Opinion
commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50323029
Tombstone, Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- I’ve never been a fan of Alec Baldwin, though I’ve appreciated some of his work – the NPR, Schweddy Balls parody he did for Saturday Night Live was hilarious, for example.
Nonetheless, I think he’s overrated as an actor, as he seems to be one of those actors who plays himself. The public “self” he projects, not to mention his anti-gun and limousine-lefty political views, grate on me.
That said, I disagree with the decision by New Mexico prosecutors to charge him in the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Hutchins was shot and killed on the set of a movie called Rust when Baldwin fired one shot from a single-action .45 Colt revolver. After months of investigation and a good deal of foolish media posturing, prosecutors charged Baldwin and the production’s armorer, Hannah Guitierez-Reed, with two counts each of involuntary manslaughter. The charges are a little confusing, as they represent two different categories or classes of manslaughter, meaning that prosecutors are giving the jury the option of picking which one to apply to each defendant. If found guilty, each would only have one charge applied, with punishment being up to a maximum of 18 months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
While the death of Hutchins was tragic and very avoidable, Baldwin’s reckless actions were patently not criminal.
A third person, Assistant Director David Halls, has already entered a guilty plea to a charge of Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon, a misdemeanor, and received a 6-month suspended sentence. Halls is the person who retrieved the gun from the armorer’s cart and handed it to Baldwin, calling out “Cold Gun” as he did so, to indicate to Baldwin and the crew that the gun was not loaded with blanks – much less live rounds.
Many people have been blaming Baldwin for “breaking the rules,” and he certainly did, but we all know that there are exceptions, even to “the rules,” and films and theater productions often fall into those exceptions. The key in all of “the rules” exceptions is that layers of standardized precautions are put in place to ensure that the guns are safe in those situations. Gun handling exhibitions, as are commonly seen at the SHOT Show, for instance, typically involve guns that are mechanically disabled, checked by multiple people, and constantly re-checked throughout the demonstration.
Movie and theater productions have established their own systems for ensuring firearm safety, including the use of “simulated” and disabled firearms as much as possible, forbidding any live ammo from ever being anywhere on set, and tightly segregating and controlling blanks, which can produce a lethal blast close to the muzzle, and “dummy” rounds, which are typically loaded with no powder and a single BB that provides an audible rattle when shaken. Standard practice establishes a hierarchy of control for all weapons and ammunition, real or simulated, starting with the Armorer and going down through specifically designated Assistant Directors to the individual actors.
Through the years, movie makers have learned the hard way that actors and production crew are generally ignorant about the safe handling of firearms.
That and lackadaisical attitudes, as well as downright idiocy, abound. In response, they have made stricter and progressively more onerous layers of rules and restrictions in their ongoing attempts to keep ignorant people from doing stupid and dangerous things. Unfortunately, such procedures and precautions sometimes devolve into a perfunctory box-checking exercise to be run through as quickly as possible.
Movies, like most businesses, are time-sensitive. Time is money, as they say, and this is particularly true when you consider the massive costs and complexity of making movies. Any delay causes a ripple effect, leaving dozens, if not hundreds, of people being paid significant amounts of money to stand around and wait. There’s also the problem of the “Director’s Vision,” as they and their cinematographer try to capture images that comport with that “vision.” All of that combined on the set of Rust and culminated in the death of Hutchins.
Baldwin’s foolish decision to talk with reporters after the incident, including nonsensical claims that he “never pulled the trigger,” certainly didn’t help his case. Anyone with familiarity with single-actions knows that, unless the gun is seriously broken or heavily modified, the trigger must be pressed in order for the gun to fire. The FBI subsequently concluded that the gun involved was neither broken nor modified and that Baldwin had to have activated the trigger.
Anyone familiar with single-action guns also knows that it’s very easy and common to unconsciously depress the trigger during handling. Baldwins’ claims that he didn’t “pull” the trigger are probably true. He probably didn’t cock the hammer back and deliberately pressed the trigger to cause the hammer to fall. Instead, it’s likely that during the manipulation of the gun, his index finger locked around the trigger, holding it to the rear, and he intentionally or inadvertently allowed the hammer to slip out from under his thumb, causing it to fire.
Baldwin was practicing drawing the gun from a holster and pointing it at the camera to capture the angle and image that the director and Hutchins were asking for.
It’s apparent that Hutchins and the director wanted the camera to be looking right down the bore of the gun, or something close to that. That required Baldwin to point the gun directly at, or just to the side of the lens of the camera. They also apparently wanted to be able to see the noses of the bullets in the front of the cylinder as it rotated into firing position with the cocking of the hammer. This required that “dummy” rounds be in the gun.
This was all being done by a group of people with no real understanding of firearms, acting in trust of a system of safeguards that they didn’t take very seriously. This is obvious in the fact that they – the director and cinematographer – instructed Baldwin to point a functional firearm in their direction, and he complied.
Suggestions that Baldwin should have personally checked the gun to ensure that it wasn’t loaded with live rounds are just nonsense. In order to accomplish that, Baldwin would have needed to remove each round from the gun and verify that each was a “dummy” by shaking it next to his ear, to hear the BB rattling in the empty case before putting it back in the gun. This would have been a violation of movie industry safety protocols.
The Armorer, Hannah Gutierez-Reed, was the person ultimately responsible for ensuring that no live rounds were on the set or in the guns. When she loaded any gun with “dummy” rounds, her procedure should have been to shake each one to hear the BB rattle inside before placing it in the cylinder. She has filed a suit against the company that provided the “dummy” ammunition, but that suit is somewhat self-incriminating. For her to suggest that there might have been loaded rounds included in a box of “dummy” rounds is an admission that she didn’t check each round as she was loading the guns. If she did check each round while loading, then the only other possibility would be that someone intentionally replaced at least one “dummy” round with live ammo after Gutierez-Reed had loaded the gun and left it on the Armorer’s cart prior to the rehearsal. That would be murder.
Many in the gun world have gloated over the idea of Baldwin being hoisted on his own petard. They like the idea of a radical anti-gunner being bitten by a mistake involving a gun, but we need to get beyond schadenfreude, the unseemly pleasure at an enemy’s trouble, and look at the bigger picture.
- Do we really want strict liability to be applied to every instance of errant gun handling?
- Do we want people criminally prosecuted for the mistakes of others?
Perhaps, as an Executive Producer of the film, Alec Baldwin has some culpability for the personnel and procedures on the set, and some personal responsibility definitely falls on him regarding his participation in a scene that was not staged in a completely safe manner. There are lots of rumors and possible complications in the whole story, and perhaps we’ll learn something new as the case goes to trial, but in the immediate instance of the tragedy, Alec Baldwin was just an actor following directions.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
“Suggestions that Baldwin should have personally checked the gun to ensure that it wasn’t loaded with live rounds are just nonsense.”
I’ll remember to NEVER let you near a gun in my presence. Your defense of Baldwin is so ill informed as to be laughable.
There are NO EXCEPTIONS to gun safety rules. Whoever handles a firearm is answerable to the consequences of it’s misuse. Period. Knox’s insistence, “there are exceptions…” is shameful.
You never, never, ever assume anything about a gun without inspecting it yourself.
NEVER!
This is THE basic tenet of gun safety.
That’s a fact.
(Another is that Baldwin sucks.)
☝️..yes this!
You already know.
There are two distinct classes in America
I think complacency and incompetence was all around with these firearms. I’d argue if it were anyone else in this platform right now, we’d all be held account severely. I don’t like this either, but I don’t like the double standards and different sets of rules for thee but not for me.
You think you or I wouldn’t have been arrested the same day?
was this piece written by the ATF???
More likely propaganda by the screen actors guild. At Baldwins insistence.
I n my opinion there should never be live ammo on any movie set because there is no need for it. There use to be a thing called common sense but the democrats and liberals have made that illegal to use anymore!
gcm – IIRC Jon Eric Hexum (sp?) also killed himself with a gun loaded with ‘blanks’.
I think those two separate incidents got accidentally combined here. Brandon Lee was killed on set by a .44 bullet to the torso, previously stuck in the bore by a squib load, but then propeled out by the fresh blank charge. The New Yorker fashion model (Huxem? <sp>) was killed when he jokingly put a pistol loaded with blanks to his head, said: “Look, Russian Roulette!”, pulled the trigger, and the muzzle blast and wadding broke off a piece of his skull and drove it completely through his brain to the other side of his skull. If memory serves I… Read more »
Baldwin shut down any “defense” of ignorance in his police interview immediately after. He made perfectly clear he knew gun safety but deliberately chose not to apply it. Further, as producer he had a responsibility to ensure his employees were familiar with basic workplace safety procedures, but that cost too much for Baldwin.
As Executive Producer and decision maker that hired that cheap, young, non experienced team to run the weapons and continued to ignore multiple safety violations even before this critical incident he shares the responsibility along with others. The media and of course the select audience is captivated by his plight and sing the woes and ignore the responsibility of ALL involved. The incompetence of the DA isn’t helping. Breaking the law by adding stacked charges of a law that didn’t exist at the time is not helping matters except in the case of the guilty. Perhaps this is by design… Read more »
“While the death of Hutchins was tragic and very avoidable, Baldwin’s reckless actions were patently not criminal.” –Says Jeff Knox, who has spent his entire life sucking on the NRA’s teat. How credible is a one that contradicts his own account just a few paragraphs later? “including the use of “simulated” and disabled firearms as much as possible, forbidding any live ammo from ever being anywhere on set,” Which Baldwin did, many, many times over, confirmed by most everybody on the set, including the many that quit their jobs due to Baldwin’s repeated violations of the standard safety rules! Just… Read more »
I generally stay out of the comments section but I’ll make an exception for you Knute. Let’s start with the fact that I have never received any sort of payment or benefit from the NRA, unless you want to include eating with my parents a few times when I would come home on leave from the Army, while my father was drawing an NRA paycheck as Executive Director of NRA-ILA between 1978 and 1982. I also have no connection with Alec Baldwin or anyone associated with him, and am certainly not being paid to hold this opinion on this case.… Read more »
I notice in your reply no mention of my point. Which was simply that Baldwin was both careless and reckless with all four of the rules of gun safety, and is thus, at the minimum, guilty of AT LEAST manslaughter. Which you said the exactly opposite of, to wit: “Baldwin’s reckless actions were patently not criminal.” Do you wish to retract that statement? If not, I think I’ve shown that his actions clearly WERE criminal… so that makes you either insistant on being dead wrong… or perhaps a paid mouthpiece. Sorry if you don’t like these facts, but the evidence… Read more »
Agreed Mr. Knox, they sound like a bunch of sanctimonious old church ladies at a beer drink.
I also get really tired of the old saw about “guns and alcohok dont mix”.
Sure they do.
One of lifes great pleasures is killing that last swig from a fifth of bourbon and setting the bottle on a split rail fence, while you walk back to the porch where your pistols are waiting.
Maybe Roland hasn’t yet learned that alcohoc <sic> comes in plastic also. Or maybe hitting the bottle at 6:00 AM was a bit too early! 🙂
So, does the happy shooter lay down his now empty weapons, walk back to the fence and pick up the shards of glass or other trash now on the ground? Leaving it in place doesn’t seem to do much good for 2A support.
Rather than argue points, I would simply say that Knox’s assertions are about 90% false. There is a time and place to allow dissenting views on a subject, but there are times when the dissent is egregious enough to not warrant consideration, and Knox’s is close to that. IMO.
As long as there was live ammo on that set, Baldwin should have checked the firearm for live ammo himself. Not to do so resulted in a negligent discharge and a death, for which Baldwin must answer.
There was no expectation of live ammunition on the set.
Yet everyone on the set knew that the weapons were being used ‘after hours’ for target practice. This is the ultimate catch 22. Baldwin, as producer, hired an inexperienced armorer who, for whatever reason, allowed folks on the set to access said props for the pleasure of recreation and allowed live ammunition to be present. The fact that Baldwin was there and obviously knew about it makes him negligent. Why she didn’t shut down the set when she found out that the weapons had been fired, makes her negligent. Why, she didn’t keep the guns under lock and key with… Read more »
As true as the sun rises in the east.
My question is: If Baldwin had checked the revolver, would he had known whether the cartridges were ‘live’ or not?
Agreed…….however, if the live ammo was not allowed anywhere near, and I mean on the property or in anyone’s personal possessions on the property, then despite the obvious rules of gun safety being broken, this would not have happened……period. The thought that Baldwin would have unloaded the gun and shaken each cartridge after it was declared cold, is beyond even my thought process. It still remains fishy in my eyes. I believe that Alec Baldwin is a self absorbed narcissist and I think that has been largely proven by the releasing of his phone conversations with his daughter.
As an addendum to my previous comment, I give you this scenario as ows: Say I’m over a friend’s house. He hands me the new gun he’d purchased, for me to check our, and “It’s not loaded.” I proceed to take said gun, an neglect to check for myself that it’s not loaded, and during the process of handling the gun, I accidently pull the trigger. The gun discharges and the bullet strikes and mortally wounds my friend or someone else who is present. The authorities arrive assess the situation, and lo and behold, I’m led away in cuffs, as… Read more »
You forgot to add that you had negligently pointed the barrel in a manner to which if there had been an accidental discharge it would have hit a person. You are right, tho. If it was me, I would have been arrested immediately, quite unlike Sir Baldwin
I’ll recognize and acknowledge your points, conclusion and opinion, but disagree with opinion and conclusion. Baldwin, as Producer, holds the ultimate responsibility for everything that happens on the set. Good or Bad.. He may not have personally hired each individual there, but he signed off on their hiring. Gutierez-Reed has a track record of Safety Violations on other film sets. She may be the daughter of movie armorer Thell Reed, but obviously, being Daddy’s little squirter does not automatically grant Common Sense. Either Dad missed a few lessons or she was playing video games instead of listening, who knows, but… Read more »
And Baldwin, as the producer, certainly bears the responsibility for the repeated violations of basic safety that led to many of the crew quitting, and ultimately, the death and injury done thereby. No matter how many fingers Baldwin chooses to point at someone else!
And if Baldwin’s reckless endangerment as the producer leads to a death, as it did in this case, then that is the textbook definition of manslaughter. Which is a criminal offense, even if Mr. Knox prefers to pretend that it isn’t.
“Always check the chamber” is always the rule.
“Don’t point firearms at people you don’t wish to kill” is always the rule.
The old adage that ” exception proves the rule” is not the case when handling firearms.
I know I never want to be the camera man for Baldwin, or anywhere else on the set, and I’m afraid that I have to add Mr. Knox’s name to that list.
I’d certainly never want to be around either of them. Unless I was allowed to shoot back! 🙂
Indeed. I consider that too as a possibility. That Baldwin had a motive to want her dead and secretly loaded the gun with live ammo himself. Too bad that that possibility was never even considered, isn’t it?
An honest investigation would have started there. But I think we all understand that good investigations are a thing of the past.
Now they’re mostly either cover-ups or frame-ups. Not much ground in between any more. Everything is too polarized. I regard this as the way the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
You too, Ope! Take special care bc these days truth is dangerous to speak. I’m sure you’ve noticed how it brings the trolls out of the woodwork in a hurry. But it’s all good. This way we get to find out who the dishonest are.
🙂
Yet another reason to question Baldwin’s motives. You know, the S.O.P. that was not followed in this case. Yet another thing that Knox prefers not to discuss.
I’m sorry, Mr. Knox. You did not make a case. There are times when an unintentional discharge with injury or death is not negligent. For example, the shooter is involved in a legal activity and legally pointing a firearm at a person who has demonstrated an apparent intent to cause death/serious physical harm, e.g., a knife-armed assailant. The shooter trips and falls and unconsciously grips the firearm with the trigger finger moving to the trigger, causing it to unintentionally discharge. But, from the available information, Mr. Baldwin was the producer and responsible for the hiring of incompetent, inexperience armorers, did… Read more »
Using your own logic, Deconflictor, couldn’t it be possible that the weapon slipped in his hand and in trying to regain control, he accidentally got his finger inside the trigger guard? Just asking.
For a single-action revolver to discharge in that way, the hammer would first have to be brought back to full cock. It would be hard to sell a jury on the idea that a man can cock the hammer of a revolver, point it directly at a person, and yet then manage to pull the trigger accidentally. A trigger could be touched accidentally, like the many police that have suffered “glock leg” by shooting themselves in the thigh while holstering their glocks. That is bc glock pistols have a striker that is almost fully cocked by the action of the… Read more »
An 1873 Colt that has seen a lot of use can become worn in such a fashion that it is possible for the hammer to slip out of the half cock notch and drop on a live round in the chamber. That type of event is where we get the expression “going off half cocked” which has been in use since flintlocks were developed. While the resulting primer strike will not be as hard as if the hammer had started out from the full cock position, it might still be enough to fire the round in the chamber. But my… Read more »
Not to disagree with you too much as I have single action revolvers, and Glocks. The action of a Glock renders it totally cocked, not almost fully cocked. So explain to me how it goes from almost fully cocked to totally fully cocked…If you tell me that putting motion on the trigger makes the gun go from almost fully cocked to fully cocked, I am calling BS on you sir! I am 75 years young and that means I wasn’t born yesterday.
You could well be correct. I seldom see glocks come in the shop, and the few that I have worked on were straight parts replacement jobs that didn’t require a detail strip of the FCG. At least in my experience, most glock owners work on their pistols themselves instead of going to a smith. AR-15s are much the same for me. I seldom see them come over the counter either. A cursory examination looked to me as if the trigger bar was at an angle to push the striker back just slightly(maybe ten thousandths or so) before the actual striker… Read more »
He shouldn’t over-apologize. Chances are, he’ll leave this world at the end of a barrel one day himself.
All the exceptions you list point at corporate responsibility. ie those in charge such as directors and producers are responsible. Baldwin was both – so he should be held liable for failure to adequately supervise the armorer and to insist that ALL safety protocols be scrupulously followed. A single error can happen anywhere. This is part of why there are multiple layers of prevention, so that errors remain embarrassing instead of deadly. In this case I have read that there were multiple previous gun safety violation incidents. A responsible producer would have taken the hit to have safety review including… Read more »
My day job is auto repair. I put cars up on lifts multiple times a day. People might tell me things about those cars as I’m getting ready to do it but bottom line I make the call and I follow a procedure every single time a car goes in the air that makes sure it goes up safely. Because if it comes off those lift arms it may kill someone who was under it or at the very least damage a customers car severely. Jeff’s assumption here is flawed in the way that the person who opened the garage… Read more »
This is called “personal responsibility”. You are being responsible for your own actions, and making sure that you aren’t the one to stupidly cause someone else personal injury or loss.
It’s really sad that so many prefer to avoid it like Mr. Knox and Mr. Baldwin prefer to do, isn’t it? Imagine how much better the world could be without such ones messing up and then making excuses, instead of not messing things up in the first place.
Sorry, his lack of seriousness in gun safety, not paying attention in the Required gun safety briefing being on the phone during it and leaving early, speaks volumes towards Negligence. As does not paying Union wages for the crew and using a nonskilled armorer whose only qualification was being around dad, a real armorer, and allowing the set firearms to be used for shooting during breaks. It all adds up to a negligence conviction!
Why did anti-gun Baldwin feel the need to “play” with REAL guns to make his movie???
Because he knew he could have a lethal ‘accident’ and get away with it? Because he could care less who ended up dead? Because he thinks he’s so special that he’s beyond the sun?
Any of those right? 🙂
The whole situation, as I understand it, screamed criminal negligence. Yes, Baldwin should have checked the gun. Especially, though, when you have set up conditions where “Cold gun” can’t be trusted as true, you can take your pick between not checking the gun, having created a situation where you can’t trust what people say, or failing to admit that you are the kind of person who is not safe to handle guns. Negligence was everywhere, as far as I have heard, and when that entails deadly weapons being pointed at people, I don’t see the excuse that makes it not… Read more »
“we all know that there are exceptions, even to ‘the rules,'” No. That is how you wind up exceptionally dead. “Anyone familiar with single-action guns also knows that it’s very easy and common to unconsciously depress the trigger during handling.” No. It’s hard to do if you keep your finger outside the trigger guard where it belongs. “Suggestions that Baldwin should have personally checked the gun to ensure that it wasn’t loaded with live rounds are just nonsense.” No. It is nonsense to trust that someone else, and only someone else is taking care of you. You are responsible for… Read more »
This is what is so great about Jeff Cooper’s “Four Rules of Safe Gun Handling”! The exceptions are that one can actually violate any one of them and still not cause a serious issue. If Baldwin had followed rule 1, All guns are loaded, then the death would not have occurred. If he had followed rule #2, don’t let the muzzle cover anything you aren’t prepared to destroy, then he could have gotten by with incorrectly assuming that the gun was “cold” and he would only have shot into the ground, or whatever other object he pointed it at, that… Read more »
“Exceptions” to the rules lead to occurrences exactly like this situation. Knox should be ashamed of writing articles such as this.
“Do we really want strict liability to be applied to every instance of errant gun handling? Do we want people criminally prosecuted for the mistakes of others?” I don’t believe it beyond the realm of plausibility, even full actuality, that there are prosecutors all over our country who would salivate at the chance to rake a member of the firearm community over the coals if the exact same scenario played out, but without a celebrity at the core. We have parents and children (under 18) being held criminally liable for accidents from firearms in the home. There is a “throw… Read more »
Repeated violations of the basic safety rules do not equate to; “strict liability”. They indicate a reckless disregard for the safety of others. These are two different things. Look up the definitions of both “reckless endangerment”, and “strict liability”, and you will learn the difference(s).
Prosecution of members of the “firearm community” for others culpability occur every single day – it is NOT high visibility like this, but it darn sure happens. Criminal liability, civil liability for mistakes of “others” is not the only reason he should be prosecuted. The ultimate responsibility lies with Baldwin. Remember these? “Treat Every Gun as Loaded; Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to Shoot; Always keep guns pointed in a safe direction; Know your target and what’s behind and around it”…..of course, the Golden Rule of “Never point a gun at anyone you aren’t willing… Read more »
For anyone who has ever taken a gun safety course the rules always apply . Always know where the muzzle is pointing and treat all guns as if they are loaded. Ignoring these 2 rules is negligence and criminal if somebody get injured or killed by not following these rules period . Alec belongs in jail for about 10 years to learn the errors of his negligent acts.
I agree, but as we all know……that ain’t happening.
I agree with that too…However, how does that happen? I don’t believe our country, as a whole right now, cares about the lives of anyone except their own. We have become Godless and that is against what our Founders and the Constitution itself meant.
A big thumbs up on that one! You know on that issue of tooo late? I have been hearing that Biden has been talking about giving tactical nukes to Zelensky……He needs to be 25th and…..NOW!
From the time I received my first cap gun (a Fanner 50 by Mattel) more than 65 years ago, I was taught never to point a gun at anything I did not want to destroy. That’s just common knowledge and common sense. But then, we are talking about Alec Baldwin so my argument is moot.
I can’t stand him. He also surely had courses of firearm safety over the years due to handling props and real firearms in many movies. I think he was negligent in the handling of a firearm and someone was killed. That said, I feel like he should have the defense that the Armorer is responsible for firearms and ammunition on the set AND David Halls did call “Cold Gun” when handing it to Baldwin. In my mind, only the Armorer is guilty of a crime. Stupidity and bad training got Baldwin to this point. I don’t like being on this… Read more »
Baldwin should have been charged with negligent homicide!
Never ever point a gun at a person, weather acting or otherwise unless you intend to kill or stop an act of violence against yourself.
Why were there even primers in the “dummy” rounds? Very easy to roll the cylinder around to see there are holes where primers would be. So simple.
Rules for thee but not me pleading. Baldwin, as the producer, had responsibility for everything occurring on the set…..hiring the incompetent armorer, creating/enforcing safety, et el. The buck stops on him. Baldwin violated the cardinal rules of putting a firearm into one’s hand: 1-Treat every firearm as though it is loaded (with LIVE ammo….added for those challenged among us.) 2-Never point a firearm at anything you are not ready and willing to destroy. 3-Never put your finger on the trigger until on the target you are ready and willing to destroy. 4-Be sure of the safety of the background beyond… Read more »
I was trained by my mom and dad on how to properly handle firearms. We kids were required to check the guns we were handed to ensure it was unloaded and verbally confirm it was. My brother lost his range and hunting privileges for a year because his muzzle swept our sister on the range.
IMOA, any actor to include Baldwin should be required to check the firearm in the presence of the person that handed it to him whether it’s a cold or hot gun.
As an investigator, the one thing I would like to know was how much time passed from the time the armorer called the gun as cold, and Alec pulled the trigger? Was it 45 seconds in front of 10 people or was it an hour and a half later when nobody was keeping an eye on Alec? He Was Heard having a heated argument with the director just prior to the shooting.
Isn’t it interesting how that most basic issue was never addressed in this case? Inquiring minds would like to know… 🙂
The producer, David Halls handed Baldwin the gun and called out cold gun.
The question that needs answering is: How much time passed between Baldwin being handed the supposedly “cold” gun, and the shot that killed Hutchins? Was it 10 seconds, or 45 minutes, or somewhere in between? Or even more? That’s the 64,000 dollar question.The one that nobody has even asked, much the less answered. And a good investigator would ask it right off the bat, just as Boomer has done.
It seems quite strange to me that nobody seems to know the answer. Or at the least, has so far refused to say.
I’m only here for the video.
eh….?
There were reports early on that cast members had previously taken the real firearms out for some recreational shooting without the knowledge of the armorer. Obviously they failed to remove all live ammo from the guns. The armorer failed to properly secure the guns so that could not happen. The armorer also failed to check and recheck the guns. The person who handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it cold failed to check the gun. And finally Baldwin failed to check the gun. However long it took, checking the gun was the correct thing to do, and if anyone… Read more »
“Perhaps, as an Executive Producer of the film, Alec Baldwin has some culpability for the personnel and procedures on the set, and some personal responsibility definitely falls on him regarding his participation in a scene that was not staged in a completely safe manner.”
No “perhaps” about it. Look up respondeat superior and get back to us when you grasp the concept.
Gotta admit, the author raises some good points. However, I believe I would have still exercised greater caution than he because I respect the firearm and what it can do when mishandled. Yes, I would have checked what the load was because ultimately I’m the final safety. There has to be some sort of repercussions when a negligent discharge results in the loss of a life.
To be upfront and honest, I hate actors Like Baldwin who hate guns, want to see them taken away from us, and yet make their living using them on set. Then…..from the start I have been saying the same things I just read. The ones responsible for the ammo, guns, safety, etc. should have all the blame..
I would in a way buy this argument except for one thing, many people including police and home defenders have been held to the standard that was applied to Baldwin.
Excellent article Jeff. It explains a great deal.
Excellent article, Mr. Knox; and basically my positoon on tjis mess ftom the beginning. When Baldwin, a putz to be sure, accepted the revolver along with the declaration “cold gun”, that should have provided all the defense he would need. I refuse to set a precedent for being responsible for the failings of others. On a side note, regarding Baldwin pulling the trigger (or not); I am retored from a large US metropolitan police agency. Years ago, I was on the scene of a disturbance with a weapon, where I took a shotgun away from a suspect. That shotgun, a… Read more »
Thank the Jews for this one. Feminism gets an incompetent female to be an armorer. No female should ever be in that position. This particular female was almost kicked off the set of another western move due to unsafe conditions. She’s an abject failure and obviously wants to take no responsibility for her actions.
Wut?????
Best I can tell, you’re trolling to see if anyone is dumb enough to agree with you.
I’m not a kid, but that statement was pretty juvenile.
No one, including myself, is going to argue that she wasn’t incompetent.
It should be clear, though, that that is not what me or your downvoters are taking issue with.
One incompetent movie armorer is not grounds for blaming a group of men based on race or suggesting women are not capable of handling arms safely.
I don’t think his comment was about a single incompetent armorer. The larger point is that women are constantly being placed in positions they are not equipped to handle(i.e. military, law enforcement, etc). This is a direct result of feminist doctrine and it leaves everyone less safe.
….. or get a rise out of as many Jews and females as possible.
Or, dare I suggest, that perhaps Jogger is a paid troll, assigned here in a feeble attempt to portray gun owners as woman-hating racists?