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

Wow! He kills someone (accidentally) and less than two weeks later he back doing his holier than thou political celebrity gangster tweeting. I think I would try to stay low for a while and at least pretend to be humbled. I guess hard liquor really does help you forget.

You just made stuff up. Revolvers DO NOT have what is informally called hair trigger. Post a video of you cross drawing with a revolver. No one accidently pulls trigger on revolver. Alec Baldwin sometimes has a bizarre sense of humor. Did Baldwin with a twisted sense of humor intend to frighten those on set? If you want to be his lawyer and argue that, fine. Everyone who has claimed a revolver just went off and claim a revolver has a hair trigger have lost in court.

good point ... wrote:

You just made stuff up. Revolvers DO NOT have what is informally called hair trigger.

0/10.

Vintage revolvers have an adjustable trigger spring which can be replaced with easier to pull lighter springs. AKA hair triggerable.

harry trygger wrote:

good point ... wrote:

You just made stuff up. Revolvers DO NOT have what is informally called hair trigger.

0/10.

Vintage revolvers have an adjustable trigger spring which can be replaced with easier to pull lighter springs. AKA hair triggerable.

Vintage revolvers may have an adjustable trigger. But it's only more/less sensitive if the revolver is locked. Most revolvers are double action. If the revolver is not locked you must pull the trigger to lock it then continue pulling it to fire. So a hair trigger on an unlocked revolver is not a danger. If the revolver is locked, which you can do by hand, then it's an accident waiting to happen.

And you don't need an adjustable spring to make a "hair trigger." A file well used will do the job.

Because of LR filters I had to use the word lock instead of the word that begins with "c."

HappyJack wrote:

harry trygger wrote:

0/10.

Vintage revolvers have an adjustable trigger spring which can be replaced with easier to pull lighter springs. AKA hair triggerable.

Vintage revolvers may have an adjustable trigger. But it's only more/less sensitive if the revolver is locked. Most revolvers are double action. If the revolver is not locked you must pull the trigger to lock it then continue pulling it to fire. So a hair trigger on an unlocked revolver is not a danger. If the revolver is locked, which you can do by hand, then it's an accident waiting to happen.

And you don't need an adjustable spring to make a "hair trigger." A file well used will do the job.

Because of LR filters I had to use the word lock instead of the word that begins with "c."

0/10 x 2

Do you have any clue what this Rust movie was about? Hint: It is set in 1880s when most revolvers were single action. The gun "prop" was a real weapon with a .45 caliber. "Double action" was the latest thing in the 1880s and most real gunmen avoided them because they were guns made for tenderfoots ... those who don't know to properly ci/]ock a gun.

"c[i]/i]ock" a gun. Now you can see how how LRC has failed to prevent words from being used. This trick was invented by Hardloper several years ago.

"cock" a gun.

I don't have a clue what this movie was suppose to be about.

But I own a Smith and Wesson revolver. If the hammer/firing pin is in the already fired position it will not go off by accident. You need to pull the hammer back to the lock position, which will turn the wheel to put a live round in line with the chamber before you can have an accidental firing. And you should never leave a live round behind the chamber when not in use for safety sake.

I've been around firearms all my life. Have you? What bolt action rifle can you lock without opening/closing the bolt? I'll wait for your answer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dr. Do wrote:

"Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them."

Are you calling Baldwin a liar? You are the only person in the world who seems to be disagreeing with the facts that the parties are stating and the authorities have confirmed. You have lost all credibility.

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

What is your obsession with this thread? You have been on here nonstop for a few weeks now. Unhealthy. Nothing will come of this. Just give it a rest and do something more productive. You look like a clown here.

Capy short finger wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

What is your obsession with this thread? You have been on here nonstop for a few weeks now. Unhealthy. Nothing will come of this. Just give it a rest and do something more productive. You look like a clown here.

But you're here. You must also be a clown.

Somebody died which makes this thread the most important thread right now. People are commenting about the causes. That doe make them clowns. You were called a clown for continuing to provided false information and downplaying the loss of life.

Somebody died which makes this thread the most important thread right now. People are commenting about the causes. That doesn't make them clowns. You were called a clown for continuing to provided false information and downplaying the loss of life.

I didn't use the words you use; I found it necessary to explain their implications and the inconsistency in your argument. It is fanciful to compare the safety measures required for an aircraft and those for the use by an actor of a stage prop - which in this case was a firearm not intended for use as a firearm. (That is more like a plane not intended to be flown.)

As a safety analogy it doesn't work, for a variety of reasons, as I said, but also because the walk-around by the pilot doesn't in any real sense address the safety issues of an aircraft, whereas checking the chamber of a firearm will (if the person doing the checking pays sufficient attention. Two professionals on the film set apparently failed to do so. I wouldn't hold Baldwin to a higher standard of care than they failed to exercise.)

Instead of trying to make specious comparisons with airline safety the pertinent questions are what were the appropriate safety measures for the use of a firearm prop on a film set, were they exercised or not, and in the context of what Baldwin was told about the gun was he obligated to undertake safety precautions independently of his own? Those are the questions that will concern the investigators and those who make any decisions about the legal consequences.

Big Timer wrote:

Somebody died which makes this thread the most important thread right now. People are commenting about the causes. That doesn't make them clowns. You were called a clown for continuing to provided false information and downplaying the loss of life.

I don't down-play the loss of life. I dispute the persistent arguments here that try to make Baldwin guilty of a crime. That is where there is plenty of false information.

Obviously, one safety protocol is to have somebody check if the gun is loaded. You don't seem to grasp that safety protocols couldn't have been followed because somebody was killed by Baldwin. Nobody checked the gun. Another safety protocol is that live ammo is prohibited. But that wasn't followed because somebody was killed by Baldwin. Even if the safety protocols don't require Baldwin to check the gun himself, he killed someone because he didn't check. The authorities don't care what the protocols are. They merely care about exactly what happened and who is at fault. The armorer and Baldwin will serve prison time. The producer who handed him the gun will probably not serve prison time.

Armorer's lawyer stated that Baldwin violated safety protocols by using the gun without her being present. The gun was supposed to be used for camera positioning, not to be used by Baldwin. The lawyer also stated that Baldwin violated safety protocols by pointing the gun at a person. He is in big trouble.

This is not good for Baldwin.

Big Timer wrote:

Obviously, one safety protocol is to have somebody check if the gun is loaded. You don't seem to grasp that safety protocols couldn't have been followed because somebody was killed by Baldwin. Nobody checked the gun. Another safety protocol is that live ammo is prohibited. But that wasn't followed because somebody was killed by Baldwin. Even if the safety protocols don't require Baldwin to check the gun himself, he killed someone because he didn't check. The authorities don't care what the protocols are. They merely care about exactly what happened and who is at fault. The armorer and Baldwin will serve prison time. The producer who handed him the gun will probably not serve prison time.

That it was apparently missed by the armourer and the assistant producer that the gun was loaded - we don't know with how many bullets - doesn't prove that the gun wasn't checked, only that any check that may have been undertaken failed to establish the gun was safe. It may also have been the case that someone used the gun after it was checked and before it was supplied to Baldwin. This has already been suggested as a possibility, as crew members were reportedly using the guns for off-site target practice.

Baldwin's culpability will come down to whether it is deemed he was required to check the gun after he was told it was safe. No legal experts I have seen reported so far have said he was, even if it was desirable in hindsight that he did.