is always responsible. It is a fact that, while you can delegate fault, you can never delegate responsibility. That is a fundamental precept pounded into every grunt from day one. From that perspective, you can say that it was the Armorer's fault for handing him a hot weapon, but that never alters his responsibility for that weapon. So, even if you find fault with the Armorer, HE is still responsible. That may seem like just a matter of semantics, but Court Martials are quite adept at making that distinction. At the very least, he remains morally and criminally responsible.
@@patrickstevenson8305 If everything were so easy, it wouldn't be difficult for police officers, lawyers, and courts to make a judgment. They wouldn't even have to be trained. but the world is not as simple as you think. it is complicated and consists of more than sheer black and white.
There are more questions to be asked with this case: 1. How did the weapon fire? 2. How did a live round get into the weapon? (It’s not the first time live rounds have been found amongst blank rounds… Murphy’s Law states it will happen) 3. Why aren’t replica weapons, that are commonly used on sets, made with a built in flank firing attachment (BFA)? Militaries around the world use retrofitted BFAs for weapons so they can point their weapons at each other during training scenarios and IF, for what ever reason, a live round has found its way into the batch of blank rounds, the projectile will be stopped by the weapon.
@@Crazy-pl1lo You wouldn't appreciate this kind of perspective if it was you on trial brutha, gotta consider all of the facts and details regarding the incident to determine liability/fault
@@thepistachio8256 I'm not against Alec, but he keeps making IMO stupid excuses - that I think he is the main contributing factor for negligence. For example, post incident he has stated that police officers should be inspecting the weapons for weapon safety, and while that's not as good on average as a competent armorer, he was in the position to make that happen, but didn't. Could be his lawyers trying to get him separated from the blame, though given his past stance on firearms - this is less excusable, not only because a person died, but his actions and utilisation of the weapon are counterpoint to his long term political standpoints.
And what if the trigger has a mechanical problem? So he picks up the gun, squeezes the trigger a little bit and lets it go (without him knowing it) and as soon as Baldwin pulls back the hammer, the gun fires because he pulled the trigger earlier while picking up the gun.
Thank you for being clear about the possibility of the hammer being so worn that it could have still fired. A SAA could fire if the hammer was cocked back and forcefully hit (which is why they always say load 5 never 6) or if the hammer is really worn. I think Baldwin is an idiot but it’s also important to tell people the entire truth.
I've always understood the "Load 5 never 6" to be so that the firing pin on the old revolvers was never sitting directly on a primer. If that's the case, it would not have mattered because the next cylinder (when it rotated by pulling back the hammer) would have a round in it. The simple truth is that 3 people (the weapon master, the director and the actor) did not properly check it before filming the scene. Once so checked, it should NEVER leave the actor's hands until the scene is fully filmed and the firearm ready to be stored. I was on a movie set one time and all of the firearms we used were rubber dummies. Very realistic ones, but non firing rubber ones. Funny thing is...I thought ALL movie prop guns were made so that they could NEVER fire a live round...something about the type of blank and a restricted barrel to avoid EXACTLY this type of incident. I guess I was wrong.
If the armorer had been doing the job she was hired to do (if she knew how, of course), she would have verified that the weapons on set had all been properly taken apart, inspected, cleaned, reassembled, oiled, checked out for proper operation, and were ready for use on the set -- and that only blanks were the only ammo near any of those small arms on the set. That's an armorer's job! If the hammer was "so worn that it could have still fired," that condition would not just suddenly appear one day out of thin air. It would have become apparent when she was cleaning and prepping the gun for use in the movie. It's like driving with "bald" (sorry, AB) tires. Tires aren't "good" one day and "really worn" and bald the next. If you take a moment to look at them and you see that the tread is mostly gone, you know you've got a problem -- before you begin that road trip and get a flat or, worse, get into a crash. In Vietnam, I used World War II era .45 Colt semi-auto pistols, Smith & Wesson military model six shooters (probably older than WW II), M1/M2 carbines, and Thompson submachine guns, in addition to more modern M16s and 12-gauge pump shotguns -- and even M79 grenade launchers. We had a real vintage gun collection in the Seabees ("can do!"). All the WW II era weapons were well worn, but by taking them down, inspecting them carefully, cleaning and oiling them, reassembling them, and trying them out, they still worked just as well as they did decades earlier. The entire truth. This is after some of them had fired hundreds or even thousands of rounds before I handled them. A "really worn hammer" would have shown up wayyyy before AB took hold of that pistol. Someone needs to get hold of the actual handgun AB used that day and have a qualified armorer do an analysis. If the hammer was "really worn" so that it would not work correctly, well, it just wasn't the "well-oiled" set that AB claimed he was running after the shooting proved it wasn't.
I have seen single action pistol go off if the cocked hammer is "bumped" once the hammer has been pulled back. NOTE this ONLY happened on a worn mechanism that was not safe to be using anyway. Point is for me, pulled trigger or failed mechanism is beside the point. That gun should NEVER have even been cocked, especially as Baldwin never cleared it when he picked it up.
I agree with this video’s explanation 100%. Remember Baldwin is an professional actor and the interviews he has given is his best work yet to save his career. Any firearm a person shoots should be dry fired and given instruction by an experienced firearm owner or professional! Anyone who is handling a firearm is responsible by inspecting the firearm before shooting.
I loved how George Stefenofolis shook his liberal head in agreement when Baldwin was telling his story. Im not a gun guy but even I know basic mechanics of a hand gun.
what we saw was the final cut. I'd love to see the uncut video, all the scripts and takes as they were examined by the attorneys present. I bet it cost thousands just to make this short clip......
@@tedk2814 At the very end of the video, I believe I saw it was produced by George Stephanopoulos Productions. Additionally, wasn't the interview (show) billed as "unscripted"? Oh sure!
Yes he did he said not at the camera but toward her. So with a worn gun you have a possible explanation as to how this could have happened. Without examining the actual gun this is all supposition.
Yes, I just watched him say that and the rest of it too. I think that the man is lying at this point about everything. He probably loaded the gun himself at target practice. This is probably an attempt to get out from under a boondoggle and have insurance pay out. Evil Baldwin!
Exactly. No matter what thus guy had a negligent discharge that resulted in a death. Any average person would be facing involuntary manslaughter charges. But hes an Hollywood elite, democrat, anti gun rich guy so he wont.
@@danielsmit11 any defence lawyer would use this to shift culpability towards the armourer and if the director implied or asked him to point the gun in her direction then it raises a reasonable doubt about his direct responsibility. Remember facts can be extremely flexible in a courtroom.
The real problem is, who intentionally brought live ammunition rounds onto the set? Someone in the crew or outside of it, purposely loaded that gun, and that is who needs to be criminally charged. Of course, he/she/them, proved that producers had cut corners on safety protocols when guns are on a set, otherwise that gun would have never been pointed at a persons direction. Sure, Baldwin needs to be charged cuz cutting corners and hiring the cheapest cutest friend of a friend as the armorer, was producers mistake. Poor girl, she will never again have a future in film after that…. But a little jail time will also give her a chance to realize she was not ready to be on her own there
i think baldwin said he himself or a crew member was out live shooting the gun as target practice and im pretty sure baldwin said it was him. correct me if im wrong
I mean sure at the end of the day it’s the prop masters duty to make sure there’s no live ammo. But its also bald wins responsibility to be properly trained and practice proper gun safety. He should know what real bullets look like and should know to practice proper trigger discipline. I highly doubt that this would happen to people who take gun safety serious like Keanu reeves or Chris pine
@@codycurnutte7084 you’d be surprised.. in the army soldiers still have what we called accidental discharges. Even after clearing their weapon with someone else also viewing it and having a discharge… sometimes you get so used to looking at a empty chamber when it’s not out of habit our brain just skips right over what we saw until it’s too late. It’s also more the hammer being in question not the trigger. I’ve had similar weapons where often the hammer didn’t stop as intended due to overuse/abuse. Everyone who hasn’t seen the actual weapon used simply doesn’t know any of the facts and it’s all speculation. I’d urge people to stop from condemning anyone until a investigation has been concluded. This guy can only speculate that Alex did this or that.. he doesn’t know how the hammer was manipulated.. he can only guess based on his experience. He doesn’t have the same weapon so it’s not going to function exactly like the one used. Also telling the difference in ammunition is difficult for anti gun people. Weight was always a indicator for me.. but they look similar in many ways.. it’s not like they get special colors on the brass case to identify it as safe to use for this kinda stuff. It’s almost exactly the same.. typically it’s the tip of the round that changes in appearance. Again tho.. no evidence was used in the making of this video. I would wait till professionals have done their jobs before the rest of RUclips makes more opinion videos trying to state “facts” without using any evidence.
Long time watcher, first time commenter. I'm sure I'm wrong here, just help me out if I am. I used to love old westerns (still do) there are alot of them that fire the gun by using the hammer only. Could have the hammer on this gun be modified for this western? Thank you for helping me understand.
That is called fanning the hammer. I do that with my Colt single action ( made by Uberti) . My finger is holding the trigger in the rear position while I am manipulating the hammer. The hammer cannot lock back because the trigger pull is maintained through out the firing of all 6 rounds.
Not necessary to modify the gun to fan the hammer and have it fire each time the hammer falls I have done this with my S/A revolver so many times I have shot more than two full boxes of bullets using the fanning method. I can be done safely or a rang as long as the rules are followed. And all S/A revolvers have this feature inherently incorporated from the finish of manufacture. It is hard on the gun but, all cand do it. and many modern D/A revolvers can be fired the same way.
This definitely clears up any misconceptions and was well done. When I was a CW re-enacted I carried a ‘42 Springfield single-action musket. It only will fire if the trigger is depressed. You could drop it loaded and it won’t go off when cocked. Mr. B’s story is an attempt at CYA. Let a Gunsmith examine it and they will tell you in less than a minute.
I agree. The 2 reasons why it will go off if you pull the trigger at any position the hammer is in (rephrasing my statement but the only way the hammer will move is if you pull the trigger)or b the safety is broken aka the hammer mechanism. There’s the saying don’t go off half cocked it.
I know he's lying because during this interview his "recollection" of the events changed since his initial statements on the incident. Originally he said he was practicing drawing it and dry firing it at the camera, but it wasn't supposed to be loaded.
He's had three stories so far; two before he hired lawyers and this one after his lawyers started working. Each time he goes public he provides more evidence. May the truth prevail and justice be served.
@@gregflores8959 What he did was using a gun that was supposed to be safe. The man is an actor, not a gun hobbyist. The armorers are responsible for the weapons, not the actors.
@@juslitor so by your definition that means nobody should be prosecuted for firing a gun and shooting someone with a gun they didn't know was loaded. And getting charged with neglagent homicide.
To be fair memory is a funny thing and you'll find your recollection of events changes each time BUT I still do believe he's full of it. Don't see why he's not facing charges of man slaughter or similar.
The gun in question can be disassembled and examined under a microscope on the key parts. His interview was an attenpt to sway the jury but unfortunately, his attorney should harve warned him to keep his mouth shut as these mechanical devices, like the single action revolver, are easy to prove. Lying about it still will not change facts on how it operates!!!
The open question is whether that gun had been modified to be a prop gun. Pulling the hammer back and having it stop part way….does not look very “cinematic”. Prop guns are often modified to “slip guns.” Which will fire when when the hammer is released.
The same gun the killed the cinematographer was used for plinking around after hours so there is nothing wrong with the gun. It was fully functional and in proper working order.
I hope that the forensics team is professional and skilled enough to determine whether the firearm in question was in good repair, properly functioning, or modified as to functioning differently from a stock firearm of this make and model.
We should probably not call him a liar until we know wether or not the gun was defective. I do believe that he cracked the hammer with his finger on the trigger.
None of that matters...He did not check the gun for dangerous rounds, and assumed it was safe when it was not. THAT is the point of guilt. Non-existent safety procedures on a set he is responsible for as the producer, and failing to qualify the gun's safety as the gun handler in the scene.
Thanks for the explanation. My guess is Baldwin might indeed have mishandled the gun and now his lawyers just tell him to say something that will take the blame further off him so he is absolutely safe from any repercussions. And I mean the main fault here was indeed not on Baldwin, it was on firstly the person that put the bullet in the gun and secondly the people that are supposed to check the gun to ensure it is safe to use. If Balwin, an actor who probably does not really know anything about guns, is given a gun and told it is safe, has been checked and is not a "real" gun, during all the action going on at a movie set it's not unreasonable to assume at some point the gun might be briefly pointed at someone. You are just not that focused on gun safety when you assume or are being told you are more or less playing around with a "harmless" replica which makes it sound like a child's toy rather than an actual gun.
The worst part is that its likely that this was a live round marked as a dummy round so it might have been a faulty placement during the production of the round. Police are even tracking the path the round from being made till arriving on scene.
@@bigquazz3955 Well I am sure they would not bluntly call it "lying"... more like "adjusting the truth to help your defense"... It's kind of funny though that you imply no lawyer ever in the history of mankind told his defendant to lie... in a field of work where a lot of money and reputation is involved and every case is important to the lawyer, especially in cases involving rich people or corporations. People lie (for profit among other things)... lawyers are people too.
@@bigquazz3955 Nope, I am using the most basic of logic. Why would it work otherwise? Do you think there are no dishonest people among lawyers? Are lawyers purely by chance people in the only field of work where there is not a single dishonest soul? Of course feel free to enlighten me with your own wisdom.
I've seen newbies pick up a single action revolver and put their finger on the trigger to help hold the gun. Now if they pulled back the hammer while holding it this way and then releasing it the gun will fire. I realize it feels awkward to hold the gun with your trigger pointed forward and attempt to pull the hammer back but that's how it's done. Single action revolvers and single action semi autos to me take the most dedication to learn safely.
Had he just owned up to his negligence like a man id feel a bit different. The fact that he is trying to weasel his way out of this after years of supporting anti gun BS makes me say let him have it. I want him to say that under oath and watch him catch extra charges for perjury.
Fun fact: He probably actually believes that he did not pull the trigger. When you go through a traumatic experience like that, it's very common for a person to not be able to properly recollect how it happened. It's called "Memory distortion for Traumatic events" and is a very common symptom of PTSD.
The similarities between Baldwin and Smollett are striking from the context that they do something incredibly stupid - then just double-down with lying. The fact that both also hated Trump is telling.
that's a great demonstration but the more important question is, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger or not, why was there ANY projectile in that gun that when the gun was operated, would discharge and fire a lethal round on a movie set?
Baldwin is not a firearms expert, they had ones hired specifically for that set that failed to do there jobs. How was he supposed to know it wasn’t properly gone through.
Why was it ever pointed at her? They weren't even filming. Even if you know a gun is not loaded you still out of safe practice and good gun responsibility dont aim it at someone, particularly when they arent in a scene where the firearm was ment to be used.
@Daniel who has more liability the actor or the people who are supposed to be gun expert and are supposed to check every chamber throughly. How is the liability not on them. It’s there job not alecs. Dosnt matter if he is familiar with guns because it’s a film set not a gun range. That gun should’ve been checked over multiple times they just got lazy and someone died because of it.
I've been in the motion picture business since the mid-70s. I've worked around firearms, explosives and other real-life dangers since those early days. I am grateful to have workedwith some really excellent Armourers and special effects men. I am further grateful to USCCA for providing this excellent video in order to toss some real facts into the situation. There's two items that led to the loss of a beautiful and talented Cinematorgrapher leaving her children orphaned and her husband a widower. The two items, which never, EVER are brought together on a movie set were (1) the bullet and (2) a working firearm capable chambering that round. Because of the failure of the Armourer to be physically present and make sure NO live rounds - including blanks - are anywhere near the prop guns. The shooting was the responsibility of the Armourer. Period. If you're an actor, and your Director says to push the button, squeeze the trigger, or light the fuse, you do it. That's when you have to trust the pros around you to not let you or anyone else get hurt. Guns have been used since the first movie. and they will continue to be used. If anything, this is a call out to gun grabbers showing how much gun ignorance hurts us all.
With your theory, if you're learning how to drive and the driving instructor says to pull the E-brake while high speed, you'd do it because he's the pro and you're just a learner? Use your head. He was responsible for the bullet he put into someone. You want to drive, you need to learn to drive safely, you want to use a gun, you need to learn how to use one safely.
Most movie people are a bunch of idiots at large. I've been on many sets where people carry actual guns, and also use them as props when needed. You over estimate the intelligence of these carnies.
Very well written. If Alec Baldwin knew anything about guns in the real world he would know a) how to clear the gun, and b) NEVER to point it at anything he didn't want to shoot, loaded or unloaded. Alec Baldwin is an actor not a gunslinger!!!!
You are missing the most important aspect of them all: where is the "DIRECTOR" in all this. He is the one calling the shot (no pun intended) Neither the actor not the DP calls the shots. They do what the director tells them to do.
You are wrong. The armorer is responsible for making sure there are no live rounds on the set. Baldwin is responsible for not checking the gun himself and for pulling the trigger. Take a gun safety course. The person holding the gun when it goes off is the responsible party. Period.
He was holding the trigger back the whole time, that the only other way a single action would do that. Just like how you can "fan" the hammer of a old colt!
First and foremost. Alec is an actor. Take that into consideration when seeing his fake crying. Secondly. He's doing a great job of acting like he knows how a single action revolver works. This isn't just on him though. The whole production team is to blame for unsafe conditions. There is no excuse for negligence.
For this accident to have happened it doesn't require something somewhere to have gone wrong, it requires every parameters everywhere to have gone wrong. It's actually insane to think of all of the grave mistakes that had to be made for this to happen
A 24 year-old Armorer? Really? Oooh, she must know so much about firearms. Back in the day, your movie set armorers were retired military, if not retired Special Operations people.
Hello from Australia! I am a massive gun guy, endangered species here. This video explained everything very clearly and is a perfect example of why gun owners are NOT violent people by nature. Thank you.
Sounds to me like Alec Baldwin, most likely being a newbie to firearms, broke Rule 3 of basic firearms safety by having his index finger on the trigger (in this case with enough force to allow the hammer to drop when he let go of it). I believe that in his mind he truly believes he didn’t pull the trigger. It’s a lack of training. There’s a lot of blame to go around.
@@jimbutler1189 , not knowing how to safely handle a firearm is a lack of training. Handling a gun with your finger on the trigger when you aren’t intending to shoot violates one of the basic safety rules.
@@jimbutler1189 it absolutely was a lack of training. The only way this accident happens is if he violated all 4 laws of gun safety. That’s a single days worth of training to beat those laws into your head forever, but he didn’t, and STILL WON’T
You guys are in ERROR -- Alec is NOT A NEWBIE. He's well experienced with movie guns, real guns, prop guns. Don't be FOOLED BY THE MEDIA. Poor little dumb Alec.
I see actors mishandle firearms in movies all the time. They’re actors, not necessarily trained to properly handle firearms. In fact, they shouldn’t need to be. The weapons on set should be made safe for the scene at hand by hired weapon handlers. Regardless of Alec Baldwins memory of the incident, I’m curious to know why live ammunition was on set and in that firearm. He might be lying but it could also be a memory distortion. Trauma can do that to a person.
There’s like 20 of these videos now and I love two things; one: everyone keeps talking about these guns and my local dealer is laughing all the way to the bank, two: I love that the gun community Baldwin hates so much gets to participate in what I hope is his eventual prosecution. My local dealers (there’s four of them) have all been inundated with purchase demand for these types of pistols just cause they’ve been in the news so often.
I think it's more about people not buying guns because they have this aura of danger around them. Once people start looking into the guns they see that they don't just go off. They find out how many safety devices are installed and how they work and are more comfortable with the guns around. We get inundated by the news about accidental and intentional shootings and it creates the misconception that the guns themselves are the issue and not the people holding them. Guns themselves aren't dangerous. It's the people who wield them that are irresponsible. I don't' have a gun nor do I intend to in the near future. I'm not under any illusion that the guns themselves are the problem. When i see people with guns i'm more scared of the person than the gun.
@@supernova743 But then that's much worse, because if you're assuming having access to firearms isn't the problem, then somehow the population of USA has some factor (genetic, cultural...) that leads to violent acts. That's why statistically there are more accidents and home terrorism in USA than the rest of the world by far. They also have the most liberal approach to gun ownership. So you're telling me there's no correlation... I'm scared of the gun, which is what can kill me. A random psycho won't unless under very specific conditions which don't include me walking down the street in a normal day. I practice airsoft, so there's no need to lecture me on the "safety" of the mechanism of a firearm. And yet, I see absolutely no reason why the general untrained and uneducated public should be allowed to own one and hence endanger the rest of the population.
@@ldgarius people buying them because they appeared on the new AND they mentioned trying to ban importing replicas..... just like every time anyone mentioned banning ar-15s the price of a lower goes through the roof. also if you think banning guns will stop violence. look at the statistics for murder in Australia. it has been trending down for a century but still when you get to when they banned guns the number of people being shot went down yes but the number up people being stabbed to death/run over/ or just beaten to death tripled....if someone wants you dead you die.
Do you think Alec Baldwin is lying?
yes and he is guilty. If you are going to be an antigun nut who won't learn about guns then don't use one
Yes, and I thought so before watching this video, but I appreciate you proving it.
He is protected by the movie industry. A normal person would've been arrested and charged with murder. Who wants to go to prison if they know they could get away with negligent homicide?
Hell yes he's lying......all the movies he's been in and handled firearms and he's still useless.
Yes he is
During these troubling times, I stand behind Alec Baldwin- because there’s no way in hell I’m standing in front of him
🤣🤣 you’re too funny
@@LordBruuh always chance of backfire
Good one. Hahahahaha
HAha you made me laugh
Wait until the FBI finds evidence or not on his phone before u stand behind him
That interview was the worse thing he could have done. He should have kept his mouth shut and let his attorney handle it. Great video.
When some one is guilty, they feel the need to explain why they are not.
Can’t believe he said that
bet ya his attorney is now wishing he had kept his mouth shut
Woulda, coulda, shoulda…obviously, there are no do-overs in killings. Whether it was purposeful w/malice of forethought is something for NM state investigators to rule in/out. Second, I believe this vid captured what most likely happened in relation to Baldwin’s account. He lied. Third, foolishly narcissistic of him to do a tv interview, friendly or not (but I’m glad he did.) Whether he does prison time, we’ll have to wait and see. But, I’d be willing to bet he will be sued for all his worth and he will lose, regardless. I’m just curious if he had a previous relationship with the victim that soured and she threatened him. Has that been ruled out yet?
Alec is in deep trouble now with this interview. Whoever told him that this was a good idea shout be shot too!
Regardless of who pulled the trigger, there's still the issue of why the firearm wasn't checked by the armorer to ensure it was safe and how live rounds made it onto a movie set and into a gun in the first place.
At the end of the day, this is all that matters. Shouldn't have been a live round in it, end of story.
@@bmxracinginjapan why was there a live round placed in it? Does anyone have an answer yet?
@@clipsedrag13 my only thoughts are assassination just like how Bruce lee son died on the movie set…
Who was the real target????
That is the main question, and if you think about it, there was definitely something shady going on. How does one accidentally bring live rounds to a set? Unless intentional.
No matter who gives you a weapon it's incumbent for you to check if is loaded!
this is the golden rule linked to all weapons
we don't read it often
Not according to the guy Baldwin accidentally shot. The armor was responsible for arming the weapon and responsible for making sure it was loaded with either blanks or dummy rounds.
@@rmendoza5953 nope! Gotta check it yourself . That's it.
@@garyacker7388 Why sure, you know more than the armor. Where did you get your license Trump University?
Yep, it's incumbent, yep, it's a golden rule, no, it's not the law. Alec is a victim here, and not liable for what happened. Quit trying to pin this on someone just because you don't like them personally
I've watched several explanations as to why Baldin's account was false, but this one is the clearest, most definitive demonstration. Thank you, Kevin! It's another reason I'm so glad I recently signed on with USCCA.
Thanks for the support!
Yankee Marshall had a good one too
Nothing like a primer pop to make it interesting!.
Legally Armed America did a really good one as well. I agree with you though, his is very straight forward and easy to follow.
Agreed, this is an excellent demonstration and it covered some points I had questions about. In particular, about the manufacture of the replicas (which he says here they are 1:1) and any possible reasons why the gun could actually go off accidentally (worn hammer sear). Now, it's just a matter of what the investigation will find.
I am a retired army instructor, have working experience and knowledge of many firearms. This video shows everything,complete and correct.
I also was an army inspector, procurer, quality inspector of Army weapons and auxiliary items. There are procedures and safety controls and levels of certifications. Many steps can be compromised to accommodate schedules, time constraints. Procedures and safety controls are compromised at large and small companies. Quality inspections were sometimes pushed aside. Turnovers of people, misplacement of safety bulletins and last minute training all are contributors and/or impacts. Safety should be in capital letters and supprted by mngmnt throughout manufacturing, testing and inspections.
@@donnadimanna9173 inspector? Jim said instructor
This man is an expert of guns.
@SOUTHGATE LINK wow
Behaha
All attention seems to be focused on Baldwin and what he did or didn't do. Yet the BIG question seems to be buried inside the controversy. How the ding dong hell did a live round end up in the pistol to begin with?!
The morons on staff were using the pistol for target practice on their off time.
@@jerk5959 There are some reports that there was no target practice, that this was just a story to take attention off of the armorer or anyone else who had access to the gun.
@Walter Alter: *Irrelevant* - Baldwin didn't check the firearm, pointed it at someone, and fired it. Baldwin is responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins. Period.
At best it’s manslauter. Unintentional.
@@ModernGolfer totally agree. There also seems to be no remorse what so ever.
Excellent demonstration of what happened and how it happened. Thank you.
How it may have happened. This man was not present at the actual scene. Get it right.
@Kameleonic
The FBI fired the firearm 12 times and it was fine..Baldwin lied.
Actors, attorneys, politicians; if their lips are moving, they're lying.
don't forget insurance companies 🙄
Priests....
Yep. So true.
Not Trump. He spoke the truth and looked out for the American people.
Amen
The truth in any statement can be found in history. I watched "The hunt for Red October" again last night, despite Baldwin being in it. I noticed that every time he is on camera with a gun in his hand, he has his finger on the trigger. I wonder if anyone has ever seen him on screen without his finger on the trigger? Habits like that are hard to break and I would expect that this behavior is probably ingrained in him as this is what Hollywood portrays. I'm going to guess that he wasn't even aware that his finger was on the trigger. It's just bad training which leads to irresponsible, dangerous behavior.
Guns are fired all the time in movies it's not something new.
Question is ??
Why was Live Ammunition allowed on a Movie Set ????
@@weldmachine yup!
I see a few main questions
1. As you said, why was it loaded? (Treat every gun as if loaded)
2. Why was it pointing at someone?
(Only point at something you intend to shoot)
3. Why was the trigger pulled?
(Only pull the trigger once you have a target to shoot).
Sounds like 3 of the 4 rules of firearms were not followed.
That was smart; to watch his acting history and correlate his shooting muscle memory
@@glukeFlywalker obviously in a movie you're going to pull the trigger if the script calls for it without intending to shoot someone. Hence the use of blanks. So you obviously can't follow all 4 rules when filming a movie or nobody would ever pull the trigger or point a gun at someone. The same rules can't apply when you're using a gun loaded with blanks for a movie. The rule that is most important in this case is make sure the gun isn't loaded with live rounds.
@penny neal Try it yourself. You won't be able to do the motion he was doing in the interview without your trigger finger doing that motion. It was a meaningless video by just another grifter attempting to make money on the tragedy that happened. I dont think that's what USCCA is doing because their channel is demonetized. Also Alec is a liar, it doesnt take an expert in anything to know that.
I just watched your video with Colion Noir in which, after going through a training scenario, he was convinced he had fired only three shots when he really fired eight. Noir trains regularly with real guns. If he was that confused after a training session that went well (everyone was perfectly safe), imagine the trauma Baldwin must've felt after killing someone with a gun he assumed was perfectly safe. One can imagine his memory of what happened at that moment could easily have been distorted by the tremendous shock and horror. Where his real error was, was in not checking the gun thoroughly before using it on set. Had he bothered to take the ten seconds it takes to open the cylinder and look at what was in it, he would've instantly known there was at least one live round in there. He didn't do that.
Perfectly said.
Wow.
“The reason why Alec was lying, but first, a gun giveaway!”
Well done America. You keep being you
What I was thinking
Beat it ya limey. Go brush ya teef
Right I agree man....
@@916mw haha you salty bro? Bet you have the perfect Hollywood smile.... Not.
@@dannycarter3647 dude is out here using the borat comebacks…….not!
I think we can safely call what Alec said a lie. He knew what he was talking about. He was there. He knows he pulled the trigger.
In his Liberalism mindset he didn't pull the trigger, however, the trigger with his finger in the trigger guard was already pulled. My question is, why were there live rounds.
@@CH-qf3kn it definitely sounds like some idiot was taking that gun off-set and using it for sport. Guns on movie sets are never supposed to leave the set and very few people are supposed to have access to them. Whoever brought the live ammo on set deserves a second degree murder charge but it doesn't sound like they've figured out who did it, hence why they are going after Baldwin since he's the second most responsible person for this tragedy since he was the one that pointed the weapon at the woman and pulled the trigger. Live rounds or not, if Baldwin would have followed standard gun safety protocols for movie sets, that woman would still be alive.
You really didn't need to demonstrate... Baldwin is a Democrat, an actor, and he's in love with himself. So it stood to reason he was lying.
I think he had his finger on the trigger when he faffed around with the hammer.
Question must be how did live round get loaded into the gun and who did that.
Also surely an armourer would have presented gun on set and he /she should of supplied ammo as well.? Would that not be the case
Props to you guys for having multiple people double check the gun to ensure safety.
Big expert on firearms and their safe operation, Mr. I hate guns because I'm a Leftist Hollywood big shot who remains clueless about most things... Well Look at that... Not good, not good looks like you just murdered someone with a firearm there Alec buddy. Turn in your Democrat I.D. card right now! Also, being an actor you would think you would understand the importance of at least acting shook up for killing somebody for Christ's sake.
I still want to know why there was a live round on a movie set? Seems like that would be the last place you would want or need one.
They are not allowed on set at all.
@@wanaraz On some sets they are and they are used for effects but done by professionals.
@@johnharris8191 They are never used when actors are acting on set or anywhere around. They use them offsite in training areas at times.
@@wanaraz It is not the actors that use them, it is done by professionals. Nobody is in front of the guns when they are used. For just 1 example, in the movie The Longriders there was a scene where a shootout occured between a posse and the James-Younger gang in a farmer's shack. When filming was finished and the shack was empty, live rounds were fired in it for effects. That is just as on the set as you can get. Plus, l can give you more examples.
@@johnharris8191 SAGAFTRA SAFETY BULLETIN #1
"LIVE AMMUNITION" IS NEVER TO BE USED NOR BROUGHT ONTO ANY STUDIO LOT OR STAGE.
In those very special circumstances LIVE AMMUNITION may be used ONLY if the following criteria and special circumstances have been met.
#3 This special use of LIVE AMMUNITION shall only be performed at a site that is suitable for the use of LIVE AMMUNITION ie Military, police, or private gun range, the deck of a vassal , or in an area deemed safe for this procedure.
Regarding 6:34 versus 3:24, Alex Baldwin said he did not pull the trigger. However if Alec Baldwin's finger was already resting on the trigger when his thumb released the cocked hammer, then it would have fired the fatal shot which was what happened. Therefore Alec Baldwin was trying to be clever by saying that he did not "pull" the trigger since his finger was already resting on the trigger when he let go of the cocked hammer. Nevertheless his finger should have never been inside of the trigger guard. Furthermore another implausible statement from Alec Baldwin was when he told George Stephanopoulos in his televised interview on ABC News, "The notion that there was a live round in that gun did not dawn on me until probably 45 minutes to an hour later." That was absurd, because as soon as his revolver fired and the loud bang of the explosion as well as the recoil jolt of the gun in his hand would have immediately let him know that he had shot Halyna Hutchins as she collapsed and later died on October 21, 2021.
Good eye i was looking thru the coments see if anyone else cut it at 3:24. said im not gonna pull the trigger and he proceeds to pull the trigger😔😪
Well if his finger was already resting on the trigger he must have pulled it to let go of the cocked hammer.
When doing a western movie and with revolvers and true to the time period nobody draw their revolvers with the trigger finger laying outside and above the trigger guard, very naturally the finger enters the trigger guard and press onto the trigger for a quick life or death shot. Alec apparently had his trigger finger inside the trigger guard when he drew the revolver and when he released the hammer at full cocked position the revolver fired because the trigger had already been pressed. This was totally gross negligent and disrespect of gun handling safety. And hell yes Alec should and will be responsible for taking a life and wounding another.
Yes, alec isn’t telling the truth. He’s just starting to point fingers and blame someone else. He wasn’t even really crying.
USCCA shows good videos. 👍🏽
at least he's just pointing fingers now instead of guns
He's an actor...maybe he'll finally win that Academy Award for his BS interview...
While i agree and you are proba ly correct, we have to acknowledge the possibility of the gun failing. They will not release this info until after trial so we will have to wait and see. This is very unlikely, but we shouldnt do like the left and the msm and assume we know everything before the facts come out.
@@smokinC5 Too late smokin. Are you reading these posts? All sense of decency is lost in our society on both sides!!
@@peterdallman4550 sad but true
I'm guessing he had his finger pinning the trigger back as he cocked it and then when he released the hammer it fired. So in his mind he didn't actually pull the trigger. It was already pinned to the rear so no separate action was required.
Yes that mistake coupled with the fact he was pointing at someone even though he was told the gun was "cold" THEN we get to the question of WHERE did a live round come from?
He specifically said he never had his finger on the trigger. He is 100% lieing, just another leftists unwilling and unable to take responsibility for their own actions.
That’s what I was thinking. If the trigger was initially pinned against the rear of the trigger guard as you suggested, what happens to the hammer when it is then moved 1/8 inch back? Half cocked? I realize that with the hammer fully cocked and the trigger already pulled back that the gun will consequently fire the round.
@@josephcremeans I didn't watch the interview - did he really say that he never had his finger on the trigger? All I read is that he said he never pulled the trigger. Slight difference.
Hey Kevin, At 3:20 watch his hand as he describes his actions,. He's showing his index finger pulling a trigger,. Sympathetic finger response ! I believe he did pull the trigger by his description. That's a beautiful gun Kevin
I grew up with single actions because that’s what Dad had. I learned this lesson early on. Excellent explanation, especially addressing the proper condition of the hammer.
He probably had his on the trigger not realizing it.
When I heard of this tragedy my first thought was, the only way it could go off without his finger on the trigger was if the part you mentioned in this video worn, or had been ground down on purpose.
What makes me suspicious is; if they were just setting up the shot, why were there rounds in the pistol? Especially live ones?
I was thinking the same. As incompetent as it appears the armorer was, I wouldn't put it past them to modify it. If they didn't modify it, then they would have been negligent for allowing a defective firearm on the set.
its all pretty sketchy, there had already been 2 other accidental discharges on set by that point, and many of the staff had walked out and was on strike that day due to safety reasons
Baldwin put the live round in after the professionals checked it.
@@KaiserBlade for what purpose?
@@agentbarron3945
The camera crew wanted a room closer than an hour away. They worked 12+hrs/day and weren’t happy about the commute.
Everyone who was involved with that firearm should be charged, it’s really simple.
WTF is live ammunition doing on a movie set
What does live ammunition doing in schools XD ?
@@key7817 should stay in school for the sake of your grammar
If someone buys a gun off you and they shoot people, who is at fault? Why should the seller and creator be charged?
@@key7817 You Have to also ask, are education important?
@@asphaltking3452 if he does he'll get shot
On top of it all, there were “prior incidents” and complaints about safety, and this still happens. You can’t get much more reckless.
Did you really think any Hollywood celebrity is going to take responsibility for their actions??? Of course he's lying 😂😂
You can tell he was lying because his lips were moving
Long before Alec Baldwin was born, the gun safety rules were: ALWAYS treat EVERY gun as if it was loaded, and NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING or ANYONE that you do NOT intend to shoot. It may not have been Baldwin's JOB to check the gun, but it was his RESPONSIBILITY to check the gun. Alec was merely the LAST person in the chain to make sure that the gun was NOT loaded!!! Alec Baldwin did NOT check the gun to see if it was loaded and he pointed the gun at someone....... GUILTY! The only question is whether it is involuntary manslaughter or MURDER! Either way he should be behind bars.
Those rules are instructed/taught to people. They are not inherent knowledge.
If he was not instructed on proper handling of firearms and relied on the expertise of an armourer then it falls on them or the studio.
@@F16_viper_pilot You are absolutely right, and maybe it might be worth mentioning that A.B. received 90 minutes of personal briefing from armorer H.G.-R.
@@F16_viper_pilot dead link
Link does not work, however if Alec Baldwin did indeed received proper training and ignored then I would have to agree he is liable. 🤔
@@mbogucki1 You're correct that gun safety rules have to be taught, but the onus is on Baldwin to get the training, not for someone else to foist it upon him.
It was obvious to anyone who knows anything about guns, etc., that he was lying and that he had to have pulled the trigger to fire the gun. Whether or not he intentionally tried tp harm is another issue, but he fired the gun at her period! Obvious questions include: why did they have live ammo on the set, why not a prop gun, why a fully functioning gun, and why didn't they have protocols in place to insure all prop weapons were safe for use on set?
He was relying on the left's ignorance of scary firearms to sway public opinion. If you imagine an angry Baldwin describing the incident (many videos of angry Baldwin online if an aid is needed) instead of calm Baldwin, it makes sense what happened. He was tired of filming, wanted to be home instead, mad that the crew walked out that day, was taking direction from a cinematographer which was insulting to his ego for something that most likely wasn't going to be used in the film. Given that scenario I believe angry Baldwin intentionally aimed and fired. It was probably meant to scare the cinematographer if he believed blanks were loaded, intentional murder if he thought real ammo was loaded.
The weapon could be malfunctioning. If it isn't, he lied in an interview, but nothing happened to people that lie on national television. Adam Shiff does it, every president does it, every single intelligence agency employee does it, every politician does it, and every general does it, like Colin Powell.
Well in regards to "why not a prop gun" typically it is a lot cheaper and more realistic to just rent the actual thing and use dummy rounds as opposed to making or buying a genuinely convincing fake.
@@richardwicks4190 Technically it could have malfunctioned, but what are the chances that this malfunction just happened to occur when the gun contained a live round? What are the odds of that? The gun works just fine for all the time it's used the way its supposed to be used, but the one time it has a live round in it, that's when it fails to work as it should? I don't buy it.
@@TheStapleGunKid It could have been malfunctioning all along. It was explained HOW it could have. There would be physical evidence of it, if it had.
I'm not defending Baldwin. It's the HEIGHT of stupidity to be handling even a FAKE weapon without having training in gun safety.
Any weapons on set should have been TRUE prop guns. No live ammo should EVER be on set. He didn't know how to clear the weapon either.
I think Baldwin should go to prison.
I know what happened to Brandon Lee. The weapon was loaded with bullet with the primer and propellant removed. The bullet fell out of the casing, and the same gun was loaded with a blank, that didn't have a bullet, but had the primer and the propellant.
Now, I can understand how THAT accident happened, and that was an awful accident, but it was an accident.
This case at least is 3 layers of negligence. Here's Baldwin shooting his stupid mouth off about the evils of guns, and he just killed somebody because he couldn't take 10 minutes to get a basic understanding of gun safety.
1) always verify the gun is unloaded.
2) never point the gun at something you're not willing to put a bullet in.
3) assume the gun can fire off at any moment.
4) even after you've verified the gun is unloaded assume you've made an error and it is loaded
5) don't trust anybody not to make an error when they say "this gun isn't loaded".
6) don't rest your finger on the trigger, and assume that no matter what precautions you've taken, when you pull the trigger, it's going to fire a bullet.
Takes 10 minutes to memorize that.
Baldwin has been doing acting for years with guns. It's professional incompetence that killed that director.
If we had a functioning judicial system he would be going to jail - but he's not going to jail. It's entirely HIS FAULT that director is dead. He killed her. It's entirely his responsibility.
Wouldn't believe the A/H if he told me it was cold in Antartica.
His memory might have created a false narrative. He may truly believe his finger wasn't on the trigger, but in actual reality it was. He doesn't want to be blamed or feel responsible for taking someone's life.
He said it’s the worst thing that ever happened to HIM. Alec is worried about Alec, he’ll never own up to it because he’s a narcissist pos.
I agree, that is a very likely explanation.
Can you blame him, who would actually want to feel like that?
@@Phlacc I was sympathetic until he said that he "felt no guilt". The guy is full of contradictions...
@@thenoneckpeoplerepresentat8074 100 percent agree
Why are they trying so hard to charge everyone except, the ARMORER! It was her job to secure weapons and make sure they were safe, and it's obvious that she didn't!
That's right. Baldwin was a clueless actor. That's why she was on set. But who hired her. Maybe she was not double checked.
Its still his job to make sure there were no live rounds in the gun
@@australian8579 The interview is out now. Watch the whole thing. About 26 minutes in she's babbling on about how bullets work like she's talking to a dog.
How the "nipple bit at the end comes out" (talking about the bullet).
It's insane! At one point she pulls a load of dummy rounds out of her dirty pocket and dumps them on the desk of the police interview. I'm not even joking!
She's a sulky teenager with permanent vocal fry. Every second word is "like"
No joke.
The Armorer Hannah Reed was NOT notified by Baldwin who is the co-producer. Baldwin decided not to inform the armorer before this impromptu scene of his with a LIVE firearm smh. The investigation into it says she was not given adequate time to do her job. She's off the hook.
I see your point but any prosecutor could say that Alec could have knowingly put bullets in the gun any time after it was handed to him so that he could shoot someone and blame it on the armorer. The person with the weapon is at fault.
It isn’t a lie if you’re an actor, that’s legal loophole 101.
Underrated comment 🤣
Bruh.....you're a better lawyer than Thomas Binger with this comment alone 🤣
Trump proves that theory every day.
or a president
@@VirileDelphic
"I agree. Let's go, Brandon."
- Biden 2021
Basic stuff: open the chamber, in this case, swing the cylinder of the revolver open and inspect the 5-6 chambers. Are there any rounds in the gun? If it's a semi-auto pistol, slide the magazine out and rack the slide back. If there are no rounds present in the magazine or were ejected from the chamber, the gun is not loaded. Even when a gun is NOT loaded, NEVER, EVER point it at a person. Any questions???
you should have 3000 inches
there is no ambiguity
unless they show intent to harm you or anyone else. Then and only then is it ok to point the gun at them. Or a animal under the same actions and intent, ANY Questions
What are you talking about 3000 inches.@@studiodw12
And he wants us to believe a full round was discharged and he didn’t know what happened until later….what BS.
Yep, the big loud noise would have been a clue!
HOW COULD HE KNOW, ITS A PROP GUN WORN OUT, SOMEONE PUT A LIVE ROUND IN, BALDWIN ISNT A A GUN GUY
Single action revolvers are literally the reason for the expression, "Don't go off half-cocked."
Thanks for splainin it.
YES THEY DO, ITS AN OLD SAYING
WORN OUT GUNS DO
Great video! I also noticed that he deliberately talks about her agreement with his actions. As though she agreed to have the gun pointed directly at her while he manipulates its functions. I'm disgusted with it because it will be used to say she accepted the risk of being shot and killed. He's lying about pulling the trigger with the muzzle aimed at her body so there's no reason to believe he's being honest about her agreeing to it multiple times as it was happening. Heartless!
Great point !
When you accept a Firearm without
Checking its status yourself,its
on YOU!
He also said in his interview that he didn't know he shot anyone for ~45 minutes...and that was after explaining how he was trained to "create" recoil when filming because there's not enough kick unless there's a live-round. And so he fired a live-round, but somehow didn't realize he hurled a ~230grain bullet and hit two people, and didn't realize it immediately, and was gripping it tightly enough to not have it fly back into his face but wasn't expecting to shoot? Um, ok...he incriminated himself with his description of getting training about the recoil and exaggerating it with dummy-rounds. Good job!
A 45 is a big round an gas serious kick
Yeah, don't they also have slightly cooler loaded blanks than training blanks because they don't have ear protection on set? Ill look up, but i think they do because I can guarantee that actors are going to complain about hearing damage. If they do, then that would only add to your argument. Not only is the specified blank supposed to have significantly less recoil due to not having a projectile, but they also wouldn't even have as much noise as a real cartridge.
@@johnstrickland3933 keep in mind it's not 45 acp, it's 45 long Colt. If I'm not mistaken it's one of those cases where it was originally black powder (weaker, dirtier and lower pressure with a faster burn rate) and was later made in smokeless. (slower burn rate but higher pressures and a LOT less fowling) Funny thing is: the BLACK POWDER cartridge flippy as hell for it's day, and now it's smokeless? Needless to say it's gonna have a LOT of kick. Not 50AE or 500S&W but still pretty jarring especially for someone like Alec Baldwin who actively avoids firearms.
According to AB, he didn’t have his finger on the trigger and his thumb slipped from the hammer, so he was holding the gun with only three fingers when it went off unexpectedly. It strains credulity that he maintained control of the weapon let alone that he didn’t even know he shot her.
And how do you go 45 minutes without knowing that the people who you are talking to have been shot?
I have gunsmith for almost 30 years and Alec is not telling the truth. Quit trying to blame the firearm and admit what you did!
WHAT?? You think he should admit he accidentally killed someone and go to jail for manslaughter? Of course he's not going to do that when hollywood is going to do whatever (and thats a lot) they can to make sure he isn't charged? The only way they will throw him under the bus is if they (hollywood) are facing some kind of charges for deadly, hazardous, work environment.
Maybe the gun malfunctioned like he said? now look up the definition of malfunction before you reply lol.
@@hunterbidenslaptop6969 your mother is compost
@@hunterbidenslaptop6969 He still had a responsibility to check and see that the gun was NOT loaded.
Are you serious? He can't do that. That would mean actually taking responsibility for his action! And you can't do that in Hollywood unless everyone in Hollywood suddenly comes out with a story about how "Alec Baldwin almost shot ME TOO."
"I stand behind Alec 100%, it's just too dangerous to stand in front of him" - some guy on the internet
I'm going to use that one.
Well according to Alec, the bullet doesn't fly in a straight line, so it might circle back and hit you in the head even if you stand behind him...
@@seinundzeiten Psaki style…😂😂😂
LMFAO, funny tihs
Ha!Ha! Har! LMAO!@@seinundzeiten
My wife put glue all over my rifles.. She said she didn't do it , but I'm gonna stick to my guns...
I've had some experience with pyrotechnics, including a few movie shoots. The movie pyro guys were always the most terrifying and required the most scrutiny. He's either a liar, or the gun was modified in some bs manner, or whatever...bottom line is sloppy sloppy sloppy incompetence and now someone is dead. 1,000,000% absolutely avoidable, foreseeable, and jail time is called for.
For those who might be overly fearful of firearms being dangerous, it's important to note the Baldwin didn't just violate one or even two basic safety rules for handling firearms, he violated ALL of the basics. If he had enough sense to follow Any of them, as a parent could expect from their average ten year old, then a woman would still be alive today.
@@beardedbomber9862 My dad trusted me, with his strict supervision, to handle the single shot .22 rifle he had cut down to fit me at age 7. I was never allowed to touch that or any gun until he knew gun safety was in-bedded in my mind! As for trusting according to age, obviously that didn't matter in Baldwin's case. There can be no doubt there are 10 year olds out there who are much more gun safety wise than this turkey.
@@beardedbomber9862 You are supposed to earn that kind of trust. I wasn't allowed to learn how to shoot as a kid until I had a track record of being moral and ethical, on top of knowing the basics of gun safety.
@@beardedbomber9862 I learned the rules at that age and never had an issue with a firearm at the range. Still to this day, no mishaps.
@@beardedbomber9862 you mean the one with the ozzie? I know of that one.. And ther was no reason to let her shot that by her self with out assistance holding it with her. And even then its still uncontrolable.
And you don't understand the chain of responsibility in the handling of weapons on film sets.
In all my experiences with firearms a person who hasn’t had proper training or any training at all has a natural urge to place their finger inside the trigger guard. They almost never realize that they are doing it until it’s pointed out to them.
From what I can gather if you minorly depress the trigger like he might do without knowledge like ie: pulling it out of pocket during set trying to get a shot in the film he can by pass the sear on the pistol atleast from other videos I've watched I'm not entirely sure though
yes, people naturally put their finger on the trigger without being aware of it, unless they are trained
How long do you think baldwin has been around guns in movies? A lifetime. He's just a murderer
J Joslin your right about people putting there finger on the trigger. Regardless their should never have been live ammo on set.
People like you make me sick, he is an actor and doesn’t deal with guns especially guns with full rounds. The guy was in tears and then there’s someone like you who comes around and wants to make everybody believe he did it intentionally. If you ever been put in his position? All of you gun toting lunatics want to always come up with some ridiculous reason why something happened. This is no more than a conspiracy theory. Why don’t you stay off the Internet spreading lies that you know nothing about. You were not there you don’t know who handled the gun before him you don’t know anything about the situation yeah you want to go on the Internet and tell thousands of people stories to make it look like he did this on purpose. Don’t you think he’s hurting bad enough. Sometimes you’ve gun toting fanatics need to just stop and keep it to yourself
Anyone who’s ever fired a revolver knows that the kick of a real round is very intense. Even a low load has kick but the difference is huge.
Had the person that handed alec the gun said "here its empty, point it at your head and fire it!" He would of checked it 100%!!!
Actually, he wouldn't have...because he genuinely doesn't know that he's supposed to. In that situation, Alec Baldwin would be dead, the D.P. would be alive, and the armorer would be in jail.
I don't get it he is not responsible for loading the gun so why should he know how to handle it he's an actor the real question is who the idiot was that loaded that gun with live ammo that's the killer it doesn't really matter if he pulled the trigger or not unless he loaded the gun himself someone explain to me please
@@masel4578 because every person that picks up a gun, of any kind, for any reason, becomes personally responsible for it. The fact that he is (again WILLFULLY) gun ignorant doesn't give him a pass, nor does it make anyone else more responsible than him. People who know about guns don't wave them around without making ABSOLUTELY certain that they are completely safe. People who know about guns verify FOR THEMSELVES the status of a firearm, they do not take anyone else's word for it; and that is literally one of the very first rules of firearm safety. It takes nothing but willingness to learn the rules; but since Baldwin himself is so vehemently anti-gun, he just never bothered. And now it's come back to bite him on his ignorant ass...at the cost of an innocent life.
@@NCBikerBoy well I totally agree with what you're saying but I think legally speaking it doesn't matter because I don't think that there is an actual law that says you have to know how to handle a gun but yeah I understand what you're saying but also I don't think that every actor in every action movie checked their magazines in my opinion the one who loaded that gun and confirmed it was cold is responsible for this.
@@masel4578 That's not how it works. If I take a gun from you, don't verify that it's cleared and safe; then turn around and shoot someone, I AM HELD RESPONSIBLE, not you. I'm not suggesting that every actor that handles a firearm in a movie is gun savvy; but I am saying that most of them aren't so gun illiterate as to be waving a gun around, regardless of whether they've been told it's a "cold gun" or not. Also, whether "cold" or not, behaving the way he was with that firearm is unacceptable. On the set of the Matrix movies, how many firearm injuries were there? None, despite exponentially more gunplay. Why is that, do you think? Because firearm safety was observed to the letter, and most importantly, because the cast members (all of them) learned the rules, and followed them to the letter. 20+ years later, Keanu Reeves is effectively a competitive shooter, because he learned the basics back then; and then built onto those skills when preparing for the John Wick movies.
I'm not sure I believe Baldwin was even told "cold gun", I believe he just assumed it was safe, since it was a "prop", and proceeded to act in a grossly unsafe manner.
As far as the deadly round itself is concerned, I don't believe it was actually a full bullet; but in fact a fragment of a dummy round that was fired. A similar scenario is exactly what cost Brandon Lee his life while filming "The Crow". Every safety rule was followed, in that case; however a dislodged dummy bullet head got stuck in the gun, and was subsequently pushed out when the blank went off. All proper loading and unloading procedures were followed, so ultimately no one was to blame; and it was ruled exactly what it was: a fluke, tragic accident.
The Baldwin shooting, by reason of the level of ignorance at play; was negligence, pure and simple. And that's not what defines an accident.
USCCA member and retired US Army SF TM SGT. I've watched almost a baker's dozen of these explanations, and this was by far the best videography. Camera, audio, presenter...clear and concise. Great job.
I worked in Hollywood briefly, did two movies with guns on set, we were so careful and I was happy to see how controlled it was. Baldwin's production failed miserably on many safety points.
Here's what I saw on set I worked:
1. No gun went into the hand of an actor until 4 people verified it was unloaded (clearing chamber and dry firing); the actor, the prop master, a crewman (me several times), and an assistant director. Rubber guns were verified too. Prop master would often take the weapon between scenes and repeat the safety check every time it went back to the actor.
2. If a gun was to be pointed towards a camera, the camera operators were behind bullet proof glass, even if the gun was unloaded (or, the camera was setup, turned on, and the operators left the area).
3. Blank ammunition was verified by the prop masters and producers and then came to the set straight from the armorers and they would handle the guns when the cameras were off.
4. If someone was in the path of the barrel firing blanks on camera, it was 99% of the time a stuntperson with cleverly concealed body armor.
5. If shooting towards off camera, obviously no one was in the path of the barrel.
6. (bit of an extension of #1) Prop guns used in non-shooting scenes were often mechanically inoperable. No firing pin, no springs, etc.
this is an obvious answer and why they kept the investigation that long?
@@Metabee21 to hide evidence I guess
@@gbolt111 production mistake is an obvious at this point...it not an actor job to know the gun is real or not...can't imagine when a cow boy actor point gun and pew pew came from his mouth...the prolong the suffering of the actor who did not know the gun was armed with live round
@@Metabee21 maybe, but after that interview he looks even more guilty.
@@gbolt111 Guilty of shooting yes but guilty of killing is a no....all this can be avoided if the two suspect do their job...plus why would Alec want to kill film crew? when he pull the triggered as he was ordered to so in his job as an acdtor in western film which involve guns...plus he became an unintentional killer because two idiot does not do their job properly which make them the actual killer not the actor...just because he felt guilty does not make him the suspect or an actual killer...if you were in his shoe would you felt guilty on something that can be avoided if the people you trust to work with do their job completely?
I remember reading in my local paper that a witness testified that the "Gun expert" told Mr. Baldwin the phrase, "Cold Weapon" as he handed him the gun, it's my understanding that THAT phrase means the weapon is safe for use for that scene. That actually takes the murder charge off the table as, in Mr. Baldwin's mind, he thought there was no danger of him pointing the weapon as the script directs him to do. But in my military training, when one is issued one's weapon, the first thing you do is check to ensure the weapon is clear. For a Soldier, that means NO ROUND is in the chamber, but this is about a civilian movie set, so even if Mr. Baldwin had checked the weapon, (pretty sure this was a western revolver), he cannot actually remove the bullets to ensure they were blanks, because if he HAD DONE so, he could've been accused of replacing them with a live round in the gun, (and that's assuming he's trained to know the difference between a live round and a blank). That means the final safety check MUST be done by the "Safety expert" for that movie. This is just my opinion trying to follow a logical train of thought regarding safety.
If our lives hang in the balance when we are handling firearms, so should the elites. It’s a huge responsibility every time you pick up a firearm. It is YOUR responsibility to ensure it is safe. Consequences are needed for the idiot who caused this innocent person to die
If I go to a gun range as a novice its the range officers responsibility to make sure the firearm is safe and to instruct me how to use is properly. That is what I paid for. If they hand me a firearm and say its safe or unloaded why should I doubt them? And how am I supposed to know how to make it safe?
Same thing applies here. Baldwin relied on the expertise of the armourer. Liability is with them.
@@mbogucki1 wrong.
@@mbogucki1 A range officer is not there to instruct, but to enforce safe gun handling. That is what you are paying for. If you want instruction take a gun safety class.
@@TTiger86268 That's where mboguki1's problem rests.. No common sense.
Snack, the idiot would be Baldwin. He’s not even qualified to handle a cork gun and stick horse.
Like you said, a full examination of the gun by an independent professional gun smith would definitely determine if the gun had an issue. ( lack of, or poor maintenance ) Based on those findings one could then be confident that Mr Baldwin is not describing the incident truthfully. Regardless, why was there live ammunition on location in the first place. Many factors added up to make this a bad scene.
Agree. Alec was there to play with gun, no to play with real ammunition. Gun smith is responsible …
@@endermata1952 Many things Alec said in his interview spoke volumes but his implying he essentially ending up aiming at the producer (which he must have done at some point), at the instruction of the producer, supposedly (that's what he said), is bonkers and ridiculously irresponsible. "Oh btw, you've got me aiming at you now btw, just so you know" - or.. "I cant aim there, that would be aiming at you". All whilst he proceeded to fiddle with pulling back the hammer (with his finger on the trigger it seems). I guess she didn't notice since she was watching her producer screen and not him.
@Jacob Craven Fair points, though that theory as to how it went off if the gun was somehow faulty is yet to be proven which presumably is then the responsibility of the armour? Granted this sounds like a tragic accident but there seems to be a chain of issues, reports of misfires earlier in the filming and each not taking what they're using seriously and the gravity of the "what if" scenario of something going wrong.
I believe the lady who got shot was also the co-producer? Or director? (and cinematographer, ok). Regardless she was directing him at that moment and all were presuming the gun was "cold" as he said but he never checked it himself which sounds risky to me given he was put in charge of it at that time.
No doubt the whole tragedy and how it happened so it can't ever happen again will be investigated fully.
@Jacob Craven I'm actually from the UK and we're not allowed to own firearms (well you can but have to jump through infinite hoops) but what is the law when you're using a gun that's not registered to you (given these prop guns seem to have identical capability as the real ones, using blanks or real bullets)? What does the law say in the US in respects to using a gun not registered to you and who is therefore responsible?
You can’t dismiss the possibility he put a bullet in the gun!
Sure it’s almost an old Columbia plot but if we didn’t know it was a famous star, we’d be thinking all these possibilities.
I’m sure the cops are.
My two thoughts on this tragedy. 1) Why was live ammo anywhere near the set? Whoever brought it shares the blame in this. 2) Why does a prop gun even need to be able to accept real ammo? Yes, I understand the desire to be as authentic as possible so the gun looks real. Why can't an authentic barrel be made with a non-standard caliber bore that will only accept a blank made to that caliber? A gun in a movie or TV show really only needs to do a few things. Look authentic. Make a 'bang' when it goes off. (Even that can be added in post production) And a puff of smoke (Again, can be added post production if need be, though may not look realistic) It doesn't need to accept real ammo to do these things.
My exact thoughts... what is up with American film making?
I've seen another video from a gun expert who claims that live ammo cannot "fit" into a prop gun. I wholeheartedly agree with you. The big question looming: What the hell was live ammo even doing on the set?
@@lorinwegand6324 the "gun expert" you watched is either lying about being an expert, or lying about whether live ammo will fit. A prop gun is just a gun used on set. This is how several deaths have occurred on set
Mike Tristano has supervised firearms on film sets for more than 30 years, keeping a close eye on the guns used during the filming of “The Purge,” “Harsh Times” and hundreds of other movies.
When it comes to guns and ammunition on sets, Tristano said, “the buck always stops” with the armorer, the licensed professional - sometimes credited as a “weapons master” - tasked with making sure movie firearms are safe and secure on set.
@@Masakari6 Thanks for the update.
If you’ll also notice, every time he demonstrates in an interview how he was holding the gun, his hand and finger are in the position to pull the trigger. And he said in his police interview multiple times that he shot her. He will sometimes say the gun went off, but several times he said he shot her. I’d love to be on this jury.
That's a really interesting catch, good eye!
It’s gonna take forever to pick a jury for this one. If he does get convicted chances are he will die in jail. He’s looking old right now, them conditions can worsen 10 fold; without the proper care. Not a good situation for him
Technically, that could just be seen as semantics. If you're holding a gun that spontaneously goes off and shoots someone, it's easier to just say I shot this person or I accidentally shot this person or this person got shot as opposed to the gun went off in my hand and the other person got hit. Our brains are lazy and will use whatever comes shortest/easiest when it comes to language/pronunciation
@@samuelelliott8453 semantics could be the difference bt life and death in a murder trial. I bet the DA will drive home the point that he kept saying he shot her.
@@donnanelson9181 except this sint testimony at a trial, this is an interview. They can't use this testimony 100% at a trial. The defendant would get to clarify what they meant before it was used if it's going to be used at all.
The irony is so thick on this one. Alec being such a pita to law abiding gun owners. Now its exactly them who hold Alecs fait with real knowledge like this video. Priceless.
I think it was his lack of gun comfort that contributed to his rushed and sloppy handling/safety which along with the mystery bullet resulted in a death.
@@billysexton Didn't he once say that he doesn't need to learn firearm safety because he was against gun ownership?
I think you meant to spell "fate", however on a positive note, if you were French then you would have spelled it correctly!!! Also, the live round got on that set, by someone's human hand, the question is, who was that someone??
@@user-hd1qx2bd1r Your right, I'm not French. But If I did have any French in me I would hope that it would own the smallest percentage. No matter how people want to spin this, its the person who pulled the trigger that is responsible. Alec can and has blamed everyone but himself, but at the end of the day he pulled the trigger.
@@brockisoverrated CC, Come on! use that un french brain of yours, LOL, Inspector Clouseau, there's absolutely no sense or gain, in him doing this, absolutely NO motive to do this. Give me a break! Somebody set him up (and really well) so that there's no leads! It was professionally set-up because who ever did it, made sure everybody on the set, either touched or had something to do with the murder weapon, and that makes everybody a suspect!!! It's going to take one amazing Detective, to uncover this well thought-out murder. This was no rookie murderer, whoever planned this, even understood how it would look when, and as, the News would portray it out to the Public. Gotta be Organized Crime, because they have lots of experienced lifetime guys in the murder racket. Better believe it. I don't know why they've done this to Baldwin, but whatever Baldwin did, This Murder Set-Up was done to #1 Go after him specifically, on the Movie Set, and maybe more incriminatingly important, It's a Message to the Movie Industry. Murdering just Baldwin in his usual life, alone somewhere would have been very easy and quiet, indeed for a Professional killer, because Baldwin wouldn't have even known it was coming, totally easy routine Target, for a Pro. #2 Whoever did this, wins two (2) ways because they now have ruined Baldwins life forever even whether he's found guilty or not, AND they've sent a HUGE Lovely message to ALL others in the Movie Industry, This same thing can happen just as easily to you too! DON'T DO WHAT BALDWIN DID. The United States has a long, long history of never finding, especially important peoples, killers. The whole United States Police forces, never found John Kennedy's killers, and they've also never found Martin Luther King's killers either. Probably the two most prominent figures in the world at that time, especially in United States, and both Murders remain 55 years on, unsolved.
The notches in the hammer are not engaged by the "hammer spring", they are engaged by the trigger sear. Otherwise, excellent demonstration.
Could the trigger seer be worn out simultaneously do you think. It’s a long shot. I think he’s lying, personally. He definitely put his finger on the trigger somehow for sure.
@@fistfighter2652 If the tip of trigger/sear were indeed broken off, it surely should have been obvious the last time the armorer handled the firearm.
Same for the leg of the trigger spring and the notches in the hammer, themselves.
I've been shooting/carrying single action revolvers for over 20 years, and I've never had either of these happen to any of my guns. I've had the bolt leg of the spring break. I've had the bolt leg itself break. I've had a hand spring break, but never anything that could cause what Alec claims to have happened, to happen.
Hopefully that gun is being closely examined and guarded so that we'll know for certain whether or not he is telling the truth.
@@plowboysghost ✌️👍
Trigger sear is in a hammer less pistol. Hammer spring is proper term for hammer revolver. I'm pretty sure
@@bigrob6076 "sear" generically refers to whatever mechanical interlock surface which functions to hold the firing mechanism in the energized position. For a hammer fire weapon, this is what locks the hammer back against the hammer spring. For a striker fire weapon this is what holds the striker (firing pin) back against the striker spring.
Yeah he straight up lied, he did pull the trigger! He needs to be responsible for his actions a real man would step up and face the music!!!!! Takes a man to admit he was wrong... Obviously Baldwin isn't a man.
Yeah, he lied.. it's kinda stupid that he avoids this admission.. I see what you're saying..
(He's trying to avoid partiall liability .. which makes sense .. would you want to possibly get sued because of someone elsed major error . )
However,
he shouldn't have been given loaded live ammunition. It is not his fault. There was a major fuckup, and there should not have been ANY live ammo on set. This armorer was her first movie (her father was famous in the industry ... So there was some nepotism going on.) and admittedly she was in over her head. She's gonna be held liable and likely never work in that field again.
@@edwardhanna86 he's still at fault, no mater who hands you a firearm loaded or not you must check it and practice safety always! Never point it at anyone or anything you don't intend to destroy, Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot and always be aware of what lies behind your target. Safety is paramount there are many parties responsible here ultimately it falls on the last person to verify what they are being handed.
Two points. One, you said he lied about not pointing the gun at her; he said in the interview that he didn’t point it at the camera. He said he aimed it slightly off, “in her direction
“. Two, you said a gun can not go off on it’s own which is simply not true. We had several accidental discharges from dropping a gun, at a sheriff’s department who’s county seat is in the city where I was a city officer.
READ: Initially, the Baldwin story was that he was to point it directly at her, in the precise direction of her and the camera for the desired camera shot. And of course, he did point it at her, pulled the trigger, with the bullet striking her, and killing her.
Colt revolvers do not “go off” on their own, and this gun was examined and found to function normally, as expected.
Numerous gun experts have examined the story and evidence, and conclude that Baldwin bears some responsibility, as does the Armourer, and the non-qualified individual who handed Baldwin the gun with live ammo.
Attorneys obfuscated, diverted attention, and clouded issues with their encyclopedic document cesspool for the Court to wade through, and eventually toss the case.
This is a common occurrence in the American system…..and we will see it again.
We all know baldwin is lying, however, we do need to give him his rights of due process. There is a possibility, albeit small one, the gun was in disrepair as you suggested, which would ve easily proven and will come out in court. Aside from that, he pulled the trigger. The armorer needs to face charges as well for the live ammo issue.
Yes, he gets and deserves due process, BUT, that small possibility you cite does not relieve him of ultimate responsibility for the tragic outcome.
He had the BASIC firearm safety responsibility to: 1. Check the allegedly "empty" firearm when it was given to him, and 2. NOT TO POINT THE GUN AT ANYTHING THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT! He is an activist clown that obviously chose NOT to learn or practice basic firearm safety in spite of handling many firearms for his job over the decades of his career.
The armorer is certainly negligent also, as was anyone (assistant director) who reportedly handled the Pietta directly before handling it to him.
Also, that begs the issue of why ANY live ammo was anywhere on the set. Baldwin was also the producer and ultimately responsible for ensuring that was the case.
-An experienced single action competitive shooter and RO.
@@davidjaniec3838 totally agree. But i would say, i hate baldwin as much as the next gun guy, but he hired an armorer. The rules of gun safety do apply, to guns. I wouldnt assume that was a real gun and maybe he didnt eother. I had no idea real guns and ammo were used on sets. They dont even use real ice cubes or real paper grocery bags on movie sets. Again, the fact will come out, but applying range safety rules to a movie set isnt, or atleast shouldnt, apply really. How in the world real ammo was there is beyond me, but he holds responsibility for that as a producer. Ultimately he hold some responsibility, but this is more complicated than me just picking up a 45 and pointing it at you and saying i didnt pull the trugger. You are mostly correct tho.
@@davidjaniec3838 also consider this. Your rule 1, check the gun is unloaded. Well, in a movie it would need blanks, and in a revolver some type of ammo looking thing the would make the visible chambers look loaded. Kinda different from the range. Your rule 2, in movies they point guns at each other all the time. Litterally every single movie ever made with a gun in it. See the difference from range rules. Your rulws are correct and the ones we all live by, we just dont film movies lol. Again lets wait for the facts.
Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how stupid the person is
When someone is traumatized like that their brain sometimes blocks reality.
Can't imagine going through something like that.
Exactly. Weird how people are acting like he showed up on set to kill this person. When in reality he showed up to work and then his life changed forever in a split second.
@@f4rt989 it’s the fact that he is lying about it why lie if you didn’t do nothing wrong lol 😂😂
@@zaya_831 so you didnt read the comment he was answering to?
@@f4rt989 I don't think people believe that he intended to kill anybody but his actions were irresponsible
@@zaya_831 because he’s trying to be completely innocent instead of negligent homicide
as soon as he pulled back on the trigger while pointing at them he was already guilty
Guilty of what ? Murder ? Nope. Who loaded the gun ?
@@autooverride7462 unless he snuck the round into the gun that killed the woman then how can that be ?
@@adamgardener8624 yeah murder, check out the penalties for someone dying in a negligent discharge of a weapon it can come from felony to 3rd degree and in some cases you'll find 2nd degree murder. It doesn't matter who loaded the weapon, as soon as a gun is in your hands it is your responsibility to check it and treat it always as if loaded. He should have known the basic rules of firearm safety before getting real guns into that set. Well even better he should have never brought real life guns into that set. Plus he was the producer so he can't pass the blame up cause it would fall back on him, also the rookie armorer he employed.
@@rainchazzer6308 Imagine people getting away with the Baldwin defense which is he didn't load the gun and didn't pull the trigger. An ordinary person would be in jail.
@@rainchazzer6308 dang. You got me there bro. Im convinced. Youre right.
So what if he did pull the trigger, it’s a movie set, he was using a gun he assumed had blanks or dummy rounds
Assume NOTHING other than ANY gun you hold is LOADED. Also, check for yourself before doing anything with it.
@@michaelschneider6106 you have experience filming movies?
@@chuckles3265 The better question is whether those filming movies have experience with firearms. I have 60 years of firearm experience and have never shot anything I didn't intend to. Also. I've never killed or injured anyone with a camara either.
@@michaelschneider6106 that is the better question. Baldwin was not the firearms expert. There were "experts" on set. This Baldwin witch-hunt is political.
You used the word “assumed”. That’s the fatal flaw.
He didn't say "I didn't have my finger on the trigger" he said "I never pulled the trigger" ...
Which we both know it doesn't take much tension on the trigger for hammer release.
The most dangerous gun is the gun that the one the holder believes is "safe" i.e. unloaded.
One of the most basic principles of clearing a firearm is to point the gun in a safe direction, and then clear or proceed to make the gun safe.
No one is asking - why would you keep the gun pointed at someone else while lowering the hammer, which happens to be one of the most dangerous actions performed by those using any revolver ? I can only think of ONE reason to keep the firearm pointed at someone else while attempting to lower the hammer, which is his latest story. That is - you would keep it pointed at that other person SIMPLY because you want to intimidate that other person.
As far as Alec Baldwin being a newb; well, he's been handling firearms of many sorts over the past few decades, to say he's should be absolved because < insert whatever excuse you like here > is ridiculous. Any other regular person in the US would be already charged if they intentionally pointed a firearm at someone else, regardless of or if they pulled the trigger and the projectile injured or killed someone else. Many have gone to jail or prison for EVEN less than that.
Alec has changed his story so many times, it's beyond ridiculous. That too would be grounds for most DA's to put the perp behind bars and in front of a judge and jury.
That and the SAA requires not one but TWO intentional actions to fire it: the hammer must be manually cocked and then the trigger manually pulled.
I think it was murder. I get to choose between that and just clownish levels of mass incompetence and negligence, and murder simply seems more plausible to me.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 Can an action occur from subconscious impulses ? Did he 'unintentionally ' pull the trigger ? Because his explanation is physically impossible, an obvious lie to anyone familiar with SA Colt Army revolvers.
This could be ' the perfect murder '..A B is lying like a rug..minimizing his accountability..passing the buck to the Armoror..who everyone knew was overworked and sometimes sloppy with firearms on set..
The perfect ' fall girl ' for his act ?
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 It would help explain why there was live ammunition on a movie set (and loaded into a gun) to begin with.
That's the biggest problem I have with these video's by many people on RUclips. They are telling people it's impossible for a gun to go off without pulling the trigger and having no discussion about gun safety and why it's important to treat every single firearm like it will. It's not about if he pulled the trigger, in the end it doesn't really matter unless the people prosecuting him think he planned her murder. He was negligent in his hiring of the armourer, he was negligent in his handling of the gun, the armourer was negligent and underqualified and allowed conditions on set to become unsafe. That's what matters but everyone is anxious to tell billions around the world that it's perfectly fine to point a gun at people because it's impossible for it to go off if you don't pull the trigger.
It doesn't matter that this isn't the message they intend to send out, that's the message that's getting to people. Nobody should be having this discussion without first listing gun safety procedures. They should also point out that even if there is a problem with the gun and Baldwin didn't pull the trigger, if he followed proper safety procedures with the gun, nobody would have gotten hurt. The people on these channels including this one are violating rule #1 for anyone who teaches gun safety. This video needs to be taken down and done again with actually having a brief talk about procedures and why they are important.
I know nothing about guns and have never seen one that wasnt on a policemans hip.
I could not understand how it could be fired without pulling the trigger and felt there was much more to Baldwin's story
Your explanation was fantastic
Thankyou
Go to the range with an instructor and educate yourself. It's a lot of fun. If you like it, buy one. The life you save may be your own.
You should go to a range some time just to experience it and the accompanying gun safety training you will receive from anyone there if you ask for help. Every single person on the planet who knows how guns work knows the guy is lying. Even if he wasn't they also know this was still only his fault. Not the armorer or anybody else. They may have been negligent too. But they didn't shoot anyone either. Baldwin did. Whenever you assume control of a gun, that gun is your responsibility. A lot of people miss that about this case.
Anyways, I think you'd enjoy shooting at least once, so I definitely recommend it. If you're nervous about it before, you won't be by the time you leave. Guns are safe and fun once you learn the basic rules of it. You should respect them, but not fear them. It's people you should worry about, and they can kill you just fine without a gun. Particularly the gun grabbers.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 thank you so much for reply. Where I live there are no gun ranges at all. I'm not in the USA but if I lived there I think it would be a great idea to take all your kind advice
Thanks again.🤗
@@freakfly23 thank you so much for your reply...i can't buy a gun where I live and there laws etc
I'm not in USA.
I worked as a medic with the movie, television industry for 25 years. I was also a certified NRA rifle and pistol instructor and I am currently a National Muzzle Loading Association artillery instructor. On a movie set actors are given a gun by the armorer and told what to do. They do what the script says with the gun. The scene is performed by standins before the actual scene is filmed. The presence of live rounds on the set is never done. Live rounds are only used at safe locations. I worked for a week with the actual gun training for Robert de Niro and Al Pacino at the LA Sheriff range as they prepared for a movie. They trained with live rounds for their movie. The movie used blanks. On set the armorer loads the gun with proper blank rounds. They may be light, half or full loads depending on the script. The director will announce the use of gunfire and the type of load before the filming starts. The actor with the gun never, never loads the gun unless that is to be filmed. He/she is an actor being filmed with a prop gun and is told how, when and what to do with it. The armorer who supplies the gun and the ammunition is totally responsible for the condition of the gun and what ammunition is used. So what that Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. He was supposed to do that for the film. To him the gun was just a movie prop. That gun was reasonably safe as far as he, the director, the camera operator, or any other of the dozens of others on the set were concerned. It was still a gun and blanks can be dangerous as Jet Lee found out. He was killed by a bullet that had been left in the gun barrel from a previous scene that was then fired by a blank. The problem and the negligence lies entirely with the woman who brought live rounds to the set, She loaded the gun with them. Of course she then announced to the crew that the weapon contained real bullets.
Trump should go on SNL and portray Alec🤣
I dont think he can talk that slow
@@westcoastwarriorsarchive7929 🤣
Somewhat addressed in the video itself: It IS actually possible for the gun to fire by only drawing the hammer back (if certain mechanisms are worn). So we don't yet have proof Baldwin was lying or "not telling the truth". Also worth noting is that for trick shooting or less scrupulous/rational reasons, revolvers can intentionally be altered into "slip guns" that fire without need of the trigger-- drawing the hammer automatically releases it, the trigger doesn't matter. At issue is that some of these older weapons have exchanged a lot of hands, are possibly in disrepair, may have possibly been customized and need to be inspected. *source: my grandfather was a trick shot competitor
Into speculation: if the hammer was not catching it would actually play into the director asking Baldwin to keep drawing it back. It would have a lot of tension so keep slipping and not look/sound right. Eventually, he would have pulled it back farther and releasing it Would fire the weapon. An armorer present and aware would have immediately recognized something was wrong if the hammer was doing this.
To the ppl who will be altering the gun in lock up or already have …shame on you
there´s something easier that the amourer could have done instead of noticing that the hammer was potentially worn... check that the gun is loaded with live fire, and that the guy was cocking a gun while aiming it at someone. it´s criminally neglegent by everyone.
my questions are, why would someone alter the hammer to be a slip gun? when all you need to do is hold the trigger while operating hammer for the same effect? it seems odd.
also, if the hammer was so worn, how was the weapon able to operate when it was fired earlier? considering that the gun couldn´t be cocked without firing?
@@jacoblaursen4812 ive seen people put patients at risk to send an ironic message about safety. sabotage needs to be looked into
For what you say to happen the gun would have to have the safety/loading notch sheared off on the hammer. That would have been immediately obvious to anyone trying to load it. You can't turn the cylinder manually to load the gun if the hammer isn't held back to the exact position required to disengage the bolt that locks the alignment of the cylinder chamber to the bore of the barrel. That notch is a deep one, meant to both prevent a slipped hammer from setting off a cartridge, and hold the hammer in the position needed to retract the bolt to facilitate loading the gun.
A single action modified to easily fan the hammer has the hammer spur knurling smoothed so it doesn't tear up the palm of the off hand. And even *those* have to have the trigger held back for them to fire.
I haven’t looked into this whole situation much cause I tend to stay away from BS.
But where is the footage of him firing the weapon?
Either way, you absolutely nailed it.
There is absolutely no such thing as an accidental discharge where an injury or death is related. That will always be a negligent discharge.
Even if a weapon does utterly and totally malfunction to the point of literally just going bang, nobody would be in the line of fire if basic firearm safety measures are being practiced
There isn't any footage, it was between takes.
If there is any footage it would be considered evidence and is probably going to be locked away until the trial is over. Even when the trial is over, they may not release it to the public at the family's request and such. So it's going to be a while before we see it, if we get to see it.
Too bad this is worthless as that’s not the gun. Who knows if it was a clapped out movie set gun. Also guns don’t use live rounds on movie sets.
How many movies exist where firearms are used? This is so stupid to play “look at meh gun looks same” or “I’m so cool becuz I shoot real guns”. Who cares?
@@audimaster5000 it is suspected that a real bullet was used. Even if it wasn't blanks are still very capable of killing people, and still doesn't discount the fact that it was powerful enough to penetrate two people in a row. It is not uncommon for real firearms and bullets were used in filming for various reasons.
Prop gun =/= toy gun
Whatever the case gun safety procedures exist for a reason. He didn't follow them and now someone is dead.
It was said a live bullet was used. How it got in there is a mystery.
Plus the gun should have been checked for defects. If there are any, which stated in the video, can be proved. If the gun is indeed a defect, someone didn't do their job properly
"Everyone in this studio checked the firearm".
Makes sense.
There are actually 3 mechanical situations that could lead to the events Baldwin describes: the gun had a broken sear, broken/worn sear notches in the hammer (as you say) or a broken/weak sear spring. These possibilities should all be easily verifiable in the investigation
It's going to be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation. It will be very awkward for Alec if they declare the gun completely functional.
Exactly, although unlikely there is a possibility that the firearm broke/had a mechanical failure for the reasons you listed. Although the fact that a live round made its way onto set, into a firearm and then into Baldwin's hands is such a colossal failure of safety protocols I am going to lean towards that he had his finger on the trigger. He may not be conscious of doing it but the odds are still that its operator failure and not a mechanical failure.
We’ll see
exactly
Am i the only one who noticed the gun (and diagram) he was using had a transfer bar, or that the hammer spring does not sit in the notches the sear on the trigger does that?
I am retired (thirty years) from the Army Infantry. I was Special Forces for fifteen of those years. In 1982 I was at a firing range in Sedona, Arizona. A friend owned an old H&R 22mag. single action pistol. Since my own gun was a shoulder rig I was able to put his western rig on. I was not experienced with a single action although I knew how they worked and had fired them a number of times. On this particular gun I began cocking the hammer as I was "drawing" it from the holster. I pulled the hammer back and removed my thumb as the gun was clearing the holster. It fired a round down through the holster, entered my thigh behind the holster and exited my leg to the left of my knee cap. After my trip to the hospital I got my hands on that gun to try and figure out how it fired without my finger even on the trigger. I tried "dry" firing it. About nine out of ten times the hammer locked back as it was supposed to. About one out of ten times it didn't lock and would have discharged a round when released. I disassembled the gun and found that the hammer block was badly worn through years of use and the edge was rounded. I agree that the H&R is a fine gun, but ANY gun that is used will cause parts to wear. It IS possible to fine a single action by releasing the hammer an not pulling the trigger it the hammer block is worn through excessive use. I know, I have the scars to prove it.
If that's the case here, the FBI inspection will show it.
So therefore Baldwin is a victim...and lets all go back to sleep
@@glenolsen7888 The FBI inspection will make a liar out of Baldwin.
I am grunt with a total of seven combat tours over my thirty-year career. One of the first things I learned, and lived, was that the person holding the weapon is always responsible. It is a fact that, while you can delegate fault, you can never delegate responsibility. That is a fundamental precept pounded into every grunt from day one. From that perspective, you can say that it was the Armorer's fault for handing him a hot weapon, but that never alters his responsibility for that weapon. So, even if you find fault with the Armorer, HE is still responsible. That may seem like just a matter of semantics, but Court Martials are quite adept at making that distinction. At the very least, he remains morally and criminally responsible.
@@patrickstevenson8305 If everything were so easy, it wouldn't be difficult for police officers, lawyers, and courts to make a judgment. They wouldn't even have to be trained. but the world is not as simple as you think. it is complicated and consists of more than sheer black and white.
There are more questions to be asked with this case:
1. How did the weapon fire?
2. How did a live round get into the weapon? (It’s not the first time live rounds have been found amongst blank rounds… Murphy’s Law states it will happen)
3. Why aren’t replica weapons, that are commonly used on sets, made with a built in flank firing attachment (BFA)? Militaries around the world use retrofitted BFAs for weapons so they can point their weapons at each other during training scenarios and IF, for what ever reason, a live round has found its way into the batch of blank rounds, the projectile will be stopped by the weapon.
1. alec
2. see question 1
3. see question 2
You could plummet into an ocean next time you drive over a big bridge. Murphy's law bro. Bring your swim trunks.
@@Crazy-pl1lo You wouldn't appreciate this kind of perspective if it was you on trial brutha, gotta consider all of the facts and details regarding the incident to determine liability/fault
@@thepistachio8256 I'm not against Alec, but he keeps making IMO stupid excuses - that I think he is the main contributing factor for negligence.
For example, post incident he has stated that police officers should be inspecting the weapons for weapon safety, and while that's not as good on average as a competent armorer, he was in the position to make that happen, but didn't.
Could be his lawyers trying to get him separated from the blame, though given his past stance on firearms - this is less excusable, not only because a person died, but his actions and utilisation of the weapon are counterpoint to his long term political standpoints.
I don't care if Jesus himself hands you a firearm, it's still your responsibility to check it and make sure it is safe
And what if the trigger has a mechanical problem? So he picks up the gun, squeezes the trigger a little bit and lets it go (without him knowing it) and as soon as Baldwin pulls back the hammer, the gun fires because he pulled the trigger earlier while picking up the gun.
Thank you for being clear about the possibility of the hammer being so worn that it could have still fired. A SAA could fire if the hammer was cocked back and forcefully hit (which is why they always say load 5 never 6) or if the hammer is really worn. I think Baldwin is an idiot but it’s also important to tell people the entire truth.
I've always understood the "Load 5 never 6" to be so that the firing pin on the old revolvers was never sitting directly on a primer. If that's the case, it would not have mattered because the next cylinder (when it rotated by pulling back the hammer) would have a round in it.
The simple truth is that 3 people (the weapon master, the director and the actor) did not properly check it before filming the scene. Once so checked, it should NEVER leave the actor's hands until the scene is fully filmed and the firearm ready to be stored. I was on a movie set one time and all of the firearms we used were rubber dummies. Very realistic ones, but non firing rubber ones.
Funny thing is...I thought ALL movie prop guns were made so that they could NEVER fire a live round...something about the type of blank and a restricted barrel to avoid EXACTLY this type of incident. I guess I was wrong.
I think you mean "uncocked". The 5 not 6 guideline is an anti-drop or anti-bump safety measure.
ruclips.net/video/ldHPNnsp-cs/видео.html
If the armorer had been doing the job she was hired to do (if she knew how, of course), she would have verified that the weapons on set had all been properly taken apart, inspected, cleaned, reassembled, oiled, checked out for proper operation, and were ready for use on the set -- and that only blanks were the only ammo near any of those small arms on the set. That's an armorer's job! If the hammer was "so worn that it could have still fired," that condition would not just suddenly appear one day out of thin air. It would have become apparent when she was cleaning and prepping the gun for use in the movie. It's like driving with "bald" (sorry, AB) tires. Tires aren't "good" one day and "really worn" and bald the next. If you take a moment to look at them and you see that the tread is mostly gone, you know you've got a problem -- before you begin that road trip and get a flat or, worse, get into a crash. In Vietnam, I used World War II era .45 Colt semi-auto pistols, Smith & Wesson military model six shooters (probably older than WW II), M1/M2 carbines, and Thompson submachine guns, in addition to more modern M16s and 12-gauge pump shotguns -- and even M79 grenade launchers. We had a real vintage gun collection in the Seabees ("can do!"). All the WW II era weapons were well worn, but by taking them down, inspecting them carefully, cleaning and oiling them, reassembling them, and trying them out, they still worked just as well as they did decades earlier. The entire truth. This is after some of them had fired hundreds or even thousands of rounds before I handled them. A "really worn hammer" would have shown up wayyyy before AB took hold of that pistol. Someone needs to get hold of the actual handgun AB used that day and have a qualified armorer do an analysis. If the hammer was "really worn" so that it would not work correctly, well, it just wasn't the "well-oiled" set that AB claimed he was running after the shooting proved it wasn't.
I have seen single action pistol go off if the cocked hammer is "bumped" once the hammer has been pulled back.
NOTE this ONLY happened on a worn mechanism that was not safe to be using anyway.
Point is for me, pulled trigger or failed mechanism is beside the point.
That gun should NEVER have even been cocked, especially as Baldwin never cleared it when he picked it up.
I agree with this video’s explanation 100%. Remember Baldwin is an professional actor and the interviews he has given is his best work yet to save his career. Any firearm a person shoots should be dry fired and given instruction by an experienced firearm owner or professional! Anyone who is handling a firearm is responsible by inspecting the firearm before shooting.
I loved how George Stefenofolis shook his liberal head in agreement when Baldwin was telling his story. Im not a gun guy but even I know basic mechanics of a hand gun.
what we saw was the final cut. I'd love to see the uncut video, all the scripts and takes as they were examined by the attorneys present. I bet it cost thousands just to make this short clip......
@@tedk2814 At the very end of the video, I believe I saw it was produced by George Stephanopoulos Productions. Additionally, wasn't the interview (show) billed as "unscripted"? Oh sure!
What I heard him say, he never pulled the trigger. But I had not heard him say, he did not have his finger on the trigger.
2:59 he just said in the clip that he was pointing toward her...
Yes he did he said not at the camera but toward her. So with a worn gun you have a possible explanation as to how this could have happened. Without examining the actual gun this is all supposition.
Yes, I just watched him say that and the rest of it too. I think that the man is lying at this point about everything. He probably loaded the gun himself at target practice. This is probably an attempt to get out from under a boondoggle and have insurance pay out. Evil Baldwin!
Exactly. No matter what thus guy had a negligent discharge that resulted in a death. Any average person would be facing involuntary manslaughter charges. But hes an Hollywood elite, democrat, anti gun rich guy so he wont.
@@matauboy a "worn" gun has no business on a film set so that's still not an excuse. In fact if the gun were "worn" it would prove extreme negligence.
@@danielsmit11 any defence lawyer would use this to shift culpability towards the armourer and if the director implied or asked him to point the gun in her direction then it raises a reasonable doubt about his direct responsibility. Remember facts can be extremely flexible in a courtroom.
The real problem is, who intentionally brought live ammunition rounds onto the set? Someone in the crew or outside of it, purposely loaded that gun, and that is who needs to be criminally charged. Of course, he/she/them, proved that producers had cut corners on safety protocols when guns are on a set, otherwise that gun would have never been pointed at a persons direction. Sure, Baldwin needs to be charged cuz cutting corners and hiring the cheapest cutest friend of a friend as the armorer, was producers mistake. Poor girl, she will never again have a future in film after that…. But a little jail time will also give her a chance to realize she was not ready to be on her own there
he is either protecting himself from lawsuits or somebody else from accountability; more likely from lawsuits.
i think baldwin said he himself or a crew member was out live shooting the gun as target practice and im pretty sure baldwin said it was him. correct me if im wrong
I mean sure at the end of the day it’s the prop masters duty to make sure there’s no live ammo. But its also bald wins responsibility to be properly trained and practice proper gun safety. He should know what real bullets look like and should know to practice proper trigger discipline. I highly doubt that this would happen to people who take gun safety serious like Keanu reeves or Chris pine
@@codycurnutte7084 you’d be surprised.. in the army soldiers still have what we called accidental discharges. Even after clearing their weapon with someone else also viewing it and having a discharge… sometimes you get so used to looking at a empty chamber when it’s not out of habit our brain just skips right over what we saw until it’s too late. It’s also more the hammer being in question not the trigger. I’ve had similar weapons where often the hammer didn’t stop as intended due to overuse/abuse. Everyone who hasn’t seen the actual weapon used simply doesn’t know any of the facts and it’s all speculation. I’d urge people to stop from condemning anyone until a investigation has been concluded. This guy can only speculate that Alex did this or that.. he doesn’t know how the hammer was manipulated.. he can only guess based on his experience. He doesn’t have the same weapon so it’s not going to function exactly like the one used. Also telling the difference in ammunition is difficult for anti gun people. Weight was always a indicator for me.. but they look similar in many ways.. it’s not like they get special colors on the brass case to identify it as safe to use for this kinda stuff. It’s almost exactly the same.. typically it’s the tip of the round that changes in appearance. Again tho.. no evidence was used in the making of this video. I would wait till professionals have done their jobs before the rest of RUclips makes more opinion videos trying to state “facts” without using any evidence.
@@YahshuaLovesMe or both since he's responsible for the whole production technically.
NOT EVEN MY $99 HERITAGE single action will Go off by it's self. He is a LIAR... THANK YOU. love your content
Thanks for the support!
Thats funny you say that, when i started to watch this just now I went grabbed my heritage. Lol
Long time watcher, first time commenter. I'm sure I'm wrong here, just help me out if I am. I used to love old westerns (still do) there are alot of them that fire the gun by using the hammer only. Could have the hammer on this gun be modified for this western?
Thank you for helping me understand.
That is called fanning the hammer. I do that with my Colt single action ( made by Uberti) . My finger is holding the trigger in the rear position while I am manipulating the hammer. The hammer cannot lock back because the trigger pull is maintained through out the firing of all 6 rounds.
Not necessary to modify the gun to fan the hammer and have it fire each time the hammer falls I have done this with my S/A revolver so many times I have shot more than two full boxes of bullets using the fanning method. I can be done safely or a rang as long as the rules are followed. And all S/A revolvers have this feature inherently incorporated from the finish of manufacture. It is hard on the gun but, all cand do it. and many modern D/A revolvers can be fired the same way.
This definitely clears up any misconceptions and was well done. When I was a CW re-enacted I carried a ‘42 Springfield single-action musket. It only will fire if the trigger is depressed. You could drop it loaded and it won’t go off when cocked. Mr. B’s story is an attempt at CYA. Let a Gunsmith examine it and they will tell you in less than a minute.
I AM SO GLAD FOR THIS EXPLANATION! NOW I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT!
I agree. The 2 reasons why it will go off if you pull the trigger at any position the hammer is in (rephrasing my statement but the only way the hammer will move is if you pull the trigger)or b the safety is broken aka the hammer mechanism. There’s the saying don’t go off half cocked it.
I know he's lying because during this interview his "recollection" of the events changed since his initial statements on the incident. Originally he said he was practicing drawing it and dry firing it at the camera, but it wasn't supposed to be loaded.
He's had three stories so far; two before he hired lawyers and this one after his lawyers started working. Each time he goes public he provides more evidence. May the truth prevail and justice be served.
@@mjb9176 Indeed, hope he spends quite a bit of time for what he did.
@@gregflores8959 What he did was using a gun that was supposed to be safe. The man is an actor, not a gun hobbyist. The armorers are responsible for the weapons, not the actors.
@@juslitor so by your definition that means nobody should be prosecuted for firing a gun and shooting someone with a gun they didn't know was loaded. And getting charged with neglagent homicide.
To be fair memory is a funny thing and you'll find your recollection of events changes each time BUT I still do believe he's full of it. Don't see why he's not facing charges of man slaughter or similar.
The gun in question can be disassembled and examined under a microscope on the key parts. His interview was an attenpt to sway the jury but unfortunately, his attorney should harve warned him to keep his mouth shut as these mechanical devices, like the single action revolver, are easy to prove. Lying about it still will not change facts on how it operates!!!
The open question is whether that gun had been modified to be a prop gun. Pulling the hammer back and having it stop part way….does not look very “cinematic”. Prop guns are often modified to “slip guns.” Which will fire when when the hammer is released.
@@jimbutler1189 exactly what i was thinking.... Modify certain parts of single actin pistols that make fanning the hammer easiest for the actors...
@@jimbutler1189 and he is saying click.... cant wait to see the gun involved get scrutinized... if it ever does...
The same gun the killed the cinematographer was used for plinking around after hours so there is nothing wrong with the gun. It was fully functional and in proper working order.
I hope that the forensics team is professional and skilled enough to determine whether the firearm in question was in good repair, properly functioning, or modified as to functioning differently from a stock firearm of this make and model.
The "notch" on the bottom of the hammer that allows the gun to fire is the sear, NOT THE HAMMER SPRING!
Thank you for clarification. You and I apparently are the only ones who know how a single action firearm functions!
@@jeffjoralemon2717 Amen. Thanks for your note. It made my day.
CORRECT
We should probably not call him a liar until we know wether or not the gun was defective. I do believe that he cracked the hammer with his finger on the trigger.
None of that matters...He did not check the gun for dangerous rounds, and assumed it was safe when it was not. THAT is the point of guilt. Non-existent safety procedures on a set he is responsible for as the producer, and failing to qualify the gun's safety as the gun handler in the scene.
You can see his trigger finger curl in when he's talking about pulling the hammer back. It was like a natural moment for him.
I noticed that, too
Thanks for the explanation. My guess is Baldwin might indeed have mishandled the gun and now his lawyers just tell him to say something that will take the blame further off him so he is absolutely safe from any repercussions.
And I mean the main fault here was indeed not on Baldwin, it was on firstly the person that put the bullet in the gun and secondly the people that are supposed to check the gun to ensure it is safe to use.
If Balwin, an actor who probably does not really know anything about guns, is given a gun and told it is safe, has been checked and is not a "real" gun, during all the action going on at a movie set it's not unreasonable to assume at some point the gun might be briefly pointed at someone. You are just not that focused on gun safety when you assume or are being told you are more or less playing around with a "harmless" replica which makes it sound like a child's toy rather than an actual gun.
The worst part is that its likely that this was a live round marked as a dummy round so it might have been a faulty placement during the production of the round. Police are even tracking the path the round from being made till arriving on scene.
Lawyers don't tell you to the lie, it doesn't work like that. You have tell them the lie yourself, and then they help you defend it however possible.
@@bigquazz3955 Well I am sure they would not bluntly call it "lying"... more like "adjusting the truth to help your defense"...
It's kind of funny though that you imply no lawyer ever in the history of mankind told his defendant to lie... in a field of work where a lot of money and reputation is involved and every case is important to the lawyer, especially in cases involving rich people or corporations. People lie (for profit among other things)... lawyers are people too.
@@lordhelmchen3154 I can tell you learned everything you know about lawyers and law from Hollywood. I'm done here
@@bigquazz3955 Nope, I am using the most basic of logic. Why would it work otherwise? Do you think there are no dishonest people among lawyers? Are lawyers purely by chance people in the only field of work where there is not a single dishonest soul?
Of course feel free to enlighten me with your own wisdom.
I've seen newbies pick up a single action revolver and put their finger on the trigger to help hold the gun. Now if they pulled back the hammer while holding it this way and then releasing it the gun will fire.
I realize it feels awkward to hold the gun with your trigger pointed forward and attempt to pull the hammer back but that's how it's done.
Single action revolvers and single action semi autos to me take the most dedication to learn safely.
Why wasn’t he arrested and charged by now like any other citizen would’ve been in similar circumstances?
Who do you think he supports? Possibly the same people responsible for the alphabet soup kids being able to murder, loot, & burn cities.
That's right.!! God Bless that woman's soul & God bless her loving hurting family & friends who miss her ❤️🙏🤲🕊✝️😇❤
Had he just owned up to his negligence like a man id feel a bit different. The fact that he is trying to weasel his way out of this after years of supporting anti gun BS makes me say let him have it. I want him to say that under oath and watch him catch extra charges for perjury.
Could not agree more boot leg!
Fun fact: He probably actually believes that he did not pull the trigger. When you go through a traumatic experience like that, it's very common for a person to not be able to properly recollect how it happened. It's called "Memory distortion for Traumatic events" and is a very common symptom of PTSD.
The similarities between Baldwin and Smollett are striking from the context that they do something incredibly stupid - then just double-down with lying. The fact that both also hated Trump is telling.
@@elliott8596 Hmm, maybe. My guess is he was nurtured by his lawyer into saying whatever needed to be said to avoid a prison sentence.
@@steveroberts9222 Indeed! 👍🏽
that's a great demonstration but the more important question is, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger or not, why was there ANY projectile in that gun that when the gun was operated, would discharge and fire a lethal round on a movie set?
Baldwin is not a firearms expert, they had ones hired specifically for that set that failed to do there jobs. How was he supposed to know it wasn’t properly gone through.
Why was it ever pointed at her? They weren't even filming. Even if you know a gun is not loaded you still out of safe practice and good gun responsibility dont aim it at someone, particularly when they arent in a scene where the firearm was ment to be used.
@@davemartin9679 maybe he wasn’t holding it securely and it jumped when it fired?
There are a lot of people that don't like Baldwin for whatever reason. That's all this is.
@Daniel who has more liability the actor or the people who are supposed to be gun expert and are supposed to check every chamber throughly. How is the liability not on them. It’s there job not alecs. Dosnt matter if he is familiar with guns because it’s a film set not a gun range. That gun should’ve been checked over multiple times they just got lazy and someone died because of it.
I've been in the motion picture business since the mid-70s. I've worked around firearms, explosives and other real-life dangers since those early days. I am grateful to have workedwith some really excellent Armourers and special effects men. I am further grateful to USCCA for providing this excellent video in order to toss some real facts into the situation.
There's two items that led to the loss of a beautiful and talented Cinematorgrapher leaving her children orphaned and her husband a widower. The two items, which never, EVER are brought together on a movie set were (1) the bullet and (2) a working firearm capable chambering that round. Because of the failure of the Armourer to be physically present and make sure NO live rounds - including blanks - are anywhere near the prop guns.
The shooting was the responsibility of the Armourer. Period. If you're an actor, and your Director says to push the button, squeeze the trigger, or light the fuse, you do it. That's when you have to trust the pros around you to not let you or anyone else get hurt.
Guns have been used since the first movie. and they will continue to be used. If anything, this is a call out to gun grabbers showing how much gun ignorance hurts us all.
With your theory, if you're learning how to drive and the driving instructor says to pull the E-brake while high speed, you'd do it because he's the pro and you're just a learner?
Use your head. He was responsible for the bullet he put into someone. You want to drive, you need to learn to drive safely, you want to use a gun, you need to learn how to use one safely.
Most movie people are a bunch of idiots at large. I've been on many sets where people carry actual guns, and also use them as props when needed. You over estimate the intelligence of these carnies.
Very well written. If Alec Baldwin knew anything about guns in the real world he would know a) how to clear the gun, and b) NEVER to point it at anything he didn't want to shoot, loaded or unloaded. Alec Baldwin is an actor not a gunslinger!!!!
You are missing the most important aspect of them all: where is the "DIRECTOR" in all this. He is the one calling the shot (no pun intended) Neither the actor not the DP calls the shots. They do what the director tells them to do.
You are wrong. The armorer is responsible for making sure there are no live rounds on the set. Baldwin is responsible for not checking the gun himself and for pulling the trigger. Take a gun safety course. The person holding the gun when it goes off is the responsible party. Period.
He was holding the trigger back the whole time, that the only other way a single action would do that. Just like how you can "fan" the hammer of a old colt!
First and foremost. Alec is an actor. Take that into consideration when seeing his fake crying. Secondly. He's doing a great job of acting like he knows how a single action revolver works. This isn't just on him though. The whole production team is to blame for unsafe conditions. There is no excuse for negligence.
Let's remember that it's Baldwin's production team so he is responsible at more than one level.
My wife is a Psychologist. Her words describing Alec Baldwin in this case.
CONSIDER THE SOURCE.
For this accident to have happened it doesn't require something somewhere to have gone wrong, it requires every parameters everywhere to have gone wrong. It's actually insane to think of all of the grave mistakes that had to be made for this to happen
@@sephikong8323 right, it's a movie prop so it should never have had live rounds in it to begin with.
A 24 year-old Armorer? Really? Oooh, she must know so much about firearms.
Back in the day, your movie set armorers were retired military, if not retired Special Operations people.
Being an owner of two Ruger single action revolvers, I knew he was making up a story for his benefit.
How in hell they allowed real bullets on set
Hello from Australia!
I am a massive gun guy, endangered species here. This video explained everything very clearly and is a perfect example of why gun owners are NOT violent people by nature. Thank you.
Sounds to me like Alec Baldwin, most likely being a newbie to firearms, broke Rule 3 of basic firearms safety by having his index finger on the trigger (in this case with enough force to allow the hammer to drop when he let go of it). I believe that in his mind he truly believes he didn’t pull the trigger. It’s a lack of training. There’s a lot of blame to go around.
It’s not a lack of training. It was him trusting the words of the crew, including the ARMORER, who was hired to be responsible for the weapons.
@@jimbutler1189 , not knowing how to safely handle a firearm is a lack of training. Handling a gun with your finger on the trigger when you aren’t intending to shoot violates one of the basic safety rules.
@@jimbutler1189 it absolutely was a lack of training. The only way this accident happens is if he violated all 4 laws of gun safety. That’s a single days worth of training to beat those laws into your head forever, but he didn’t, and STILL WON’T
You guys are in ERROR --
Alec is NOT A NEWBIE. He's well experienced with movie guns, real guns, prop guns. Don't be FOOLED BY THE MEDIA. Poor little dumb Alec.
I see actors mishandle firearms in movies all the time. They’re actors, not necessarily trained to properly handle firearms. In fact, they shouldn’t need to be. The weapons on set should be made safe for the scene at hand by hired weapon handlers. Regardless of Alec Baldwins memory of the incident, I’m curious to know why live ammunition was on set and in that firearm. He might be lying but it could also be a memory distortion. Trauma can do that to a person.
There’s like 20 of these videos now and I love two things; one: everyone keeps talking about these guns and my local dealer is laughing all the way to the bank, two: I love that the gun community Baldwin hates so much gets to participate in what I hope is his eventual prosecution.
My local dealers (there’s four of them) have all been inundated with purchase demand for these types of pistols just cause they’ve been in the news so often.
Americans buying firearms because "they appear on the news". And then people ask why the rest of the world laughs at them...
@@ldgarius lol true
I think it's more about people not buying guns because they have this aura of danger around them. Once people start looking into the guns they see that they don't just go off. They find out how many safety devices are installed and how they work and are more comfortable with the guns around.
We get inundated by the news about accidental and intentional shootings and it creates the misconception that the guns themselves are the issue and not the people holding them. Guns themselves aren't dangerous. It's the people who wield them that are irresponsible.
I don't' have a gun nor do I intend to in the near future. I'm not under any illusion that the guns themselves are the problem. When i see people with guns i'm more scared of the person than the gun.
@@supernova743 But then that's much worse, because if you're assuming having access to firearms isn't the problem, then somehow the population of USA has some factor (genetic, cultural...) that leads to violent acts. That's why statistically there are more accidents and home terrorism in USA than the rest of the world by far. They also have the most liberal approach to gun ownership. So you're telling me there's no correlation...
I'm scared of the gun, which is what can kill me. A random psycho won't unless under very specific conditions which don't include me walking down the street in a normal day. I practice airsoft, so there's no need to lecture me on the "safety" of the mechanism of a firearm. And yet, I see absolutely no reason why the general untrained and uneducated public should be allowed to own one and hence endanger the rest of the population.
@@ldgarius people buying them because they appeared on the new AND they mentioned trying to ban importing replicas..... just like every time anyone mentioned banning ar-15s the price of a lower goes through the roof. also if you think banning guns will stop violence. look at the statistics for murder in Australia. it has been trending down for a century but still when you get to when they banned guns the number of people being shot went down yes but the number up people being stabbed to death/run over/ or just beaten to death tripled....if someone wants you dead you die.
Baldwin: ive never pull The trigger...The trigger was a Living creature