Apparently a video has surfaced showing what happened on the set and the aftermath that ensued. I don't believe it shows anyone actually getting shot.

So now the armorer was on the set, and she was the one who physically handed the gun to AB? Why was it initially reported that it was the Assistant Director who put the weapon in Baldwin's hand?

And here we have it...

"The Hunt For Red October and Mission: Impossible star also insists he never actually pulled the trigger, simply partially pulling back the hammer and then letting it go as he followed instructions to aim his vintage revolver at the camera."

LINK

A single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

(Dropping the hammer can be enough of that jolt.)

“I cock the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’” Baldwin told ABC. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”

This version of events is even more difficult to square with the idea that Baldwin never pulled the trigger.

When the hammer is pulled back on a single-action revolver a series of sears are engaged which prevent it from moving back towards the chamber without the trigger being depressed. There are scenarios where the gun might be able to fire after the hammer is pulled back but without the trigger being pulled. However, they’re even more unlikely than a discharge with the hammer all the way down.

The first is that Baldwin managed to pull the hammer back far enough that releasing created a strong enough strike against the primer to set it off, but not far enough to engage the sear at quarter or half cock. That is, frankly, implausible.

The next possibility is a physical defect with the gun. The sears could have been so worn out they don’t catch the hammer as Baldwin manipulates it. But, that’s not likely either since it would be clear to anyone who handled the gun that it was broken.

What seems far more likely is Baldwin kept the trigger depressed as he pulled the hammer back. Then, when he released the hammer, the trigger kept the sears out of the way, and the gun fired. Perhaps Baldwin is making some kind of semantic argument about pulling a trigger rather than keeping it depressed while cocking the hammer, but that’s a distinction without a difference.

The most likely scenario remains that Baldwin had his finger on the trigger when the gun fired. His full comments make that even more likely.
Link

(and now there is the photo appearing to prove it)

Proof that the privileged operate under a different set of "laws". You or I would still be in jail. He disgusts me.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Season 1, Episode 14, "A Bullet For Baldwin"

Not a different set of laws, but the rich can afford lawyers who can maximize their client's protection under the same set of laws. The sheriff and DA running this case know that they won't be able to muscle a guilty plea from rich defendant, like they can with a poorer defendant who can't afford a major legal fight, and that if the case goes to trial, everything they present will be dissected in minute detail looking for any flaws.

quote:

Originally posted by coloradohunter44:
Proof that the privileged operate under a different set of "laws". You or I would still be in jail. He disgusts me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

This is the armorer's police interview hours after after the shooting. The first 13 minutes are her waiting, then going through her rights. I did skip around a bit, but my takeaways are:

- she appears incompetent as an armorer, she doesn't know the proper terminology and nomenclature of her "profession", using terminology like "nipple", "thingy", etc. She would sound like a complete novice at a gun range.

- she does not exhibit any remorse, any kind of emotion in regards to the death that happened just a few hours prior. She seems almost intoxicated.

- she is an idiot for doing the interview, at the very least without an attorney present.

Anything new?

What a steaming load of horse shit. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Hilaria Baldwin says 'enemies' of husband Alec 'seek to destroy' him as she defends his 'humanity' online

Suck it up, Buttercup. Your husband has run his suck for years on subjects about which he knows nothing, and he's trashed anyone and everyone who doesn't fall in line with his puerile Hollywood beliefs. You're one to piss and moan about others trying to "destroy" your fuckstick of a husband. What goes around, comes around, Missy. How do you like the taste of your own medicine?

Delusional arrogant pompous buffon asshole he is. Now he wants an apology.

When a Twitter user accused Baldwin of not taking responsibility for the shooting, he responded by saying: “When the DA’s report comes out, you can apologize to me.”

LINK TO THE REST OF THE STORY
.

quote:

he responded by saying: “When the DA’s report comes out, you can apologize to me.”

should have retorted, "do you think they'll let me in to visit you in prison?"

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't know Alec, why don't you tell us. Given his fits of rage in public the answer to what happened on set will be interesting.

Any time Ah-rwick Bal-win is on twitter, this needs to be posted in reply.

At the very least baldwin should have charged with manslaughter a long time ago.

DA is stalling.

.

Apparently Alec Baldwin now has a podcast on iHeart. For the last couple weeks one of the radio stations I listen to, owned by iHeart, has been running a promo in which Baldwin comes on in a quiet contemplative voice and talks about his interview with a WW II hero veteran, then a quick sound byte from the veteran comes on about his service, then the promo switches back to Baldwin inviting listeners to listen to his podcast.

I'm not, in anyway, questioning the veteran's service and the power in his words, but Baldwin's words seem to imply a patriotism on his part that I just find difficult to believe.

I'm not going to bother listening to a Baldwin podcast, but I can't help thinking it's nothing more than a Hollywood production exploiting a veteran's honor and service for ratings, and a way for Baldwin to virtue signal his new-found patriotism , and I roll my eyes every time I hear the promo.

Baldwin might just be laying the groundwork for his next career.

Where are all the other interviews? Why did they release just hers?

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
Where are all the other interviews? Why did they release just hers?

A portion of the police interview video w/ Baldwin is only one page before this one.

Very good.

Updating, criminal charges are still on the table, but the DA is waiting for "key forensic evidence before a decision can be made." Still outstanding is forensic analysis of the weapon, review of data from Mr. Baldwin's cellphone, and results from medical examiners.

Prosecutors await forensic analysis in Alec Baldwin shooting on set of ‘Rust’

Meanwhile, a complaint has been filed against the film's producers (which includes Baldwin) by the state environment department for safety violations.