Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

I'm not taking a side, yet, in the debate. I'm not a lawyer nor do I know movie set protocols. I do know firearms.

Here is what I read. Baldwin was practicing a scene where he backs out of a building and draws his revolver. The first time he does this, nothing happens. The second time the gun "misfires."

First, the term "misfire" is not correct. A misfire is when the round does not fire or squibs... a partial misfire where the bullet doesn't get out of the barrel. The proper term here is AD (accidental discharge). The ONLY way a revolver fires in this situation is someone or something pulls the trigger. (Some guns can AD when dropped, but that wasn't the case here.)

Now, the trigger on old revolvers are a long pull, but it's still possible to AD because the grip on a revolver naturally forces the trigger finger inside the trigger guard, or at least it does with me. Once inside the trigger guard, something called sympathetic finger response bends the trigger finger when the other three fingers and thumb grasp the grip to draw the weapon. Teaching yourself to keep the trigger finger straight while drawing a weapon requires a lot of practice.

I assume this was what caused the AD. Baldwin put his finger inside the trigger guard while drawing the weapon and accidentally pulled the trigger on the second draw. This is conjecture. We still don't have enough information to recreate what actually happened.

Incorrect. If you the lead hands you a gun and tells you that it is unloaded and you decide to point it at him and pull the trigger, you will be found guilty, not him. Movie protocols don't insulate them from the law. Their protocols are supposed to eliminate the chance that they will kill someone with a gun. So when they do kill someone with a gun, someone is guilty of murder because it actually happened. This is not a hypothetical situation. This was a live round. Baldwin shot someone with it. The protocol failed if he even followed it.

Somebody is dead but you want compassion for the killer. This is too often the position of people. You want more compassion for the criminal than for the victim. The compassion should be for the family of Halyna Hutchins.

GMA just stated that Baldwin the producer could be charged. They mentioned a 2015 movie where the producers were criminally charged.

Bald Always Win wrote:

Incorrect. If you the lead hands you a gun and tells you that it is unloaded and you decide to point it at him and pull the trigger, you will be found guilty, not him. Movie protocols don't insulate them from the law. Their protocols are supposed to eliminate the chance that they will kill someone with a gun. So when they do kill someone with a gun, someone is guilty of murder because it actually happened. This is not a hypothetical situation. This was a live round. Baldwin shot someone with it. The protocol failed if he even followed it.

The buck ALWAYS stops with whomever is in possession of the gun, irrespective of "protocol". Basic firearm safety dictates that the one holding the gun checks the chamber to determine whether is loaded or not. And with what. In particular if its handed to someone else. The fact that someone told him it was "cold" is irrelevant. That being said, it appears that basic firearm safety protocols were not followed on the set in general, which is obviously unfortunate.

Flagpole wrote:

who did HuffPost quote? wrote:

I am being swayed by machine gun argument. No one expects actors who fire machine guns in films to inspect all blanks fired. I watched film, Southern Comfort last week. Character Stuckey played by Lewis Smith fired blanks from I believe a M-60 machine gun. Was Lewis Smith supposed to inspect every blank fired? Smith must have fired about (20 to 30) blanks. No C.G.I., 1981.

Of course not. These people wanting to blame Baldwin are nuts...and have zero compassion.

But he is to blame and a woman is now dead. I have compassion for her.

It seems he shot two people.

Facts are hard to come by.

Did he pull the trigger twice?

Why was he pulling the trigger at all?

If he did shoot twice, why?

Wouldn't he see the result of the 1st shot?

Why was there a live round in the gun? How did it get on set? Who loaded it?

Those are the big questions.

The Unkle wrote:

If he did shoot twice, why?

I have read that the bullet passed through the now deceased woman and hit the person behind her.

Post a link or not be believed.

Bald Always Win wrote:

People go to jail for involuntary manslaughter frequently. They made a mistake and committed a crime. You should learn about US law.

You don't know what involuntary manslaughter is. It isn't simply a mistake but a killing that results from breaking the law. Baldwin pointing a gun (that was declared to be unloaded) in the course of acting a film role was not breaking any law - otherwise innumerable actors have been in breach of the law when acting a role. Nor was it criminal negligence unless it was obvious there was a real risk of serious injury. Since the gun was declared to be safe by someone he ought to have been able to trust that argues against criminal negligence by Baldwin in those circumstances.

AOL Lawyer wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

If he did shoot twice, why?

I have read that the bullet passed through the now deceased woman and hit the person behind her.

That is correct. It was one shot.

Bald Always Win wrote:

Incorrect. If you the lead hands you a gun and tells you that it is unloaded and you decide to point it at him and pull the trigger, you will be found guilty, not him. Movie protocols don't insulate them from the law. Their protocols are supposed to eliminate the chance that they will kill someone with a gun. So when they do kill someone with a gun, someone is guilty of murder because it actually happened. This is not a hypothetical situation. This was a live round. Baldwin shot someone with it. The protocol failed if he even followed it.

There have been other instances when a person has been accidentally killed by a firearm on the set. Enlighten us as to whether it resulted in a murder conviction.

So when a cast of film extras unload their firearms in a battle scene you know for a fact they checked their weapons? It is "irrelevant" that there are people whose job it is to do that?

In your supreme stupidity, you have assumed that I assumed something, which I did not. I've set forth the issue here several times.

In any case, your supreme stupidity allowed you to post this: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."

That is idiotic logic, for the reasons set forth above. You failed to address those reasons above. If you were a lawyer, the word "acquiescence" would come to mind.

But you have proven you aren't a lawyer. You are a FAKE lawyer on the internet.

This is a first. Baldwin shot someone with a real gun loaded with real ammo. The other incidents were accidents.

explain please wrote:

Why was there a live round in the gun? How did it get on set? Who loaded it?

Those are the big questions.

I have read that the guns were used by members of the crew for "target practice" off the set. That would explain how a gun so used could have contained a "live" round, that was not subsequently discovered through being checked. The armourer may not have known that the gun had been used in that fashion - but either way the gun should have been checked immediately before being given to the actors. This apparently did not happen. Of course, the crew should not have been able to use the weapons in a "live" fashion at any time.

Armstronglivs wrote:

AOL Lawyer wrote:

I have read that the bullet passed through the now deceased woman and hit the person behind her.

That is correct. It was one shot.

Does anyone have a source for this?

And why was he pointing a gun at this woman and pulling the trigger?