ALEC BALDWIN SHOOTS AND KILLS

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

Let us see just how they contort the truth and torture common sense and perception.

No guilt! No shame!

Sal

[CoolBees]

 

Sal - I saw that story, and your right - this'll be fun to watch. Grab the popcorn.

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

"... I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger..."

And this whole interview was staged! Lights,... MUSIC,... angles,... mood,...TEARS!

This belongs in BIG LIES!

OK. For those who need to know. For the bullet to hit the woman, the gun had to be pointed at her. For the bullet to fire, the hammer had to hit the primer (I'm assuming center fire). Who was holding that gun? Who owned the bullets?

My thoughts: He was coming on to her. She told him to get lost. Maybe they had something going. Then she told him to get lost.

He concocted this murder scenario. He's Hollywood.

Where's Angela Lansbury when you really need her. Where's Columbo???

I can't wait for the next episode: As the Worm Turns!

A friend had a .22 pistol go five rounds full auto at a target match. Old gun,... worn down sear. It happened. But he owned the bullets.

Alec Baldwin owned the bullets.

Sal

[Ben Framed]

Hum, interesting analogy Sal.   

"Where's Angela Lansbury when you really need her. Where's Columbo???"

You could be right! Looks just like something off of one of those old reruns!

[The15thMember]

Alec Baldwin owned the bullets.

Except he didn't.  If this was a prop gun being used during filmmaking, it is the production armorer who is responsible for making sure the right prop guns and rounds are used safely depending on what scene they are filming.  Apparently, this film was very low budget and was reportedly cutting corners on safety precautions to save time and money.  I read that Baldwin's stunt double had accidentally fired a gun that he was told was "cold" a few days before this happened.  I'm not saying there is or isn't foul play involved in this, but my eyes are on the armorer and the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun, who are far more responsible for making sure the sequence is filmed safely than Baldwin.       

[Ben Framed]

Even more , the room for suspicion and investigation. No matter what; this was a sad event for friends and family of the victim as well as the innocent.

All that aside, there is the smell of a dead cat on the line.. The minimum amount of basic common sense would have been enough to avoid this. I?m not saying this was not an accident but if it was an accident, stupidly is definitely involved? Angela and Columbo are needed .. 😊

[Ben Framed]

I have not been keeping up with this situation. You two might have the answers to just a few simple basic questions.


Had action been called when he was handed the gun?

Had rollem been called when he fired the gun?

Why would have he been handed the gun before action was called? Their would be no need for him to be lugging it around until it was time for the call, >action<.

Did he have time to be alone with the gun?  Minutes? Hours?

If filming was not in action mode, why did he have the gun? He would not need the gun until seconds before >action< was called? When action was called would be the time of the gun transfer. That would be seconds before >rollem<.

If he was given possession of the gun between takes, or even sets, what period of time did he possess the gun before this set, or take?

Had he been alone another time with this gun before this situation? Minutes? Hours? Days?

Is each gun assigned to a particular actor?

Was it common knowledge that the stunt double had fired live ammo only couple days prior?

[The15thMember]

From what I read, they were not actually filming when the incident occurred.  I believe Baldwin was practicing quick-drawing the gun (a situation that does NOT require the gun to be loaded!!) and the gun went off as he drew it. 

[Ben Framed]

From what I read, they were not actually filming when the incident occurred.  I believe Baldwin was practicing quick-drawing the gun (a situation that does NOT require the gun to be loaded!!) and the gun went off as he drew it.

Thanks Member, I love that you investigate! This leaves me with a new basic question: (Actually several but to keep it basic)...

What period of time did he possess the gun for purposes of practice before this happened?

Did the material that you read explain the other basic questions?

Such as; Had he been alone with this gun before this situation happened? A few seconds? Minutes? Hours?

Is each gun assigned to a particular actor?

Was it common knowledge that the stunt double had fired live ammo only couple days prior?

There are loads of questions that the proper investigators should seek answers while searching for accuracy. As I said I have not been keeping up with this. But since Sal posted this topic and you have some knowledge about it, I thought I would ask.... Thanks for your guidance of help in basic understanding.

[The15thMember]

Thanks Member, I love that you investigate! This leaves me with a new basic question: (Actually several but to keep it basic)...

What period of time did he possess the gun for purposes of practice before this happened?

Did the material that you read explain the other basic questions?

Such as; Had he been alone with this gun before this situation happened? A few seconds? Minutes? Hours?

Is each gun assigned to a particular actor?

Was it common knowledge that the stunt double had fired live ammo only couple days prior?

There are loads of questions that the proper investigators should seek answers while searching for accuracy. As I said I have not been keeping up with this. But since Sal posted this topic and you have some knowledge about it, I thought I would ask.... Thanks for your guidance of help in basic understanding.

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I suspect we won't until the details of the investigation are made public.  One thing's for sure though, there was either foul play here or BLATANT disregard for safety amounting to criminal negligence.  I found it suspicious that the armorer was the only major player in this situation who was unreachable for comment by media outlets.

 

[Ben Framed]

I found it suspicious that the armorer was the only major player in this situation who was unreachable for comment by media outlets.

Good point Member. I will speculate, most likely from advice from his or her attorneys?

[BeeMaster2]

If he was not using the gun during filming then he is guilty of manslaughter. First rule of Gun control is always assume it is loaded until you verify otherwise. Second rule, never aim a Gun at something unless you plan on shooting it.
Jim Altmiller

[The15thMember]

If he was not using the gun during filming then he is guilty of manslaughter. First rule of Gun control is always assume it is loaded until you verify otherwise. Second rule, never aim a Gun at something unless you plan on shooting it.
Jim Altmiller

I agree.  Every single person who handled the gun should've been checking to see that it wasn't loaded.  My other question is why were real bullets on the set at all?  Many sequences could be filmed with blanks or dummy rounds.  There is a whole line of potentially guilty people here, starting with the director and ending with Baldwin. 

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

Guilt should not/cannot be diffuse.

A person is dead by gunshot.

The phrase: Owns the bullets, is just a term for who possessed the bullets last.

Baldwin was holding the gun, on purpose. Baldwin was pointing the gun that he was holding, on purpose. The gun was fired (guns don't fire themselves). Baldwin was holding the gun. Baldwin killed the woman.

If I fire a gun into the air, and the bullet comes down, striking and killing a person, who killed that person? Was it the guy who sold me the gun five years ago? Was it Walmart, where I bought the bullets? Was it the liquor store who sold me the booze I drank? Was it my mother? Was it the gun manufacturer? Was it the person who was killed? NO!

Will guilt be diffused? Darned right. Will Baldwin get off? Darned right.

See. It's not about justice for the dead lady. It's about being progressive and anti-Trump. They're trying to figure out just how to do it now.

No justice. No peace!

Sal

[The15thMember]

Hi Folks,

Guilt should not/cannot be diffuse.

A person is dead by gunshot.

The phrase: Owns the bullets, is just a term for who possessed the bullets last.

Baldwin was holding the gun, on purpose. Baldwin was pointing the gun that he was holding, on purpose. The gun was fired (guns don't fire themselves). Baldwin was holding the gun. Baldwin killed the woman.

If I fire a gun into the air, and the bullet comes down, striking and killing a person, who killed that person? Was it the guy who sold me the gun five years ago? Was it Walmart, where I bought the bullets? Was it the liquor store who sold me the booze I drank? Was it my mother? Was it the gun manufacturer? Was it the person who was killed? NO!

Will guilt be diffused? Darned right. Will Baldwin get off? Darned right.

See. It's not about justice for the dead lady. It's about being progressive and anti-Trump. They're trying to figure out just how to do it now.

No justice. No peace!

Sal

I agree with you (especially the part about the media spinning this whatever way they'd like), but only to a point.  I absolutely agree that at the end of the day, it's Baldwin who fired the gun, and even if it was accidental, that is on him.  But the difference between diffusing the blame to the gun seller and diffusing the blame to the armorer is that it is the armorer's job to ensure that the weapons used during the production are handled safely.  As long as the gun seller didn't sell the gun illegally or sell an illegal gun, they've held up their end of the bargain and as such are guiltless, at least in my mind.  The armorer clearly did not hold up her end of the bargain, she did not do the job she was hired to do, and therefore the blame potentially extends to her, depending on the circumstances.     

[Ben Framed]

"Depending on the circumstances" is a key in my opinion as well. A 'thorough investigation'. With basic substantial questions, while receiving good solid honest 'verified' answers, should go a long way in finding the truth.
 
Then: What to do with the true should much easily determined, and determined fairly according to the law, no matter what the truth is found to be.. It is SO 'important' to have good, smart, 'honest' investigators involved. 

Remembering, here in America, we are innocent until proven guilty...  This includes Alex Baldwin. Like him or like him not...

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

Copy and paste here. I don't own an old Colt:

The thing is there are two types of reproduction Colt 1873 single action revolvers. The most common type uses a transfer bar safety, meaning you cannot fire it by pulling back the hammer and releasing it. The other type, patterned after the original Colt, has a two or 3 step safety notch in the cocking mechanism, so if the hammer is drawn back even 1/4 of the way, it will catch on the safety notch instead of dropping and hitting the firing pin. Also, my understanding is the Pietta reproduction he was using had the transfer bar safety. Even if that is not correct, he would have had to pull the hammer back just a little less than 1/4 of the way and then release it to have it fire. This seems incredibly unlikely. Or the gun would have to be defective, something the armorer would have caught and if she had not then certainly Baldwin would be highlighting that fact now.

Sal

[Kathyp]

I have not followed this much either, but IF they were taking the guns out to plink, then live ammo was around.  If it was around, everyone should have been double-checking everything to make sure no live rounds were where they were not supposed to be. 

I can picture a bunch of guys who are not shooters going out to plink and coming back to empty their pockets on whatever table was closest, along with ditching their weapons.  Add to that the ubiquitous alcohol and drugs on any set that I know of, and you don't need a conspiracy.  You just have stupid and lazy, along with negligent. 

[Ben Framed]

You just have stupid and lazy, along with negligent.

That is probably it in a nut-shell. But you can never tell from the outside looking in. Since someone was killed and another injured, a good thorough investigation, with regard to 'every detail' should be proceeding.

[Michael Bush]

Update:

Looks like the FBI has examined the gun and said the only way it could have gone off is if it was cocked and the trigger was pulled.  Of course we all knew that already, but now it's official.  It also looks like Alec will be charged.  It isn't clear what the charge will be...  But that was the last I heard.  My guess would be manslaughter.