Alec Baldwin denies pulling trigger in 'Rust' shooting

[turbinetree]

Source: Raw Story

By AFP
Published December 01, 2021

?id=28144522&width=800&height=450

Alec Baldwin has said he did not pull the trigger of the gun he was holding that killed a cinematographer on the movie set of "Rust."

In his first major interview since the tragedy in October, the US actor also said he has "no idea" how a live round had gotten onto the set of the low-budget Western in New Mexico.

"The trigger wasn't pulled -- I didn't pull the trigger," he said in an excerpt of an interview with ABC News released on Wednesday.

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/baldwin-denies-pulling-trigger-in-rust-shooting/

[COL Mustard]

1. That May Be A Hard Sell

The gun was loaded, it was in his hands, and unless he can show that someone else somehow made it go off, he's got a problem.

[captain queeg]

2. I suppose he might not of consciously pulled the trigger

But I think they know the gun he was holding fired. Could have been jostled or something. I’ve never seen the model gun that was used.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. Colt single action Army (replica)

It was a replica of the old west gun everybody is familiar with. A real gun, just not a real Colt.
As a single action he would have had to cock the hammer fully back to rotate a round under the firing pin then pull the trigger, and it doesn't take much of a pull. If someone foolishly loaded a round under the resting firing pin, a sharp blow to the hammer could fire the gun.

I'm not going to judge him. The truth will come out.

[TexasBushwhacker]

72. Yeah, a semi-automatic pistol can have a hair trigger

if a round is in the chamber. A revolver, or the gun you described, not so much.

[Zeitghost]

86. A single action revolver

Which is what was being used can have a very light trigger as the trigger pull does not need to pull the hammer back, it only releases it.

But IIRC, Alec also said he thumbed the hammer back part way and it slipped, which could cause a misfire.

[TexasBushwhacker]

87. Ah! The plot thickens

They still shouldn't have had any live ammo on set. Hopefully it will be banned.

[Zeitghost]

88. I still can't understand that

It seems like that would be rule number 1 on set.

[TexasBushwhacker]

89. I'm surprised their insurance policy doesn't ban it

It really wouldn't have to even be legislated. Even a low budget shoot will have insurance. The insurance companies just need to specified that no live ammo is allowed on set, and that any injuries caused by live ammo will not be covered.

[Aussie105]

3. An examination of the gun used will tell all.

But yes, a hard sell saying it went off by itself.

There's the little matter of the person holding a gun needing to make sure it's safe to wave about and point at people.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Love it how we all opine on events we read in the press

It would be quite a shock if what he says is true, meaning it was a different gun or some kind of hair trigger on the gun he held.

I wonder if he finds the event so painful, as it must be for him, that he is in denial or created an alt explanation of events. I don't think it's lying, if he is saying this I think he really believes it.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

13. +1

[JohnnyRingo]

26. Cowboy guns like Single Action Army revolvers all have hair triggers.

They have to be manually cocked every time, then the trigger is set. It doesn't take much at all but that's why you don't touch it until you're going to fire. He may not remember he put his finger on it, but it shouldn't be cocked if he's not paying attention.

All I can say is this never happened to Clint Eastwood.

[former9thward]

69. He has been sued by people on the set.

So I think we have to keep that in mind as he recounts the events.

[Rebl2]

5. Good luck

with that defense

[LiberalLovinLug]

17. Do you actually think he is guilty of murder?

How was this in any way his fault?

[NH Ethylene]

57. Weeks go by and suddenly he says he didn't pull the trigger?

I think he is just defensive now that some have said he shouldn't have been handling the gun at all.

[FBaggins]

62. Not murder, but probably involuntary manslaughter

How was this in any way his fault?

How could it not be?

There appear to be multiple people who share some blame, but his name is at the top of the list - both as the person who fired the gun (OP notwithstanding), but as a producer who should have provided a safe working environment (hired better people, followed union safety procedures, heeded warnings, etc.)

[LiberalLovinLug]

68. How could it not be?

If he was the head of the safety department of the film, or whatever they are called, you have a point. But there are usually very strict protocols for these situations in the movie industry for which I'm sure Alex was relying on. A producer means mainly he's put up some money, and also, with his background, would have input on the creative side.

Whether he was just testing it out, or fumbling with it, or pointing and shooting as part of the scene, its not up to him to test the props, he is the actor in that role.

Its ludicrous to suggest he was guilty of manslaughter. Its like suggesting you are guilty of manslaughter if a mechanic screws up on your brake job, and you plow into another car and kill someone.

[Thomas Hurt]

6. I am assuming this was a single action, old west type revolver.

If that is the case, what he is saying doesn't make much sense unless the trigger mechanism was seriously damaged.

In which case the hammer would still have to have been cocked back a certain amount to fire the shell.

[doc03]

14. I suppose it could have a very light trigger pull and he didn't consciously pull it. I had a

single action revolver that I installed a very light trigger spring in for target shooting. But if it was a single action revolver
the hammer would have to have been cocked.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. You know how people accidentally shoot while cleaning their gun?

Happens all the time, but it's my belief that most were playing around with it, something that isn't uncommon, and it fired. No one want's to admit they were practicing their fast draw or twirling it around and shot them self in the leg.

Everybody wants to be Dirty Harry or John Wayne until someone gets hurt. Then I was cleaning it and "it went off" because everyone cleans a loaded gun.

[JudyM]

50. Ah, that makes sense, I've wondered about that.

Like, unload it before you clean it, man!

And Baldwin was practicing his draw, IIRC.

[Auggy74]

60. One explanation of the "it went off when they were cleaning it" -

Insurance payouts. I've heard stories (not firsthand knowledge) of smaller community sheriffs writing up a gun-based suicide as an accidental discharge while cleaning so their families could receive a life insurance settlement.

[JohnnyRingo]

61. I don't know about practicing his quick draw, but

He was playing with it, waving it around and pretending to shoot.
Unbeknownst to him, he was literally playing with a loaded gun.

[Lithos]

59. +1

[Lithos]

58. A forensic analysis of the gun will let the truth out here

If I were him, I would still keep my mouth shut about details except when my lawyer was present even if they were factual in basis.

[rsdsharp]

8. From what I have been able to gather (and the reporting on this is poor)

this was a single action revolver used in a western.
You have to first cock a single action revolver, and THEN pull the trigger.

Older single actions, with out a transfer bar safety, can go off without cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger, IF the hammer is down, resting on a live round, and IF the gun is dropped, or something strikes the hammer. That’s why such guns are carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber. I have seen no reporting that the gun was dropped, or that something hit the hammer when it was down.

[relayerbob]

9. Reloaded ammunition

Possible that the asshole who remanufactured the bullet did it wrong, and a shock/vibration/static set it off? Also, a question, how many rounds were in the run, and of them, how many were live? This almost sounds more like a setup, was the gun supposed to have exploded, injuring Baldwin?

[birdographer]

10. Why was this not

the VERY first thing he said after the shooting? Surely he was aware when the gun went off whether he pulled the trigger on it.

[live love laugh]

11. Cue the internet experts ... 🙄

[Paladin]

36. Don't know why they're wasting their vast firearms knowledge on us.

Why don't they just contact Alec Baldwin and tell him he's shit out of luck?

[Mr.Bill]

12. In the 80s I had a room mate who was really into guns.

He was a journeyman machinist and fancied himself to be a gunsmith. He was not. He owned a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum. He did some work on the trigger mechanism to make it a lighter trigger pull. One time he had the gun cocked and laid it on the table for a second because he needed two hands to do something else. So we have a loaded gun cocked and sitting there with no one near it. It went off. All by itself, no one was near it, no one pulled the trigger It can happen.

The gun Baldwin was handling needs to be examined for modified or worn parts. I have read that it was a genuine antique from the period being depicted. The circumstances I described above show that a cocked gun can discharge with no one pulling the trigger.

[ripcord]

15. He was holding the gun regardless of what he says he is responsible

The fact that he didn't check the gun when there had been live rounds on the set is really going to hurt him, he failed at gun safety at its most basic level.

[Hav]

16. There were two people whose job explicitly

included checking the gun before it's given to an actor, one of them declared the gun safe for use. Why would an expert let an actor who isn't a gun expert do anything that could result in any kind of liability for that expert? The actors and everyone else on the set need to be able to trust the gun experts and the experts need to trust that the non-experts don't fuck with their work.

[ripcord]

18. Other actors, including George Clooney have said they always check guns on sets

https://deadline.com/2021/11/george-clooney-on-rust-incident-thinks-gun-safety-1234874907/

“Every single time I’m handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I’m pointing it too, I show it to the crew,” Clooney said. “Every single take.” Then, “You hand it back to the armor when you’re done.” He said. Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows” that is the protocol to follow. “Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that. But the problem is dummies are tricky because they look like real [rounds]. They got a little tiny hole in the back [from which] somebody’s [removed] the gunpowder.”

“I mean every time I get handed a six-gun,” or a gun that holds six cartridges, “you point it at the ground and you squeeze it six times,” Clooney said, noting “It’s just insane” not to.

The actor also laments the term “cold gun,” which was what the gun that shot was described on the set of Rust to denote it was safe for use.

“I’ve never heard the term ‘cold gun,'” Clooney said of his years of movie-making. “I’ve never heard that term. Literally. They’re just talking about stuff I’ve never heard of. It’s just infuriating.”

Then there is the fact that the law doesn't make exemptions for guns on movie sets, the same laws apply to anyone holding a gun that fires live ammo.

[localroger]

22. Interesting. This contradicts everything everyone else has said everywhere.

What I have been told is that Clooney would be breaking the rules by opening the mechanism himself. I suppose he can claim it resets when he hands it back to the armorer who cross-checks and hands it back to him, but this isn't normal. Not all actors know guns, and it's not their job to know guns. On a movie set guns aren't special, they are just another potentially dangerous prop that must be handled according to the rules until the people who know what they are doing make it do the dangerous thing.

[ripcord]

30. He might have been breaking industry rules

But he was following the law and simple common sense when using a gun that can fire live ammo, Clooney understands that he is responsible for anything that happens when he is holding a gun. It might not be their job to check but it is their responsibility, morally and legally.

[localroger]

32. This is just not how it works

Is it an actor's responsibility to know explosives, electronics, chemistry, and every other discipline the character they are playing might know? That simply isn't possible and it's been recognized for a century. For all of those things there are people on the set who are responsible. Actors aren't the ones who are responsible. If they were, nobody in their right mind would take up acting as a career, because a movie set is chaos incarnate (I've been on one) and it simply isn't possible to keep track of everything while you are also trying to stay in character. Anything that might be dangerous, and lots of stuff that isn't like continuity stuff, has responsible staff who are keeping track of it. That is not and can't be an actor's job. An actor's job is to do what the director says with the stuff the other staff have arranged on the set. Sometimes one of those things is a gun, and it's no different. That's why "armorer" is a whole job description in the movie industry. It's the armorer, not the actor, who is responsible for all the gun safety stuff. And the armorer for Rust has a bit of explaining to do.

[rockfordfile]

54. I agree

[Hav]

31. Many movie sets probably follow different standards and rules

that have worked for the people that are responsible for it.
But the idea that an actor is the last in line to make sure a gun is safe is insane to me. If that is needed, then the actual gun experts have failed at their job and the set should close down. Especially if that includes the actor opening the gun and running around with it to other people. If that is my job and responsibility as the gun expert, it would make me very nervous but obviously there are actors who are more familiar with guns than others.
I've heard about actors being shown what is currently loaded so that they can make sure for themselves but it shouldn't be their responsibility.

[ripcord]

34. How exactly does a movie company absolve someone of a legal responsiblity?

The law says the person holding the gun is responsible for safety there is no way the production company can change that. Maybe you don't think it is their responsibility but I can point to laws that say otherwise, if they want to play with real guns they are going to have to face the consequences.

[Hav]

40. It was a movie

He was never supposed to have a gun with live rounds during filming the movie. The fuck up happened because several layers of security failed due to the experts that were responsible not doing their job.
You can repeat your line as much as you want and I can repeat my opinion, I don't care. If people don't understand that actors by design have to break every standard gun safety rule while filming a movie, then there is no way to come to an understanding.

[Kaleva]

47. Anyone who handles a gun needs to know the basic safety rules.

Guns are dangerous and there's lots of evidence that proves that to be true.

For those who claim "It's not my job!" shouldn't be allowed to have one in their possession.

I'm curious as to what level of training, if any, Baldwin got on the safe handling of firearms.

[localroger]

48. The basic safety rule is, "the armorer said this gun is cold." That is all the actor needs to know.

At that point, the actor is assured whether he is gun-knowledgeable or not that someone who IS gun knowledgeable has made the prop safe for use on the set. That is the way it works on a movie set with EVERYTHING, not just guns. Because guns are particularly dangerous there is a particular craft person, the armorer, who is particularly tasked with making sure they are safe. In this case that person did not do their job. It's rare in the industry because these rules have been in place for a long time, and there will be a reckoning, but it will not be on Alec Baldwin that this happened.

[Kaleva]

51. No. One of the basic safety rules is to treat every gun like it's loaded.

1)Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
2)Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
3)Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
4)Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Hundreds, if not thousands, die very year because one or more of the above were not followed.

One person, Halyna Hutchins, would still be alive today had Baldwin followed the basic rules.

[localroger]

56. As Mr. Bill asked, what if the script calls for a small child to pick up the gun?

Gun safety as it is practiced in the real world cannot be enforced in the context of a movie scene. This is why there are other procedures and controls such as armorers which do not exist in real life. This has all been going on mostly successfully for a century. It is established practice and it works when followed. What will emerge here is that it was not followed at some point before someone handed Baldwin the gun that was supposed to be cold. Actors handle all manner of things that might be dangerous and it's not their responsibility to know how to tell everything is safe. If it was nobody could be an actor because nobody has all of those skills. There are dozens of people who hang around movie sets being paid to be available for a few moments now and then to make sure things are right when it's their craft that is needed. In this incident the armorer failed to do her job.

[Kaleva]

66. Would Halyna Hutchins be alive today had Baldwin followed the very basic safety rules?

The answer to that question is "Yes".

No amount of arguing can change the answer to 'No', Halyna Hutchins would still had been shot and killed had Baldwin followed the basic safety rules.

Thus everything you have said in previous posts is irrelevant.

[localroger]

67. She would also be alive if

Hannah Guitterez had followed the actual safety rules which are expected to be observed in the movie industry, which is a rather more important observation since it's something that is actually expected to happen on a movie set.

[Calista241]

70. Hannah Guitterez didn't point the gun at someone and pull the trigger.

Alec Baldwin did that. Both of them should, and probably will, face manslaughter charges.

[localroger]

74. Guiterrez's job was to make sure that if the gun was pointed, that it would be safe

An actor's job is sometimes to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. It is specifically not to break the mechanism of a weapon that has been declared safe, as that breaks the chain of custody. If an actor is gun knowledgeable and wants to be sure, which isn't expected or required, they are only allowed to ask the armorer or prop master who hands them the gun to show them that it's unloaded. It is the armorer who is tasked with making sure that whatever the director asks the actor to do doesn't actually kill anybody. That is the chain of command in movieland, and pat little aphorisms about what should be done in real life are not what are observed in that environment.

[Kaleva]

80. So you agree then that she'd still be alive had Baldwin followed the basic safety rules?

Or are you going to try and argue that she'd have still been shot dead even if Baldwin had followed the rules?

[localroger]

81. Well sure

In this case, had Baldwin broken all the normal set rules, violated the chain of custody of the prop gun, and done something he is neither expected nor allowed to do, he would have discovered that the person who is actually responsible for set gun safety had not done her job.

That is as relevant though as pointing out that if everyone kept to typical chemical plant speed limits of 19.5 miles per hour at all times it would largely eliminate traffic fatalities. Nobody is going to do that either.

If all actors did what you suggest Baldwin should have done it would be chaos. I've read what George Clooney wrote, and I can only suppose he gets away with that because he is George Clooney. Baldwin did exactly what actors are expected to do. The rules of prop handling do not allow him to do what you say he should have done. This matches with several other sources of information all of which agree. Movie sets are not real life. I have been on a movie set as an entire scene was shot, and while it didn't feature guns it did feature several other dangerously rigged stunt devices and motor vehicles, and the rules are the same for those. Only the people with specific responsibility for a dangeorus prop are allowed to touch it, until they hand it to the actor with instructions to operate it in a way that will keep everybody safe. The actor is never responsible for prop safety in any case because expecting all actors to have the skills to do it for all possible props would be insane.

You keep coming back to this "if only he had..." thing as if it is a thing he would have even been allowed to do. Sure what you suggest is excellent advice in a normal situation where there is no armorer who is responsible for making the firearms safe. That is not the case on a movie set though, and their system has worked for about 100 years with very few incidents like this. Try to get it through your head that it's a different situation. As they were setting up our building for the scene that was filmed there, the grips who were preparing everything kept warning us that "when the crew gets here, the circus has come to town." They weren't kidding. The whole operation depends on people being ready to do their specific function when the production requires it, and nobody else is allowed to do their function. There are reasons for that, and a lot of it is that you can't have people running around the set moving things around, resetting things, and changing stuff that the responsible people don't know about.

Which is in fact apparently exactly what happened on the set of Rust. What you suggest would make that worse, not better, even though it sounds good in a PSA for people who don't work on a movie set.

[Kaleva]

82. Everyone with a gun is expected to follow basic safety rules. No exceptions.

Your comment:

"You keep coming back to this "if only he had..." thing as if it is a thing he would have even been allowed to do"

Who told him he had no choice but to point the gun at the now deceased? Who instructed Baldwin, knowing he was to handle a gun in this movie, that he was forbidden to take a basic handgun safety course?

It's a fact no one can refute that the woman would still be alive today had Baldwin followed basic handgun safety procedures. And I have yet to see any evidence that Baldwin was prohibited from following those procedures.

[localroger]

83. Well, it's been a nice discussion, but I'm done

Everything in the world that is tagged "no exceptions" is "no exceptions" until you reach the situation where you have to make an exception. Movie making happens to be one of those exceptional situations. I work in industry, and if I had a nickel for every time I've seen an exception taken to a fundamental safety rule I could have retired ten years ago. There have been times I have refused to do a job because I didn't like this, and there have been times I've understood the reasoning and gone along. I cannot blame Baldwin for following the standard rules as they are generally practiced in his industry. You can do that if you want, but I'm betting that the people who also work in his industry who will be doing the investigation and testifying at the inquiries will understand it the way that I do. Time will tell which of us is right.

[Kaleva]

85. Hopefully, you, Baldwin and others have learned that gun safety is a seriour matter

Enjoyed the back and forth and hope you have a good day! Take care!

[Mr.Bill]

55. What if you are shooting a scene where

it calls for a five year old child to pick up a gun?

[Kaleva]

65. I'd imagine they'd use a replica of a gun and not an actual gun

Like they wouldn't have a 5 year old handling real dynamite.

[Mr.Bill]

76. But if that replica gun looked just like a

real gun used in the scene, mistakes will always be possible.

[Kaleva]

79. Not if the replica didn't have any actual working parts

Here's a link to a site that sells replica machine guns to the general public. No background check needed as these look-a-likes can't be fired.

https://replicamachineguns.com/

[marie999]

52. Nobody should hold a weapon unless they know the weapon.

[localroger]

20. This is not the way it works on a movie set

And no, movie sets aren't "reality." Really.

The armorer and prop manager are responsible for making sure that anything put in the hands of an actor is prepped properly for their role. In this case it was just a test, and Baldwin was told that the gun was "clear," that is unloaded and safe, before it was handed to him. Actors are not expected to know firearms, and are in fact not ALLOWED to check firearms themselves; if an actor is gun-aware, they can get the armorer or prop master to SHOW them that the gun is clear before handing it to them. They are not allowed to break the mechanism themselves because that interrupts the chain of responsibility. In this case Alec Baldwin is the very last person who would be responsible for what happened. It may be a horrible chain of incompetence or it may be that he was set up, but the fact that the gun could fire at all when it was put in his hands is not his fault. That is the way it works on a movie set, and it's been working that way for over 100 years with very few incidents like this one to discredit the system.

[ripcord]

21. So you can show me the exemption to safe gun handling laws the movie industry has? nt

[localroger]

23. These aren't laws. These are standard practices.

And the standard practices are different in the movie industry. It's been this way since they were shooting Westerns in the 1930's. Every rule you hear about firearm safety is regularly and necessarily broken in the making of movies. Actors have been pointing guns at one another and pulling the trigger for longer than any of us have been alive. And there are standard practices that have worked for all that time to keep incidents like this from happening. For some reason those practices weren't followed on the Rust set, and it's not Baldwin's fault that he was handed something he was told was safe that actually wasn't.

[ripcord]

28. What happened decades ago doesn't matter

It was proven that there were unsafe gun handling practices in the movie industry for years during the investigation into Brandon Lee's death. Movie and insurance company rules aren't going to save anyone from the law that says the person holding the gun is responsible for its safety, it is straight forward, clear and doesn't have any exemptions. If someone doesn't know anything about guns and safety they have no business holding one according to the law.

[localroger]

33. Then it's odd that nothing much changed after Brandon Lee's death

Actors aren't responsible for the props that are put into their hands. That simply isn't workable, and that has been recognized for decades, and is still recognized. And guns on a set are just props, just like any other prop potentially dangerous, and just like any other prop there is a responsible party who isn't the actor who manages that danger.

What has happened a few times, including the Lee incident, is that the existing rules weren't followed properly. That is certainly what happened here. There will be a reckoning, but at the end of the day the responsible party will not end up being Mr. Baldwin. If it is nobody will ever make another movie that involves a gun again.

[ripcord]

37. No one should make another movie that uses a real gun

It isn't necessary. You still haven't shown anything that absolves Baldwin of the legal consequences everyone else faces, movie armorers aren't certified or licensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than a friend handing you a gun and telling you it is unloaded.

[localroger]

39. Well that isn't going to happen

Or rather, it is, in that movies will be made where real guns that can be fired will be used as props. They will be declared safe by professionals and handed to actors who don't have a clue how they actually work because knowing how guns work isn't their job, and the industry will go on as it has for a century or so. And the special effects people, armorers, and other specialists will ply their trade usually doing a better job than was done on this movie.

[localroger]

41. Oh, and here's how it's done

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-rust-shooting-industry-veterans-say-buck-stops-armorers-movie-n1282743

...according to dozens of other people in the industry.

[sl8]

35. CA has several legal exceptions for firearms used in movies

"Rust" filming was in NM, so the following California exceptions wouldn't have applied there.


https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/licensing-in-california/

[...]

ENTERTAINMENT FIREARMS PERMITS
To facilitate rentals of firearms for use in motion picture, television and other entertainment productions, California has created an “entertainment firearms permit.” This permit allows any person age 21, after passing a background check, to be exempt from normal firearms dealer transfer requirements when possessing or receiving an unloaded firearm for use solely as a prop in a motion picture, television, video, theatrical or other entertainment production or event.21 Among other things, the following provisions of California law do not apply to a firearms transfer when the recipient is the holder of an entertainment firearms permit:

The requirement that any firearm transfer be processed through a licensed firearms dealer ;22

The requirement that the recipient of a handgun present a handgun safety certificate and demonstrate safe handling of the handgun;23

The prohibition against receiving more than one handgun within 30 days ;24 and

The ten-day waiting period.25

An entertainment firearms permit is valid for one year.26

Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.27 As a result, persons who have California entertainment firearms permits are exempt from the federal background check requirement as well.28 Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or permit firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.

[localroger]

38. CA has stricter firearm laws than most other states, making the exception more important

Here in Louisiana, where I'm pretty sure movies have been filmed featuring firearms, I think the usual movie standards have been practiced under our regular firearm rules.

[ShazamIam]

19. The awful truth is some of us are harboring suspicions that this horrific event was set up to,

cancel, Baldwin. The discussion about the origins of the live ammunition is . . . . leads to. . no where so far. Those bullets just somehow magically found themselves in a gun held by Alec Baldwin, who is a target of RWers for being famous, popular and liberal.

edit, reword

[Initech]

27. Yeah I had this theory as well.

Trump utterly despised Baldwin for making fun of him on Saturday Night Live, despite that the presidential roast is an SNL tradition as long as that show has been on the air. So I'm sure this inspired the MAGAs to act.

[Lancero]

42. The awful truth is that some would rather push conspiracy theories than say...

That Baldwin was a dipshit with a gun.

He's like that 'Good Guy' with a gun the NRA loves talking about. You know, the one that gets someone killed when they ignore basic firearms safety.

[ShazamIam]

43. I find the statement too much in conflict to address rationally.

Al Franken was cancelled, the Cuomo's seem to have been/are total oafs and self destructed. Do you see the difference?


No one on the Right thinks Alec Baldwin is a good guy with a gun, is that your own conspiracy theory?

[Lancero]

44. No, he's a idiot with a gun who got someone killed.

And may he be held accountable for the life his idiocy took.

[ShazamIam]

45. I am going to have to wait for the indictments and a trial before I make a statement that bold.

[Calista241]

71. This is a batshit crazy theory.

It’s stupidly hard to hit someone with a bullet even when you’re trying to shoot someone. Trained policemen, soldiers and marines often fire thousands of rounds to get a single hit.

For a conspiracy that just maybe Baldwin would be practicing his draw of a gun, and shoot someone, maybe a producer, maybe an actor, maybe some other rando, it’s just beyond belief.

There were at least 2 accidental discharges on set prior to Baldwin incident. The fact that Baldwin knew that and didn’t bother to check the gun is just the height of irresponsibility.

[ShazamIam]

73. All we have seen so far is reportes accounts and brief statement from the local Law folks. So which

So, which is more out of reach when we know conservatives use, cancelling, but we don't know much that is factual about the death of the woman killed.

I have suspicions, you claim outright that Baldwin is at fault?

[Kaleva]

78. Mind control could have prevented Baldwin from following simple safety rules!

[Marthe48]

25. It could happen

My family had a getaway in s.e. Ohio. My Dad and Mom brought my younger brother and me for a weekend. My Dad had guns and liked to target shoot and also was teaching us kids how to handle guns. He had put his .22 rifles on a rack on the wall. I think there was a stuffed chair under it. The guns faced an inner wall, and on the other side was the kitchen. We were packing to go home. I remember seeing Dad reach across the chair to take one of the rifles off the rack, and having one hand one the barrel in front of the trigger and guard and his other hand on the stock behind the trigger. But it went off. It put a hole in the inner wall, and when we checked the kitchen, there was a bullet hole through the window over the sink. My Mom, brother and I were in the room with my Dad and saw this happen. I remember seeing the shocked look on my Dad's face. What was really scary was that my Mom had been standing by the sink just a few minutes before. My Dad always said "Guns are always loaded." And even with gun safety being important, the gun was racked with a live round and went off as it was handled.

[Lulu KC]

46. This is not going to end well.

I don't think he's ever going to recover from this, nor will anyone who was on set or had recently quit.

[sarisataka]

49. Not impossible

I have seen it happen twice. One time it was a defective part that it took the armorer about two minutes to diagnose

The other 999,998 times someone pulled the trigger.

[captain queeg]

53. Even if he pulled the trigger I don't see it as murder

It was supposed to be a prop loaded with a blank or something. I don’t know how that would shake out, maybe negligent manslaughter? No use guessing till more info comes available.

[Crepuscular]

63. ...

It was a real gun, not a prop. Regardless of whether it was supposed to be loaded with a blank round, or not, you never, ever, point a real gun in the direction of someone else, unless you intend to shoot them. You for sure don't cock a single action revolver and then point it at someone and pull the trigger. There is never a scenario, even when making a movie, where that is acceptable. If the scene called for the gun to be pointed towards the camera and a blank fired, then the camera operator would be removed and it would be operated by remote and a lexan screen would be put in place to protect the camera equipment.

Baldwin broke the cardinal rule of gun safety, you don't point a gun at another person, regardless of whether you think it's unloaded or just has blanks in it, or not. Regardless of his claim, it's an almost 100% certainty that in addition to pointing the gun in the direction of three other people, that Baldwin also cocked the revolver and then pulled the trigger. I'm sure he has convinced himself and would like to convince others that he didn't but it's going to be a very hard sell, the mechanics of the type of pistol he was using contradict his claim.

[sarisataka]

64. I would agree it isn't murder

But he did point it at a person which was negligent by any measure.

I was noting it is possible he did not pull the trigger- although IME that is an extremely rare occurrence. Also it is quite easy to determine if there was a defective/ worn part to confirm that possibility.

[Kaleva]

77. Few, if any, see it as murder but some do see it as negligence.

[Joinfortmill]

75. Then who the hell did? Can he not face what happened?

[LisaL]

84. Nobody.

Gun apparently went off without trigger being pulled.