December 2, 2021

"I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them — never.... Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger."

Says Alec Baldwin, quoted in "Alec Baldwin Says He ‘Didn’t Pull the Trigger’ in ‘Rust’ Killing/The actor said in a brief excerpt from an upcoming interview with ABC News that he had not pulled the trigger when the gun he was holding went off, killing the cinematographer" (NYT).

I interpret this to mean that he has no memory of intending to pull the trigger or pulling the trigger, but I think it's highly unlikely that the gun fired without his pulling the trigger. I don't think he can say that he didn't point the gun in the direction that the gun was pointed when it was in his hand. It's got to be merely an assertion that he didn't intend to point the gun at the woman who died (Halyna Hutchins).

Alec Baldwin is...
 
pollcode.com free polls

115 comments:

Gator said...

No possible way that a gun could just go off without pulling the trigger in a person's arms. It could possibly discharge if it is dropped and the resulting trauma could cause the result - but very rarely. Baldwin has lied about everything from the beginning, why would he stop now?

khematite said...

Department of Going Through These Things Twice?

"A few months ago I told the American people that I did not trade arms for hostages," Reagan said in a 13-minute speech from the Oval Office. "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

tim maguire said...

I considered "can't remember," but the fact that it took him weeks to come up with this story tells me it didn't start with him. It started with his lawyers and PR team.

iowan2 said...

Notice how long is took for this narrative to take shape. The only way its possible, is because the propaganda media will not push back, in fact they will help spread the lie.
Remember, ~5% of the informed population know what happened. The rest of public opinion is shaped by headlines, even if the body of the story is 180 degrees out of phase with the headline.

Enigma said...

This falls into either CYA lying from a know-it-all, or a "negligent discharge." Considering Mr. Baldwin's elevated self-confidence, it's likely that any gun training he received went in one ear and out the other. He lives in a fantasy world where he's always a superman and he could never do wrong.

Negligent discharges DO happen routinely even in law enforcement, military, and among gun enthusiasts. Trigger fingers can AND DO unintentionally press the trigger particularly during holster insertions and removals.

One holster model is notoriously controversial:

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ditch-the-serpa-the-worlds-most-dangerous-duty-holster/


Search for negligent discharge images if you are not bothered by seeing gunshot wounds.

Curious George said...

"I don't think he can say that he didn't point the gun in the direction that the gun was pointed when it was in his hand."

I don't think he's saying that. He's saying he wouldn't point the gun and pull a trigger...the combination. You dissecting it like he said he wouldn't point the gunor pull a trigger.

And the fucker is lying.

gilbar said...

the gun was a single action revolver, wasn't it? (Wasn't it?)
So, pulling the trigger wouldn't have fired it anyway (wouldn't it?)
You' need to COCK the hammer first. (wouldn't you?)

(these questions could/should go to Weasel at Ace of Spades, but it's not Sunday)

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The gun could have gone off without Alec Baldwin consciously pulling the trigger. A cousin of mine shot himself in the leg while practicing quick draws. I’m sure he didn’t think he pulled the trigger. But drawing is a pulling motion and you’re not directly looking at the weapon when you do a quick draw. So it is very possible that you could draw some part of your hand or clothing across the trigger causing the weapon to fire without pulling the trigger.

rehajm said...

If you’re paying attention there’s been enough of these high stakes celebrity fuck ups to understand what Team Baldwin’s legal and PR strategy is here- to flood the potential juror zone with reasonable doubt with confusion of the facts. Lather and repeat. Do not rinse. Repeat until the lies become truth…

These celeb actor/producer/director fuck ups always need a pure win. You can’t cop to a lesser felony because you have to check the convicted felon box on the licenses and contracts. You won’t be allowed to handle money…

…and Canada doesn’t make exceptions at the border for left thinking convicted felons the way the US does, so when the exchange rate makes Vancouver the at the moment low cost movie set provider you’ll be stuck here in the states, trying to eke out a profit in Boston or Georgia

Balfegor said...

I think his initial slip up reveals that he's not thinking of the specific incident in which he killed his coworker, but generally -- that he thinks there is a sort of person who would point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, and he is not that sort of person. But then he has to correct it immediately because obviously he is the sort of person who would point a gun at someone else. It's undisputed that he did! So he's left saying he didn't pull the trigger. I don't think the statement is really about recollection at all, but about Baldwin trying to process the reality that he thinks of himself as category A, but actually falls into category B. I voted lying, but I don't actually think this is a "lie" as such -- it's not a speech act he's offering up for its truth, but for a different purpose. Signalling membership, and reconciling his erroneous self-conception.

But that's an awful lot of armchair psychology to spin out of a single utterance, and the real world isn't so "literary" I suppose.

MarKT said...

Thought experiment: Imagine that the shooter was not Alec Baldwin, but rather someone the left dislikes--James Woods, Kevin Sorbo, or Jon Voight.

Would they be doing a friendly interview with George Stephanopoulos and allowed to shape a narrative before any evidence is heard? Or would Stephanopoulos suddenly discover his inner NRA trainer and be interviewing weapon experts to discuss all of the things that made this tragedy preventable?

JPS said...

Maybe I should watch the interview, but "Well, the trigger wasn't pulled" strikes me as very strange phrasing. The passive voice almost seems a tell for a dodging of responsibility.

GatorNavy said...

It was a single action pistol. Baldwin had to cock the hammer back and then pull the trigger. Too bad the local DA is a minion of Soros. Baldwin will walk.

Shop Teacher Bob said...

I think the classic "smoking gun" applies here. He might not have pulled the trigger but he could have dropped the hammer.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Lying scum. Witness statements say his gun play was intentional and unnecessary. The scene they were preparing to film did not involve handling a weapon. Every “explanation” Baldwin has offered is unbelievable. This specific statement seems designed to counter the believable witnesses with another incredible assertion. Even if you know nothing about guns the guy holding it when it is used improperly and kills people logically bears the greatest responsibility. His repeated attempts to slither out from under that responsibility is grotesque. Expected, but intensely grotesque.

WK said...

I did NOT do anything wrong. The hatch just BLEW. It was a GLITCH. It was a- a TECHNICAL MALFUNCTION. Why in hell won't anyone believe me? - Gus Grissom Apollo 13 movie

TreeJoe said...

I watched portions of the interview and had to turn it off. I went into it thinking this was a horrible mistake where he was called to point the gun in a specific direction and pull the trigger on a blank cartridge.

I watched the interview and his claims and remembered this is a lifetime actor. Why is he doing the the interview in the first place? Why is he making claims like he didn't pull the trigger, which is then included in the final edit of the interview? Why is he not a subject of the investigation?

From what I understand from contemporary witnesses, Alec himself, and the evidence at the scene - he was handed firearm loaded with live rounds, did not inspect the weapon himself (which apparently is considered OK), prepared the scene as directed, pointed the gun at the camerawoman/director, and pulled the trigger.

Now, after weeks and preparation, he gives a public prepared interview claiming otherwise.

AT BEST he's manipulating the masses. And there's a lot of worse reasons I can imagine.

n said...

“If you want to shoot accurately, you need to understand the difference between pulling and squeezing the trigger. Squeezing the trigger aids in maintaining proper sight alignment and sight picture through the trigger break. Contrarily, pulling the trigger results in the loss of these key aspects of aiming and impacts shot placement.” from EveryDayConcealedCarry.com. He squeezed the trigger?

O2bnaz said...

He was shooting a revolver. This requires the hammer be fully cocked and the trigger pressed to fire. It wouldn’t fire, even on its own, if the hammer was not fully cocked. The hammer can also be half cocked. But this still does it allow the gun to discharge until it’s been fully cocked. It’s hard to believe someone handed him a fully cocked AND loaded weapon and he had no knowledge of its ability to fire in this position.

Conrad said...

I think it's far likelier than not that he actually pulled the trigger, but I would need to hear from a gun expert who examined the weapon after the shooting in order to completely rule out the possibility that he's telling the truth. This was (obviously) a "real" gun and the film being made was a period western. So the weapon was likely a reproduction of a model of gun that existed in the 1800s. I would certainly assume that modern handguns are well-engineered against accidental discharges, but in the case of this specific reproduction, who here can say for absolute certain that it couldn't have fired without a pulling action on the trigger?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

point and shoot is what he did.

or did the gun go off by itself... triggered by an angry mob?

john said...

Do you think they both reached for the gun? Looks to me Baldwin has hired Flynn for the defense.

Michael said...

Revolvers don’t accidentally discharge. You have to pull the trigger to make them go bang. This foolish statement will add a zero to any settlement if he avoids jail. Hollywood lefties hate guns and Thus know very little about them and thus believe that a fellow leftie interlocutor would not raise an eyebrow at that lie. Because guns, like SUVs have their own agency.

Howard said...

Of course Baldwin didn't *pull* the trigger. As any qualified rifleman will tell you, you squeeze it. If you pull it, you are likely to lose sight alignment and miss the target. He's getting advice from Bill Clinton and using a variation on the "depends on the meaning of is is" defense.

Lock him up!

Dan from Madison said...

Rule number one. Every gun is always loaded. It is that simple.

Big Mike said...

As I write this comment, six of you voted for #3. You six are morons.

He had to have cocked the hammer, he had to have pointed his gun in an unsafe direction, and he had to have put his finger inside the trigger guard. All three are voluntary actions. Careless actions, but under his control. Did he deliberately pull the trigger without noticing that it was pointed at people (#1), or did he jostle the trigger without meaning to (#2)? Doesn’t matter, once he did the first three actions, the death of Hutchins was inevitable.

He’s a wealthy Democrat. He’ll get off with probation.

Black Bellamy said...

I interpret this to mean that he is lying. A methodical lie crafted weeks after the incident in consultation with his attorney, very careful not to deny the documented facts but to now posit the actor as unwilling and almost unconscious, not really in charge of himself even.

People will testify that Alec Baldwin pointed the gun at those two people and shot them. They will describe how he held it, how he raised it, and how it belched fire and death directly as a result of pressure of Alec Baldwin's finger on the trigger.

But it wasn't him. It couldn't be! Because that's not something he would ever do.

Achilles said...

This case is pretty clear cut.

Funny how the media is treating this scummy piece of shit differently than a 17 year old kid attacked by violent looting shitheads and child rapists.

richlb said...

Look - Baldwin has to say this to try and lay the groundwork for any lawsuits likely coming his way. It's tough to suddenly find yourself lower than Stephen on the "Baldwin Scale." Even Daniel doesn't know what that feels like.

Alcibiades said...

He's worked hard to convince himself it didn't happen. And now he conveniently cannot recall.

Harry Lime said...

I don't know for sure what happened, but Baldwin's claim is unlikely based on the type of gun. It was almost certainly a Colt single-action revolver, which requires the hammer to be manually cocked back by the user in order to fire. You can pull the trigger all day long and nothing will happen if the gun hasn't been cocked. So at the very least he took the deliberate action of cocking the hammer. He also had to have been pointing the gun at least in the general direction of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins for the bullet to have hit her and the director (if it was some kind of weird ricochet we would surely have heard by now). To give him the benefit of the doubt, once the hammer is cocked this type of gun has a very light trigger pull. He might have drawn the gun, cocked the hammer and pointed it at the director without intending to shoot, but if his finger was resting on the trigger he could have set it off by accident. That is the best case scenario for Baldwin. Worst case: He was pissed at Hutchins and the director for failing to prevent a crew walk-off, pointed the gun at them and fired intending to scare them with a blank, not knowing there was a real round in the cylinder. I suppose it's possible that he knew what he was doing and killed them on purpose, but I don't think he's that crazy (close, but not quite).

tommyesq said...

That sounds a lot like he is trying to talk himself into stating/believing that he didn't pull the trigger. I wouldn't pull the trigger, ergo the trigger wasn't pulled, ergo I didn't pull the trigger.

Wince said...

Maaaybe, Baldwin is a method actor, so "he" never did point the gun or pull the trigger?

Here's Baldwin explaining his acting method in a "MasterClass" parody, cued for the "Improv" segment.

Born: January 6, 1984 (age 37 years), Boston, MA
Spouse: Alec Baldwin (m. 2012)

gpm77 said...

It's not the lies we tell others, it's the lies we tell ourselves.

SteveM said...

Let me preface my comment by saying that I’m no fan of Alec Baldwin. I do not own a gun, but on several occasions, I’ve gone on a group outing to a shooting range. We had about 4 or 5 stalls to ourselves, with a different caliber gun at each, a 38 (revolver), a 45, a 9mm, and an AR15. When I picked up the 9mm (a Sig Sauer, I believe), I just went off. Luckily, the gun was correctly positioned towards the target. While my finger may have touched the trigger while I picked it up, I swear to this day that I didn’t pull the trigger, had no intention of pulling the trigger while picking up the gun, and attribute the unintentional firing to the gun’s trigger mechanism being way too sensitive. So, yes, I believe that it may be possible that Baldwin believes that he’s being truthful when saying that he didn’t pull the trigger.

As an aside, my loading and firing of the AR15 was enlightening with respect to MSM commentary on the AR15. While I was surprised that the cartridges could be loaded side-by-side such that there were more cartridges in the clip than I thought, I was more surprised by how thin the cartridge was and how small the bullet portion was. I’m not a hunter, but I have my doubts whether an AR15 would be the best choice of gun to stop a bear or moose.

CWJ said...

My understanding is that the gun is a single action revolver. Does he not remember having to cock the hammer as well? Even worse would be a claim that the gun was cocked and ready to fire when given to him.

If I'm wrong and it's a double action revolver, I can't believe anyone could forget the additional force nesessary to to cock the hammer while pulling the trigger.

If I'm double wrong, and it's a semiautomatic then substitute "slide" for "hammer" and give the propmaster an "F" for historical accuracy.

Iman said...

Who got the Schweddy Balls now, Awic Balwin?

Skipper said...

And the self-driving demon SUV mowed down the people at the Waukesha parade.

tommyesq said...

I believe that the gun in question was a single action revolver, meaning that the hammer has to be manually pulled back. In a double action gun, a pull of the trigger serves to first push the hammer back and then to trigger it to move forward. Because the trigger is initially serving effectively as a lever to cock the hammer, it takes quite a bit of force - it has a "heavy" and long pull. A single action, on the other hand, merely has to trigger the hammer to fall, and therefore has a much shorter and lighter pull. It is possible that Baldwin was not experienced with single-pull guns and put his finger on the trigger hard enough to fire without intending to (or believing, after the fact, that he did) fire the weapon. Of course, he still didn't ensure that the gun was not loaded, or was loaded with blanks, and put his finger on the trigger while pointing it at someone...

Gilbert Pinfold said...

A single-action revolver requires 1) the hammer to be manually cocked, and then 2) the trigger be pulled. You can remember this from all those old Westerns on TV and in the movies. Double-action revolvers (a type not of the vintage for this movie) can cock the hammer and fire the gun, but with a very heavy trigger pull. Neither type can be fired without deliberate action on Baldwin's part. The gun didn't just "go off", just like the SUV didn't "plow into" the Waukesha parade crowd. Inanimate objects don't have agency.

Leon said...

The trigger was being pulled when the hammer was cocked and released or his thumb slipped off the hammer in all likelihood.

pious agnostic said...

I find is unsurprising but amusing that Baldwin's defenders trot out a bit of trivia they just learned ("old-timey cowboys used to keep one hole in the round thingy empty of bullets because the bang thingy might go off if it was dropped") as if that in any way excuses their hero.

The fact that pistols 150 years ago were touchy in no way eliminates a century-and-a-half of firearm safety improvements; in no way indemnifies the production from utilizing faulty or dangerous equipment; or shields the shooter from the consequences of his actions.

But then again, in a world where cars run down parades all on their own, maybe guns fire without anyone touching the trigger. Who knows?

Darkisland said...

I think he is saying that someone modified the trigger to be very touchy. That would be easy to verify by examining the gun. But let's assume it is true Baldwin still:

1) Pointed the gun at a person
2) Cocked it
3) Put his finger on the trigger.

He did it. Probably not with the intention of shooting anyone. But he did it out of ignorance of basic safe gun handling rules that everybody knows.

John LGBTQBNY Henry

Original Mike said...

Sure, Alec. Sure.

Lurker21 said...

He's lying, but by this point he's probably convinced himself that he's telling the truth.

wendybar said...

39% are giving him a WIDE berth. He pulled the trigger. He is a murderer. PERIOD. HE should have to take NRA classes behind bars.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Unless the gun is proven to be mechanically defective is some way, there is no other way Halyna Hutchins was killed than the gun was pointed at her and the trigger pulled. Baldwin may not have intentionally pulled the trigger, but he did pull the trigger.

TickTock said...

I would have offered the choice that he can live with his actions and suppressed the memory of pulling the trigger. Then after retelling and retelling the incident without this memory he has convinced himself that the gun went off by himself. A weak man.

Leland said...

Funny how the weapon didn’t discharge prior to him pointing the firearm at somebody. What poor luck it could be handled in so many ways and never unintentionally go off yet did just as it was aimed directly at a person. Or is Baldwin suggesting the firearm was often discharging unintentionally and he, the producer, allowed its continued use on the set and in his hands.

By the way, a revolver of that vintage has less than half the trigger pull force of modern firearms. So Baldwin’s claim that the armorer adjusted trigger pull to be lighter is just ignorance of the tools in his hands. That same ignorance applies to his often more general misunderstanding of the dangers of modern firearms.

Curious George said...

When he shot her he didn't say "How did the gun go off!?" he said "Why'd they give me a hot gun! In all my years, I’ve never been handed a hot gun!"

Took him over a month to come up with this never pulled the trigger bullshit.

LIAR!

Amexpat said...

There were many witnesses so there should be no doubt about whether he pulled the trigger or where the gun was pointed. Of course if the script didn't call for the gun to be shot then why even have dummy bullets in it?

In the interview that George Clooney did with Marc Maron, he doesn't criticize Baldwin directly but he said that he always checked the chamber of a gun before handling it and would show the empty chamber to anyone he needed to point a gun at in a scene. He also said he never heard of the phrase "cold gun" in connection with a gun without real bullets.

The Neon Madman said...

The gun is a single-action revolver. It had to be manually cocked, pointed, and the trigger pulled. Those are deliberate actions that take some effort to do. The gun did not go off "accidentally".

I have taught gun safety for twenty years. I was stunned by the carelessness and outright incompetence regarding gun handling on that movie set. Baldwin probably won't face any criminal charges for this, but he will deservedly be punished financially when the lawsuits are done (personally, I hope that he is bankrupted). The so-called "armorer" will most likely wind up taking the bulk of the blame, but again will probably not face criminal charges.

Wa St Blogger said...

SUV's drive themselves into crows, guns fire themselves. And Owners of Pedophile islands commit suicide.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Well, the trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger.

Actually, he probably didn't now that I think about it. Rust was Western which most likely guarantees that the gun used was a Colt pattern Single Action Army revlover. Firing such a gun would require thumbing the hammer back into the cocked position before pulling the trigger. Most likely Baldwin was doing this, in as dramatic a manner as possible, and his thumb slipped and the hammer drove home with just enough force to set off whatever ammo was currently in the chamber.

CJinPA said...

Any gun control advocate can tell you that guns kill people all the time, with no human involvement at all. Why do you think they call it "gun violence?"

madAsHell said...

Did she turn him down for sex??

I'm Not Sure said...

Q: "Did you fire the gun?"

AB: "No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"

Enigma said...

REGARDING THE MANY WRONG COMMENTS ABOVE THAT "SINGLE ACTION REVOLVERS MUST FIRST BE COCKED" -- THIS IS FALSE FOR ANTIQUES AND MODERN COPIES OF ANTIQUES.

A 19TH CENTURY SINGLE-ACTION CAN BE FIRED IF ONE BUMPS OR HITS THE HAMMER. THEY CAN FIRE IF DROPPED ON A HARD SURFACE. THE STANDARD SAFETY PROTOCOL IS TO LOAD 5 ROUNDS IN A 6 SHOT REVOLVER AND REST THE HAMMER ON AN EMPTY CHAMBER.

THE "MUST COCK IT FIRST" LOGIC APPLIES ONLY TO 20TH CENTURY SINGLE ACTION DESIGNS (E.G., RUGER, HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, ETC.)

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "The gun could have gone off without Alec Baldwin consciously pulling the trigger. A cousin of mine shot himself in the leg while practicing quick draws. I’m sure he didn’t think he pulled the trigger. But drawing is a pulling motion and you’re not directly looking at the weapon when you do a quick draw. So it is very possible that you could draw some part of your hand or clothing across the trigger causing the weapon to fire without pulling the trigger."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

He picked up the gun, lifted it into a firing position, pointed it directly at the Producer, and pulled the trigger.

According to Left Bank..........it was "accidental"!!

The only thing funnier than Left Bank's insane Rube Goldberg-ian exercises in finding Trump guilty of non-existent crimes is Left Bank's even Rube Goldberg-ier exercises in finding excuses for obvious lefty/dem crimes and malfeasance.

Next up for Left Bank (and I'm only half kidding here): Finding a way to blame Baldwin's shooting/negligent homicide on Trump himself....at Putin's bidding.

You may snicker at that, but just you wait and see......

Narr said...

Baldwin's Urkel impression needs work.

To call him a weasel would be an insult to weasels.

Murderous SUVs and self-firing handguns--world of wonders. Have the Resistentialists been right all along? "Les choses sont contre nous," indeed.

MadisonMan said...

I would not be at all surprised that Alec Baldwin's brain is remembering something that didn't actually happen, because memory retention is affected by all sorts of things, especially stress.

TRISTRAM said...

A generous interpretation would be ‘I would never point a gun at a person and pull the trigger with the intent of hurting that person’.

This generosity would be buying into typical leftist mid space where intent is more important than outcomes.

I am not that generous.

Michael K said...

Somebody should introduce that Rittenhouse prosecutor to Baldwin. They both pointed guns they thought were unloaded at people. The prosecutor even had his finger on the trigger.

M Jordan said...

I feel sorry for Baldwin because it was a terrible but unintentional event. But here’s the thing: Baldwin spent the last five years mocking half the country for being Trump supporters saying cruel things nonstop. Now he runs to Stephanopolous crying for redemption and he is never going to get it from the half of the country he abused.

Some would call it karma. The lesson I draw from it is to try to be less vitriolic to people you don’t agree with. You may win the moment but lose the future.

Skeptical Voter said...

Thinking about what Alec Baldwin said, I'm reminded of Obama's frequent, "That's not who we are". Baldwin is that that he's not someone who would actually pull a trigger.

I can't say I ever had a lot of respect for Alec Baldwin--a sanctimonious putz if there ever was one. But he does shrink from self knowledge here. Whether he's "that kind of guy" or not--he did shoot and kill the lady.

Bilwick said...

Remember that Baldwin is a "liberal" so his capacity to convince even himself of magical thinking is probably infinite by now.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Big Mike at 8:07 hit the main points.

Alex Baldwin was playing around with a gun, with other people around.

Nothing in his job required him to be doing what he was doing

He did not personally check the gun to establish it was safe.

In any honest jurisdiction, the least he would get for this is voluntary manslaughter, the unintentional killing of someone else because of risky actions you chose to undertake.

He should be going to jail, and he shoudl be getting sued for millions of dollars by the families of the people he killed, and he should lose those lawsuits.

I don't know what is going to happen. But that is what should happen

Mark said...

It was a revolver right? One that involves cocking the weapon, pulling the hammer back? Which can result in a slight-pressure trigger.

Yancey Ward said...

This is certainly a self-serving lie. It is his lawyers creating his defense in both the criminal investigation and the coming civil litigation.

This is probably a smart legal move on his part, but it is going to cost him most of his good reputation. I write this as someone who thinks the incident was a terrible accident, and I still do.

Gospace said...

Looks like the online jury finds him guilty by a vast majority without seeing all the evidence presented.

Wonder what a jury of 12 will think after all the evidence is presented.

Yancey Ward said...

NorthOfTheOneOhOne makes a good point- it might not have been the trigger pull at all. However, reading Baldwin's statement, it seems to forclose any possibility it was Baldwin's actions that cause the gun to fire. His statement seems to be simply, "The gun went off in my hands, and I did nothing to cause it."

gilbar said...

101 said...
Firing such a gun would require thumbing the hammer back into the cocked position before pulling the trigger. Most likely Baldwin was doing this, in as dramatic a manner as possible, and his thumb slipped and the hammer drove home with just enough force to set off whatever ammo was currently in the chamber.


yep, i figure his finger was already ON the trigger
He pulled the gun, put his finger on the trigger (depressing it), and then
Said, " I might as well SHOOT YOU!"
Took aim at the lady
Dramatically thumbed the trigger back
Verified his aim at the lady's heart
Then dramatically let go of the hammer (with his finger still lightly on the trigger)

at which time FOR SOME REASON! the gun, JUST WHEN OFF!!!
(The legal term for this, is Homicide )

Tarrou said...

I'll tell you all what I told a certain Specialist who had a negligent discharge which resulted in his being tossed from the unit and reclassed to a MOS that wouldn't require him to carry a firearm. The fucking thing didn't go off on its own, you lying sack of shit.

stlcdr said...

as of this point, there are twenty six (!) out of 890 people who believe the gun fired without pulling the trigger!

I hope to god they are just trolls (or they are being pedantic: his thumb slipped off the hammer, so technically, the 'gun went off without pulling the trigger').

JPS said...

Curious George, 9:25:

"When he shot her he didn't say 'How did the gun go off!?' he said 'Why'd they give me a hot gun! In all my years, I’ve never been handed a hot gun!'"

This is a great point.

DanTheMan said...

>>Took him over a month to come up with this never pulled the trigger bullshit.

A month from now, Baldwin will be blaming Trump for the shooting, and others will be claiming she was shot by a second gunman. Probably behind a grassy knoll.

Lem said...

“I would never” reminded me of racial hoax Smollet televised interview. I would never…

William said...

Alec Baldwin is an unsympathetic character, but I'm sympathetic to his plight. This killing was not intentional or malicious, but it happened. The mishap was due to his negligence as a gun handler and his penny pinching as a producer. He is responsible for the death of a human being. That's hard to process. This looks like some kind of evasion or denial, but how do you process something like homicide?.....He has a past history of being a bombastic asshole. His parody of Donald Trump was actually more an exaggeration of Alec Baldwin's persona than Donald Trump's.....His plight is similar to that of Sebold. Like David Copperfield, we all want to be heroes in our story, but it's hard to make the elephant disappear. They both did something monstrous and now they face the challenge of fitting that monstrous act into what they used to think was their "hero's journey"....I think Sebold has the heavier burden. Her story was that of victim and now she has become the victimizer. Her persona and body of work cannot comfortably fit into that narrative. Perhaps Baldwin's past history of being a jerk will cause less subversion of his reputation....As Balfegor above suggests, I think these acts of non-contrition are attempts not to assuage public opinion but rather to find some escape from their conscience.

walter said...

"Garcia-Zarate's defense attorneys argued that the shooting was unintentional, that he found the gun wrapped in a cloth under his seat at the pier and that it accidentally discharged. The bullet ricocheted off of the ground and struck Steinle in the back as she was walking, 78 feet away, with her father.

The 1st District Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the trial judge made a "prejudicial" error when he failed to give the jury "the momentary possession instruction."

"It is undisputed that defendant was holding the gun when it fired. But that fact alone does not establish he possessed the gun for more than a moment. To possess the gun, defendant had to know he was holding it," the appellate court wrote.

Garcia-Zarate faced three years in prison on the gun possession conviction, but was sentenced to time already served. He is currently in federal custody on new immigration and gun charges, including being an illegally present alien in possession of a firearm."

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/756136254/appeals-court-reverses-gun-conviction-in-kate-steinle-killing

Freder Frederson said...

Any gun control advocate can tell you that guns kill people all the time, with no human involvement at all. Why do you think they call it "gun violence?"

This of course is bullshit. A gun control advocate (like me) will tell you that guns make it easier to kill people (or oneself). Huge difference.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Left Bank tries so hard within his fog of ignorance to make sense of Baldwin’s lies. Either Baldwin took affirmative steps (plural) to ready the revolver to fire or the safety gal left the gun loaded and fully cocked, which is impossible to miss if your eyes are open and should have alerted the shooter. He was reckless, bare minimum, fatally reckless.

Michael said...

"I did not have trigger pulling with that woman"
~ Alec Clinton

Drago said...

Has Baldwin whipped out the old "There is no controlling legal authority" Gore-ploy yet?

Narayanan said...

what if the gun was cheap knock off - Hollywood Movies Only Edition/Model Specially put together on a Saturday Night?

Narayanan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aggie said...

It's a newly-made historical reproduction of a frontier single shot revolver. For a round to be fired, the firing pin has to be engaged by a falling hammer. The hammer only falls when the trigger is pulled, and, being a single action, the hammer only falls after it has been manually cocked. It is too simple a firearm to fire itself - the very action requires multiple human inputs.

So Baldwin is lying. If he had received and absorbed any firearms instruction in his sorry lifetime, he would understand that as soon as he puts a firearm in his hand he is responsible for its discharges. He didn't check his loads. Guilty.

On another note, does anybody else notice how much Baldwin has come to resemble Boris Yeltsin? I assume this is because of Baldwin's reputed excessive alcohol consumption, which perhaps explains his erratic and explosive temper and tendency to evade his personal responsibilities.

GRW3 said...

Sorry, gun etiquette says you don't point guns at people unless shooting is an option. This is doubly true if the gun has some form of super sensitive hair trigger. Of course such a gun shouldn't be around amateur shooters like this anyway.

Narayanan said...

if Mr Baldwin was practicing / mimicking fanning he would simply hold/depress the trigger and manipulate the hammer - that would be my question to him on follow up.

Jupiter said...

"It's got to be merely an assertion that he didn't intend to point the gun at the woman who died (Halyna Hutchins)."

The guy is speaking English, Althouse. What makes you think that he doesn't understand what he is saying?

Dave64 said...

Setting up a defense that the gun was tampered with before it went off in his hands.

LoFan John said...

"His thumb slipped and the hammer drove home". No. Even the old revolvers have a half-cock notch on the hammer to catch it in exactly that case. "A 19th Century single-action revolver can be fired if one bumps or hits the hammer". It takes more than a "bump". The old guns were carried with an empty chamber under the hammer so that the gun would not fire due to a sharp blow on the hammer: for example, if a stirrup-iron or some such hard and heavy object should fall onto the exposed hammer. The trigger pull weights described as "light" are usually about double the weight of the gun itself. The gun doesn't bear the blame, though blame may be thrown at it.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Gospace said...
Looks like the online jury finds him guilty by a vast majority without seeing all the evidence presented.

Wonder what a jury of 12 will think after all the evidence is presented.


Baldwin brought the case to the online jury with his interview. So we're entitled to examine all the evidence at hand, and make a judgment.

Reality: When someone hands you a gun, it is loaded until you check it yourself and establish that it isn't loaded.

If Baldwin had checked, he would have found it was loaded, fixed that, and not killed her.

Reality: you never ever ever point a gun at a person you don't want to kill.

The gun did not magically levitate. Baldwin pointed it at her. if he hadn't, the bullet couldn't have left the chamber and hit her

If Baldwin needed to practice his quickdraw, then he should have been practicing with his body aimed at a wall thick enough to stop any bullets coming from the gun.

There is no possible believable story or evidence that can clear Alec Baldwin of his responsibility for killing those two people. ("Someone waved a magic wand and teleported live bullets into the gun then forced my hand to twist so I was pointed the gun at them, then forced my finger into the trigger guard and forced me to pull the trigger." If true, that story would absolve Baldwin of his guilt. But the story is not believable)

I don't care if the gun had a hair trigger. I don't care if someone handed him the gun and said "it isn't loaded".There are basic and well known rules of gun safety that Baldwin violated. Without those violations, no one would have died.

There is nothing new we can learn that can change that reality

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

M Jordan said...

Some would call it karma.

Alternately it could be called Nemesis. Either way, I'm enjoying the schadenfreude!

Quaestor said...

Left Bank of the Charles writes, "The gun could have gone off without Alec Baldwin consciously pulling the trigger. A cousin of mine shot himself in the leg while practicing quick draws...yaddah, yaddah...very possible...yaddah, yaddah."

Are you a firearms expert, Lefty? I suppose you are since you write as if you're the foremost expert in the room on any subject you comment on, which raises a few questions: Firstly, what was the exact model of firearm involved in the self-inflicted wounding of your cousin? This is important if we are to judge whether that incident has any commonality with the death of Halyna Hutchins. You go on to describe an unintentional discharge scenario that my poor mind cannot follow. Perhaps you can be more specific? Lastly, you use the phrase "very possible" which is typically used by bullshit artists when they bullshit. Since everyone knows you to be forthright and scrupulously honest, should we overlook "very possible" and mentally substitute highly improbable?

Howard said...

Since Baldwin can't bomb an aspirin factory, maybe he should consider donating half his fortune to Planned Parenthood to help deflect.

Michael said...

Left bank. Did your cousin have a pistol or a revolver?

Michael said...

Left bank. Did your cousin have a pistol or a revolver?

Chris Lopes said...

"Looks like the online jury finds him guilty by a vast majority without seeing all the evidence presented."

He was holding the gun when it went off. He was pointing the gun at a fellow human being when it went off. The gun is a single action revolver that requires (because of the mechanical actions involved) the hammer to be cocked and the trigger to be pulled before it can go off. The gun went off and the person it was pointed at was struck and killed. These are all things already known to be true. What other evidence would you require before concluding Baldwin was responsible for a woman's death?

n.n said...

Anthropomorphization, negligent behavior, and shared/shifted responsibility.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "This of course is bullshit."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

It most certainly is not BS. But then again, you leftists are still lying about the riots that you lauded for 6 months in 2020 right before you proclaimed those riots to have been non-existent....along with antifa going from "hooray for the anti-fascists" to "never heard of them".

The only factor that matters in the media/left moving to "the inanimate object did it!" mode is that a lefty was caught doing something.

Thus:

9-11? Planes flew into the buildings (and if that fails, "some people did something")

Waukesha? Assuming you can even find this story of undeniable racist terrorism anywhere on the left these days (spoiler: you can't): An SUV mowed innocents down

And now Baldwin's gun supposedly attacked a defenseless woman!!

Interesting historical note: twice as many people have been killed/murdered/manslaughtered by Ted Kennedy and Alec Baldwin than the Jan 6 "insurrectionists"!!

Quaestor said...

Most likely Baldwin was doing this, in as dramatic a manner as possible, and his thumb slipped and the hammer drove home with just enough force to set off whatever ammo was currently in the chamber.

Even this scenario is unlikely. Assuming the firearm is in good working order unless the trigger is depressed the sear will typically catch and hold a slipped hammer.

More info

CWJ said...

Enigma,

Before I concede your point, we have the gun. Should be easy to test bump the hammer to see how suseptible the gun is to firing that way. I don't recall any claims of ricochet or that Baldwin dropped the gun before firing. The examples so far offered by commenters all resulted in self-harm. So I'm trying to imagine a scenario where one would bump the hammer while simultaneously pointing the pistol at the cinematographer.

Conrad said...

"as of this point, there are twenty six (!) out of 890 people who believe the gun fired without pulling the trigger!

I hope to god they are just trolls (or they are being pedantic: his thumb slipped off the hammer, so technically, the 'gun went off without pulling the trigger')."

Jeez Louise, who here is claiming that it actually happened that way? The question was whether it was POSSIBLE the gun fired without the trigger being pulled. Apparently, that actually IS a possibility, because apparently it's possible to release the hammer (accidently or on purpose) before it's fully cocked. I don't know how much of a gun expert you claim to be, but if you were under oath on the witness stand and asked "is it POSSIBLE to fire this loaded weapon without actually pulling the trigger?" would your answer really be "No, it's simply not mechanically possible"?

Note that even if Baldwin's claim is true, it doesn't mean he's not responsible for that poor woman's death -- even criminally liable. It's in fact POSSIBLE that he committed premeditated murder, but without pulling the trigger, by pointing the gun at her and then releasing the hammer before it was fully cocked. Just because you and I agree it almost certainly didn't happen that way doesn't mean that it COULDN'T have.

Joe Smith said...

I did not have sex with that woman...

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

The Gun is a Replica Colt SAA. The original Colts had a habit of having a weak half cock position wherein the hammer could fall off the half cock ledge. This was remedied in later models and replicas by using an actual notch to replace the ledge. The hammer still must be manually pulled to the half cock position. The hammer movement is long and very firm. No way in hell it gets pulled back unknowingly.

I have not seen anything on the brand of replica used on the set. Some are made like the original Colts and have the hammer resting on the firing pin. In which case, it can fire if the trigger is struck or it is dropped and lands on the hammer. The pistol in question was neither dropped nor struck. Even if it had a hair trigger, the hammer would first have to be cocked manually.

Some replicas are made with transfer bars like the much later Ruger revolvers. The is a small metal piece that fits between the hammer and the firing pin. The hammer hits the bar, and the energy is transferred through the bar to the firing pin. The bar drops out of alignment and requires the trigger to be pulled in order to be raised into battery. The bar cannot align with the firing pin unless the trigger in pulled.

gilbar said...

he jokingly cocked it,
jokingly aimed at her heart,
jokingly squeezed the trigger,
WATCHED HER DIE,
and THEN, 'Baldwin repeatedly asked why he was given a “hot gun” after the tragedy occurred. “In all my years, I’ve never been handed a hot gun,” the 63-year-old actor allegedly kept saying. He was reportedly in tears after the accident.'

That's My take. He thought it'd be funny

Edmund said...

did not inspect the weapon himself (which apparently is considered OK),

On a movie set, it is the responsibility of the armorer or 1st assistant director (who is in charge of safety) to determine if the weapon is "cold" (no real bullets or blanks in it) or "hot" (has blanks or real bullets in it). The usual procedure is for the armorer to show the weapon to the actor, load with appropriate ammo (dummy, blank, or real rounds), hand to the actor, and loudly announce "Hot gun" or "Cold gun".

(This is based on the experience of family that have worked on many films and TV shows where guns were used.)

There are gun replicas available now that have mechanisms in them that will produce a recoil and either advance the cylinder or move the slide and eject a spent cartridge. You add the fire and smoke via special effects. There are effects houses that specialize in this. However, adding such sfx in post isn't cheap and a low budget film like Rust (reportedly a $7 million budget) doesn't have the money to do that.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

ABC teased us with this didn’t pull the trigger business. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Alec Baldwin says he drew the hammer back and released it, and that’s when the gun fired. That’s not pulling the trigger, but anyone who has ever had even a cap gun knows that the hammer coming down can fire a gun like that, so that’s on Baldwin. They didn’t get into the details of how that went down, but there were other witnesses, so we may hear more on that subject.

Baldwin says he was trained from early in his career not to check movie guns himself. We’ll see if that holds up. But that too may be a part of what went wrong, a big movie star in a low budget movie who didn’t understand he had to handle and double-check things himself that would be done by crew in a bigger budget production.

It does appear that the “possibly correct that the gun fired without his pulling the trigger” option selected by only 3% of readers here is the right answer to the poll question.

The Godfather said...

Baldwin was/is a producer on this film, not just an actor, so he has responsibility for what the company did. So why WHY WHY was there any ANY ANY live ammo on that set? Even if, hard as it is to believe, the "gun went off although I didn't pull the trigger", why in God's Name was there live ammo in the pistol? Isn't the producer responsible for that egregious fuck-up?

When I was a teen-ager, I was in two plays in which my character shot another character with a pistol. In the first play, a school drama club show, the teacher who was the director of the play had control of the pistol and the blank ammo. There was NO LIVE AMMO.

The second play was a summer stock show, and I ownwed the revolver I used; I brought it with me from home to each performance, I loaded the blanks myself, and kept the revolver in my possession at all times.

And in both plays I never NEVER NEVER pointed the pistol at the actor playing the victim, just in his general direction (I was told that even blanks can hurt their targets).

Bender said...

On a movie set, it is the responsibility of the armorer or 1st assistant director (who is in charge of safety) to determine if the weapon is "cold" (no real bullets or blanks in it) or "hot" (has blanks or real bullets in it).

Under the law, it is the responsibility of the person handling a weapon "to determine if the weapon is 'cold' (no real bullets or blanks in it) or 'hot' (has blanks or real bullets in it)." In this case, that would be Baldwin.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

LoFan John said...

"His thumb slipped and the hammer drove home". No. Even the old revolvers have a half-cock notch on the hammer to catch it in exactly that case.

Bullshit. The half cock allows the cylinder lock to disengage so that the cylinder may be rotated by hand allowing for the gun to be loaded. It is not a safety feature. As someone pointed out above; SAA's can be fanned by simply holding the trigger down and brushing the hammer back repeatedly.

The trigger pull weights described as "light" are usually about double the weight of the gun itself. The gun doesn't bear the blame, though blame may be thrown at it.

Again, bullshit. Or maybe you're too ill educated to understand that trigger pulls are measured in pounds of force, not pounds of mass.

West TX Intermediate Crude said...

I'm giving Baldwin the same benefit of the doubt that he would give me, or Kyle.
Therefore, he should die in jail.
But, he won't. He'll plead to some misdemeanor, do some "community service," pay the poor woman's family a few million to not make a stench, and get on with his very smug and luxurious life.

Enigma said...

@CWJ: "So I'm trying to imagine a scenario where one would bump the hammer while simultaneously pointing the pistol at the cinematographer."

My comment pertained to the numerous and erroneous blanket statements that "single action revolvers must be cocked before they can fire." I wrote a general gun safety warning -- as many, many people are demonstrating their ignorance -- do not muddle this with discussion of Baldwin's responsibility. Many people think old style single action revolvers work like modern guns. THEY. DO. NOT. Ruger famously changed from "2 screw" to "3 screw" revolvers in 1973 following an accidental shooting and lawsuit. They also added roll marked safety warnings to all their guns (generally on the barrel) -- offering free owner's manuals to all.

https://www.rugerforum.net/threads/3-screw-vs-new-model-2-screws.39057/

Regarding Baldwin, it's conceivable that he snagged the hammer on his clothing, fingers, or holster when inserting or removing it from a holster. This would result in a partial cock and immediate release of the hammer. A loose non-aimed hold might have resulted in a random unlucky shot. We need evidence and testimony and to the specific conditions. HOWEVER, OLD STYLE SINGLE ACTIONS REMAIN REALLY, REALLY, REALLY DANGEROUS VERSUS MODERN SINGLE OR DOUBLE ACTION REVOLVERS.

Regarding accidental/negligent discharge technology advances, see the vintage Iver Johnson "Hammer the Hammer" ad at the link below:

https://www.ammoandguncollector.com/p/vintage-gun-and-ammo-advertising.html

"At a reasonable cost, accuracy, dependability and absolute safety. In unskilled or nervous hands it is safe—it cannot be accidentally discharged—you can Hammer the Hammer."

Harry Lime said...

OK, the Rust shooting incident is coming into clearer focus now. Enigma is correct that older single action revolvers can go off if the hammer is bumped while resting on a live round. They can also go off if they are dropped in such a state. Also, if the hammer gets snagged on clothing while holstering, but in that case the danger would mostly be to Baldwin. None of those things seem to have happened here. Baldwin admits that he pointed the gun at Hutchins at her direction so she could get a camera shot. He then pulled back the hammer, again at her direction. He then claims that the hammer just dropped on its own without him pulling the trigger. I doubt that he consciously pulled the trigger, but I suspect that his finger was probably resting on the trigger, which set it off. If it really was the gun's fault, investigators should be able to replicate the failure. They can also see how light the trigger is to see how likely it is that Baldwin fired by accident. So who is to blame?

The armorer said she loaded the gun with "dummy rounds", which are different from blanks. Dummy rounds actually look a lot like live rounds, they just don't have gunpowder (or is it primers?). Anyway, the use of dummies makes sense if Hutchins was trying to get a head on shot of Baldwin pointing the gun at the camera, so you could see the bullets in the cylinder. It was the armorer's job to check to make sure that the rounds were actually dummies and not real, but she probably got lazy. The ammo supplier may share some of the blame if live rounds were mixed up with dummies. It also seems that Baldwin, the cinematographer, the director and the assistant director were incredibly careless around guns. They may have had experience with modern guns on other films, but Old West guns are very different. I doubt they had sufficiently training with them. (Has Alec Baldwin ever been in a western before? Just asking.) Anyway, procedures were certainly lacking. In that sense I think Baldwin bears a lot of responsibility as a producer, but not as an actor.

Baldwin is a total douchebag. I think he feels more sorry for himself than for Hutchins. Whenever he talks about her he comes across as insincere. The way Hollywood and the media have circled the waggons to protect him is also sickening. But from what I see I don't think he is guilty of manslaughter. Not a lawyer, just my opinion.

Erik R said...

I haven't read all the comments here but I've been shooting western, single-action pistols for many years. It is possible to fire a round without "pulling the trigger" as Baldwin says. It's a bit of semantics about "pulling the trigger" because you have to have your finger on the trigger for what I am about to propose but here's the way to do it.

First, the hammer needs to be pulled back - a single action cannot do this by the trigger being pulled, that is a double action pistol. When the hammer is pulled back, the cylinder turns to the next chamber. Once the hammer is set into the firing position, pulling the trigger will release the hammer assembly and hit the primer to ignite the powder in the cartridge.

If you change your mind AFTER you pull back the hammer into the locked position, the way to reset the hammer is to put your thumb on the hammer's thumb hold, ENGAGE THE TRIGGER TO RELEASE THE SEAR OF THE HAMMER ASSEMBLY, and ease the hammer back to its starting position. You do the same with a double action revolver.

If Mr. Baldwin were to do this, put the hammer back into the normal or starting position - IF HE RELEASED THE HAMMER WITHOUT EASING IT BACK INTO ITS NORMAL POSITION, the hammer pin will strike the cartridge just as surely as pulling the trigger in the ready position to fire.

If we take his statement to be true (not knowing the gun had a hot cartridge, which I do believe him) then he may have been careless in resetting the hammer causing the pistol to fire.

Regardless, he was holding the pistol when it discharged - he is responsible for his actions at some level.