TCTTS said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

Also, the civil suit claims the script didn't even call for the gun to be fired. Another thing that should be pretty easy to verify.
Watch the interview. This has been addressed multiple times. Baldwin was simply aiming the gun in the direction of the camera, cocked it, and claims it then somehow went off.

---

---

This is the part that I find pretty suspect. Unless the gun was in serious disrepair, the trigger would have to be pulled for the gun to fire. Or there would have to be some sort of other serious percussive force applied to the firing pin. It wouldn't just "go off" any more than a knife would leap out of his hand of its own accord and go flying around the room stabbing people.

Whatever you think of Baldwin's obligation to check the firearm before handling, the odds are that he negligently discharged the weapon. He's probably not the only responsible party here - there's plenty of blame to go around - but absent some defect in the gun, I don't believe he's just a victim of circumstance.

Agreed.

Yeah, I think his "I didn't pull the trigger" is wordsmithing that he didn't intend to dry fire it but somehow mishandled it/let the hammer down and it fired the lethal round that shouldn't have been loaded.

It's a little weird to me that he was allowed to speak to the press about the incident considering that investigation is still ongoing, but I guess it's great for him to be able to do some damage control.

jeffk said:

---

Yeah, I think his "I didn't pull the trigger" is wordsmithing that he didn't intend to dry fire it but somehow mishandled it/let the hammer down and it fired the lethal round that shouldn't have been loaded.

---

My understanding (could be wrong) is that the director wanted film of the pistol hammer being pulled back. Wouldn't it be possible for Baldwin to pull the hammer back almost to the point of cocking the hammer, but not quite far enough to actually cock the hammer, then release the hammer (either accidentally or through ignorance). The hammer could still have enough force to discharge the round… and Baldwin could accurately say he didn't pull the trigger.

Could some of you that are more familiar with these old western revolvers comment if that could happen?

Looks like there's plenty of blame to go around on this one…

I don't think it's necessarily wordsmithing, but I think a key point of fact in building up a scenario in his mind where he can live in denial about his personal responsibility. He is making the gun responsible, not him.

I'm other words, I think this is a psychological strategy, not a legal one.

Video posted on previous page shows that pulling back just enough not to go into half cock (loading/inspecting) position shows it does not have enough force to cause the round to fire.

That is typically true, but not 100%. It's literally where we get the term "going off half-cocked."

EDIT - the epistemology of the phrase is a bit more complex than I realized. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/half-cocked.html .

EDIT x2 - this is a good short read explaining what could have possibly occurred. I still think it's likely that he did pull the trigger, but not as an attempt to dry fire the weapon... which in his mind means he wasn't "shooting" it. https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/

The one thing that interview did was confirm what a egomaniac Baldwin truly is. Nothing is his fault. He's the victim here. What a piece of garbage.

Bu that would speak to a malfunction in the weapon. Which I am sure the investigation will look into it. But who really knows at this point. My guess is he had the trigger squeezed back without realizing it while he was manipulating the hammer and that allows it to fall forward from say 3/4 back. That would allow enough momentum to fire the round.

Baldwin not out of the woods with the po po.


https://deadline.com/2021/12/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-search-warrant-cell-phone-police-halyna-hutchins-1234892657/

Imagining Baldwin in court reminds me of the scene in Mrs Doubtfire where loses the divorce court battle and the judge accuses him of simply acting and putting in a show in court.

I would have a hard time as a juror, believing anything out of Baldwin's mouth due to his acting ability.

This isn't going to help Alec's case.

https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-fines-rust-willful-gun-160850769.html

Whaler said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Yeah, I think his "I didn't pull the trigger" is wordsmithing that he didn't intend to dry fire it but somehow mishandled it/let the hammer down and it fired the lethal round that shouldn't have been loaded.

---

My understanding (could be wrong) is that the director wanted film of the pistol hammer being pulled back. Wouldn't it be possible for Baldwin to pull the hammer back almost to the point of cocking the hammer, but not quite far enough to actually cock the hammer, then release the hammer (either accidentally or through ignorance). The hammer could still have enough force to discharge the round… and Baldwin could accurately say he didn't pull the trigger.

Could some of you that are more familiar with these old western revolvers comment if that could happen?

Looks like there's plenty of blame to go around on this one…

---

Every 6-shooter I've ever handled, has a 'safety' feature where you can pull back the hammer just a small amount and let go before fulling cocking it and it will stop just above the firing pin UNLESS you're holding down the trigger.

You can also half cock it and spin the cylinder (this is to load/unload the cylinder). This particular fire arm may be different but I doubt it. They're not using a 1800's vintage weapon on the set (don't know if those older pistols functioned the same as today), it's a remake and would have the same features as a more modern 6-shooter.

So I guess no, unless there was some broken parts somewhere in the pistol, you cannot pull back the hammer and let it go and the weapon fires unless the trigger is pulled at the same time.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize your question was 4-months old. JeffK's 2nd link explains it in more detail than I just did, but it's saying the same thing.

Baldwin was indicted again today.

Did we ever get a more concrete answer about the cause?