Oh, they are working on it. Now both Hall and Baldwin know exactly that Baldwins index finger was along the frame, not in the trigger guard (and magically, he didn't get a lead tattoo from a live round fired with his index covering the cylinder gap).
That's a pretty extreme claim. If he really characterized "all" gun owners as intending harm to innocent bystanders, then that would apply to whoever owned the gun that he himself used.
For those familiar with the design of the gun used, are any of these three possibilities plausible? "Even if Baldwin didn’t pull the trigger to fire the gun, his description of what happened suggests at least three possible options. Either he didn’t pull the hammer back far enough for it to lock and stay in place, or some movement jostled the gun and caused the hammer to fall, or there was some mechanical failure in the gun. Those possibilities will be up to investigators to resolve." https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/12/alec-baldwin-gun-trigger-abc-interview
Below the first notch, the hammer is not supposed to have enough energy to set off the primer. So if everything is working , this is not supposed to happen. But guns are mechanical devices, they wear, they get repaired and a times modified. A competent armorer would notice if a 4-notch trigger doesn't catch on the lowest notch or that a transfer bar safety has been tampered with. That's his job.
I'll toss this out as speculation, or perhaps just a bit of food for thought. Many actors who perform in westerns receive training in how to perform a fast draw using a single-action six shooter. Back in the day, most were trained by Arvo Ojala. (Side note - Ojala did a little acting himself, and he was the "bad guy" that gets gunned down by Matt Dillon in the opening of Gunsmoke.) The technique that he usually taught involved "cocking in the holster." As the draw began, the shooter thumbed back the hammer before the gun cleared the holster and held the hammer back. As the gun cleared leather, the shooter pulled the trigger back, so the only thing preventing firing was the thumb on the hammer. The draw continued, and as soon as the gun was level and pointing at the target the shooter would slip his thumb off the hammer, firing the gun. This method is blindingly fast, and Ojala was timed at drawing and hitting his target in less than 1/6 of a second. It's not too far fetched to think that AB learned this method during his career. To be smooth and fast, it has to be practiced until it's done automatically, without thinking. It's possible that AB drew the gun in this manner and it fired when he released the hammer. He might be unaware that he was already holding the trigger back when he cocked the gun and took his thumb off the hammer. Just a theory that might satisfy the incongruity of his tale. And if the theory is correct, he's certainly responsible for firing the gun.
That's what I think happened. He thinks he didn't technically "pull" the trigger, but it was already pulled possibly without his conscious memory. I still can't believe he's jabbering about all of this to the press. I would think he would STFU until the investigation, and examination of the gun, figures out what most likely actually happened. You can't rely on your own memory after traumatic a traumatic event.
What about if the hammer is brought back partially and released? Won't need to hold the trigger, it'll just snap back. Enough to fire the primer? There's a reason some of the experts leave an empty cylinder under the hammer. The only single-action weapon I own is a flintlock, and if I pull the hammer back just short of half-cock (with the frizzen closed) releasing the hammer will generate a weak spark...probably enough to ignite the priming. Ron Wanttaja
I like many of AB's movies, except definitely NOT the remake of The Getaway. I do wholeheartedly agree, he really should STFU! I don't like the crew spewing to gossip rags either. Its all getting so muddled like the telephone game some people will report only what fits their narrative or bias'. Rehearsal scene? Thats just ignorant, anyone ever heard of a full dress rehearsal? Maybe they wanted to see how the last bullet rotates into firing position showing the gun was on its last round. As for the gun, was it really a modern replica? Made overseas using inferior hardened steel that can wear out? How much use did it have? Was it modified at all? When I think of cowboy fast shooting I think of fanning the hammer. Even my modern Vaquero will fan and slam, I don't need to reset the trigger for it to rapid fire, if the hammer is pulled back it can fall and fire.
I own several period reproduction single action pistols. Never found them to be made if inferior materials. As for the fanning the hammer shooting style, that requires the shooter to hold the trigger back the whole time. That is not what Baldwin was allegedly doing.
I don't believe Alec has the capacity to understand the pain he caused, nor has he the empathy to understand what this lady's family is feeling. The only person who matters to Alec is Alec.
A competition of fast drawing Single Action Revolvers. That's pretty fast. Even the slower shooters were hitting within about 1/2 a second.
Unless you pull the trigger, the 1/4 or 1/2 sear should catch the hammer. If you remain below the 1/4 sear, it will snap back against the cartridge, but the energy is supposed to be below what is needed to set off the primer.
Local news (ABQ) this evening stated that the sheriffs department says someone will be charged. They just don't know who or what charges yet.
This is a video that demonstrates the function of the Colt single action which includes the hammer being dropped (deliberately) before the final sear engages and with the trigger un-pulled. Please note that the hammer falls to the half-cock position and no further. As the video states, unless the gun was severely damaged, there is no way for it to go off without the trigger being pulled.
Yep. Pretty much the same as the video @2-Bit Speed posted, and the likely scenario I described in post #809. Unless an inspection of the gun shows that it was damaged or deliberately altered (both very unlikely), AB pulled the trigger. But I don’t expect him ever to admit it.
Blind squirrels occasionally find nuts. Broken clocks are correct twice a day. Today it was CNN’s turn in the spotlight.
Years ago Rachel Welch co-starred in Mother, Juggs and Speed ... back in those days, I would have had a conversation with her for hours
I am not convinced the charges will stick, but if you look at the sequence of events, the parents were pretty much accomplices to his actions.
You should really start a new thread, but the details I've been able to find about these charges are pretty sparse.
No, and I certainly do thread drift myself, but you are asking a question, you'd do better on getting answers with a new thread, although you might run into some moderation.
Well, i agree its not completely on topic but, since the conversation included who was at fault, legal issues, etc for gun related incidents from 20 years ago I really didn't think my question was that off-topic for a POA discussion in the hangar talk forum. Given that off topic comments on most forums just get ignored, and mine generated a response comment in 5 minutes...
There are different ways to induce thread drift. You could say “I’d rather be in Alec Baldwin’s place than those parents” and you’ve drifted. But when you say, “curious what everyone thinks about those parents” when no one was talking about parents at all, you’ve started a new thread.
no worries! funny how no one is upset about the thread drifting into the topic of "thread etiquette". Seriously, I'll stop stirring the pot now.
If it's a revolver, all that's going to prove is whether or not the next chamber has a live bullet on that trigger pull. Doesn't prove anything about subsequent trigger pulls. Do you feel lucky, punk.
