Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Charged dropped : Alex Baldwin

So, for a simple man. What are the rules of gun safety?

Bet you won't quote em...for a simple man.

A trigger being pulled, aimed at another human, is a simple yes or no.

It went bang, or it didn't.

Ironically, it matters where that firearm was pointed...

Ymmv

I believe that they are supposed to...
There is also supposed to be no live ammunition on set.
The fact that they had a practice range on a set where the producer/funder is an outspoken anti-gun advocate tells me that his political position is bull chit.... At least where celebrities are concerned...

Interesting:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...alec-baldwins-celebrations-painful-news/

https://twitter.com/MaryCarmackAltw/status/1649381227181527040?s=19

L.W., here's one example of the BS story. The media is full of one version of this "faulty joints" story or another.

I'd like to know exactly who did the "autopsy" on the SAA...

I'd also like to know what modifications were made to that gun that made it a hazard... especially given the premise it shouldn't have been loaded with live ammo on the set of a movie.

Given your profession, would say the story is the work of a Hollywood script writer who had a knowledge scale of 0 on a scale of 0-10 of SAA? It sure sounds like it. So sad that 99% of people reading won't know the difference.

******************************************************

New Mexico prosecutors formally dropped involuntary manslaughter charges against “Rust” producer and star Alec Baldwin on Friday, hours after reports surfaced that the replica Colt .45 pistol had a faulty trigger that could go off without being pulled.

“Investigators effectively conducted an autopsy of the Colt .45 revolver and found that there were worn joints and that the trigger control was not functioning properly, according to the source,” ABC reported Friday, citing multiple sources it did not identify.

The Santa Fe District Attorney’s on Thursday confirmed that it would drop the charges of involuntary manslaughter against Baldwin. At the time, the Los Angeles Times reported that the firearm had been “modified” in a way that could make it a hazard. Friday’s revelation took that a step further, and corroborates what Baldwin has been saying since telling ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he did not pull the gun’s trigger.

“I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them, never,” Baldwin told Stephanopoulos in the wake of the shooting.

Prosecutors at first charged Baldwin with a firearms enhancement that carried a mandatory minimum five-year sentence. Under the most recent charges, a misdemeanor, Baldwin had faced 18 months in New Mexico jail.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film’s armorer, was also charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Prosecutors said Thursday that the charges against Gutierrez-Reed “remain unchanged.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rust-charges-against-alec-baldwin-202815715.html

The difference in this case when compared to any other accidental shooting is the fact that a paid “expert” was employed as the armorer and ultimately was THE person responsible for the safety of firearms on the set.

If I hire an “expert” mechanic to maintain the vehicles used in the movies and he forgets to connect the brake lines or add brake fluid and one of the cars loses it’s brakes and kills someone on the set is it the driver or the mechanic that is at fault?

While I agree with that, and have served as an armorer on movies, what would you say about the producer who hired that idiot girl?

THAT was Baldwin as well. Being as he was paying for most of the movie production costs himself, he "cheaped out" and got exactly what he paid for... A clown show "armorer" on a clown show movie.

I thought the FBI's forensic lab thoroughly analyzed the revolver and found that it was in perfect condition. According to the Pundit report, it was Baldwin's attorneys that reported that the trigger had been worked on. That would kind of leave me wondering who would I trust the FBI or Baldwin's attorneys.

LOL! Exactly!

Both have a credibility rating of zero.

RB, the story sounds more like something that would come from Baldwin's publicity agent, or his lawyer's planted "firearms expert."

Just guessing.

L.W.

I despise Alec Baldwin and everything he stands for.
But for the record, I fail to see why he was charged in the first place. It was the hired armorer’s responsibility to maintain weapons and ammo on the set, not the dipschit actors. Keep digging folks.

Yep, it is the responsibility of the armorer to ensure a safe workplace. A workplace that in this instance involved acting out wild west shoot ups and pointing guns. The actors play their part, the armorer makes sure that the guns are safe. She failed in her duty of care and her job. .

B….I’ve thought about that angle as well but I’m left with the same opinion. To continue my analogy of the mechanic….I’d hold the armorer (mechanic) responsible for their mistake. If the mechanic possesses the proper credentials, licenses and other professional documentation and there is nothing to indicate a history of carelessness in their professional life then I believe that the person that did the hiring (Baldwin) did their due diligence.

A reasonable series of questions regarding the producer’s culpability would be..did the producer ignore warnings about the armorer? Was there a history of carelessness and neglect that others knew about that should’ve been investigated? Would a reasonable person be able to predict that something like this could happen or was there a high likelihood of something dangerous happening based upon the armorers history?

I despise Baldwin but if he followed standard industry guidelines and practices with his hiring of the armorer and there were no obvious red flags then I don’t think he was negligent or neglectful.

+1

"THAT was Baldwin as well. Being as he was paying for most of the movie production costs himself, he "cheaped out" and got exactly what he paid for... A clown show "armorer" on a clown show movie."

Wrong! That was the production company that hired her - again! after being fined the max for her actions on a previous movie for her dangerous acts. Baldwin was "Producer" in name only to add celebrity recognition and earn few back end bucks if the movie made money. The supervising producer that hired the production company could be sued successfully perhaps for not noticing an obvious risk.

There's shenanigans galore with this gun that only now can shoot itself. It's shameful expediency so the movie can begin filming again. The new production could not be bonded until the legal exposure was settled. So settled it is. Guns do kill! See? Now the idiot girl who killed and injured and nearly destroyed a famous actor will walk free as well. Win, win win!

Can you find anything in NM law that absolves Baldwin's action and places criminal liability on the armorer alone?

If I tell the bartender not to let me get drunk and to limit me to four drinks, then I coax my buddy into ordering rounds, I don't think I'm too drunk to drive, will they give the bartender the DUI?

I recall a time when they.would go after bartenders and restaurants insurance because the driver was overserved....

Agreed. With a healthy dose of MSM added.

You obviously soak up every tidbit the mainstream media utters.

Tell us all about your extensive movie industry firsthand experience... LOL.

Dude, all you gotta do is read. Or, you can actually listen and or watch informed experts on the various topics involved. Or you can mock intelligent folks that do and remain ignorant if not fundamentally stupid.