Alec Baldwin WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

I’ve been wondering about that.

---

I've assumed that's why AB is saying he didn't pull the trigger and it just went off.

It is possible he didn't pull the trigger and the gun still went off. From a comment elsewhere:

Quote:

---

When two metal parts (hammer and trigger) are ground together, constantly wearing on each other, eventually they can slip apart without the trigger being pulled. The original colt revolvers in fact had a reputation of firing without the trigger being pulled, which is why they were loaded using the “Cowboy load.” Which left one cylinder empty as the firing pin rested directly on the primer on a loaded cylinder, and a sudden jolt caused it to fire. Further with single action revolvers they are susceptible to hammer wear.

I compete in Cowboy Fast draw, again each time a single action is cocked and fired it wears down, and eventually does not lock in the cocked position, slipping and firing without the trigger being pulled, or will lock for a second or two, and the pressure of the spring causes it to slip, firing without the trigger being pulled.

The most common maintenance for single action revolvers is either refacing (adding more material) to the hammer once it stats to slip, or replacing the hammer all together once it gets to worn out. The Ruger Blackhawk Colt replica pistols actually shipped with a warning, instructing how to load with the firing pin on an empty cylinder for this very fact, they have no safety. Ruger had numerous law suits because the Blackhawk model had a habit of firing without the trigger being pulled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Striker

It is possible he didn't pull the trigger and the gun still went off. From a comment elsewhere:

---

Agreed...I did a bit of digging to just out of curiosity and found something similar. In other words, AB might be telling the truth. Otherwise he was just fucking around pulled the trigger right? Furthermore, if there was no intent to fire the gun in the scene why did the armorer tell him it was loaded with blanks? Why load it with blanks rather than dummy cartridges?

The more we peel this onion, the more it stinks.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

it's almost like people don't actually know all the facts yet...

Is it possible he actually pulled the trigger as he was pulling back the hammer?? i.e. pulled his finger and thumb at the same time without realizing he was doing both at the same time? i.e. didn't realize he had the trigger pulled back too? If he lets go of the hammer BANG!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

She bought the blanks on purpose (the gun shop guy asked if she was sure about her choice of cartridges, and she insisted), because she didn't want her dad to kill someone.

---

great scene, great movie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Did the armor put real bullets in the gun? We still don't even know who actually did that do we? If real bullets were illegal and not readily available to the general public this doesn't happen

Bullets should be 100% illegal for all non leo citizens.. Make possession of bullets every bit as high of a crime as possession of Fentanyl. You don't need real lead bullets to defend yourself from bad actors. There are other projectile options' with lower odds of collateral damage yet effective for self defense at close range.

---

This is comical. Their are an estimated 390 million GUNS in this country with ~40% of households having at least one gun. That's higher than 100% per capita. Just think about how many 390M is...

Now take a guess at how many "bullets" are in circulation and tell me how a country that can't even effectively manage or outlaw fentanyl is going to go after ammunition.

As a gun owner, I'm all for stricter gun control and believe our current management of the crisis is a joke. But outlawing "bullets?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reverend Floater

This is comical. Their are an estimated 390 million GUNS in this country with ~40% of households having at least one gun. That's higher than 100% per capita. Just think about how many 390M is...

Now take a guess at how many "bullets" are in circulation and tell me how a country that can't even effectively manage or outlaw fentanyl is going to go after ammunition.

As a gun owner, I'm all for stricter gun control and believe our current management of the crisis is a joke. But outlawing "bullets?"

---

Thats the whole point though, is the further divorced from reality their ideas are the more enabled they are to just bitch and complain they aren't adopted and blame everyone else for not jumping on board. I don't think actually solving problems or improving anything is even part of the deal.

Alec enshittified gun safety

SJG’s brain has been enshittified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ikonfreewasatch

SJG’s brain has been enshittified.

---

Cream of SumJongGuy


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

When your main purpose in life is to shout your stupidity from the roof tops then the interwebs happens along…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reverend Floater

This is comical. Their are an estimated 390 million GUNS in this country with ~40% of households having at least one gun. That's higher than 100% per capita. Just think about how many 390M is...

Now take a guess at how many "bullets" are in circulation and tell me how a country that can't even effectively manage or outlaw fentanyl is going to go after ammunition.

As a gun owner, I'm all for stricter gun control and believe our current management of the crisis is a joke. But outlawing "bullets?"

---

I'm also a gun owner... and that includes some that would be totally illegal in Cali and most versions of assault weapon ban proposals.

What I'm suggesting is a way to totally remove the viability of people assembling massive personal arsenals. Take away the lethal ammo and the thrill is gone for those who enjoy the DEADLY force part if gun ownership..

There are ways to continue playing with less lethal projectiles..

Make the announcement.. Initiate a ridiculous bullet buyback and ammo exchange program..

Last resort.. make being caught with bullets as bad as being caught with crack was in the 80s..

If only that pesky 2nd Amendment had something about regulating stuff like this.. For now we're screwed..

So, I think this local news story is somewhat interesting in regards to Alec Baldwin's cases.

https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...ting-shooting/

tldr: A muzzleloader hunter shot and killed a bow hunter. Texas and Pennsylvania tourists. Gah.

So from my perspective, there's no legitimate defense. You need to know your target and control your firearm, full stop. I deal with these out-of-town knuckleheads all the time and their firearm/hunting practices are abysmal.

But what I think is interesting is the defense challenging the investigation and more specifically the shooter's interview:

"During testimony, psychologist Rita Baker said the shooting was a traumatic event for Morosko that affected his mental ability to initially describe what happened. Upon an examination of Morosko, she concluded he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from the event. Baker cited information that a person experienced trauma will be confused immediately after the event and have trouble explaining and remembering what happened or forming organized thoughts."

I believe a similar counter will be used by AB's defense team should the prosecution lean too hard into 'he lied about pulling the trigger'. We'll see tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMega

I believe a similar counter will be used by AB's defense team should the prosecution lean too hard into 'he lied about pulling the trigger'. We'll see tho.

---

100% And in Baldwin's case, it's absolutely a valid defense. If you recall the images of him right after the incident, he is visibly shaken. Completely comatose looking, understandably. There is no way he remembers what happened precisely to any kind of accurate degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMega

So, I think this local news story is somewhat interesting in regards to Alec Baldwin's cases.

https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...ting-shooting/

tldr: A muzzleloader hunter shot and killed a bow hunter. Texas and Pennsylvania tourists. Gah.

So from my perspective, there's no legitimate defense. You need to know your target and control your firearm, full stop. I deal with these out-of-town knuckleheads all the time and their firearm/hunting practices are abysmal.

But what I think is interesting is the defense challenging the investigation and more specifically the shooter's interview:

"During testimony, psychologist Rita Baker said the shooting was a traumatic event for Morosko that affected his mental ability to initially describe what happened. Upon an examination of Morosko, she concluded he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from the event. Baker cited information that a person experienced trauma will be confused immediately after the event and have trouble explaining and remembering what happened or forming organized thoughts."

I believe a similar counter will be used by AB's defense team should the prosecution lean too hard into 'he lied about pulling the trigger'. We'll see tho.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontuckyFried

100% And in Baldwin's case, it's absolutely a valid defense. If you recall the images of him right after the incident, he is visibly shaken. Completely comatose looking, understandably. There is no way he remembers what happened precisely to any kind of accurate degree.

---

I agree, totally valid as a defense. People's accounts are often faulty regarding traumatic events, and their immediate memories possibly even moreso. Especially when the event was innocuous and not memorable right up to the moment that it became important. IOW, his brain surely wasn't trying to catalog every little action he took during just another day of filming on set, until those little details mattered a lot and he had to try and remember them after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I agree, totally valid as a defense. People's accounts are often faulty regarding traumatic events, and their immediate memories possibly even moreso. Especially when the event was innocuous and not memorable right up to the moment that it became important. IOW, his brain surely wasn't trying to catalog every little action he took during just another day of filming on set, until those little details mattered a lot and he had to try and remember them after the fact.

---

This is good information and what I've been thinking too. That said, what is the idea the prosecution has in this case? Does it revolve around an idea that AB intentionally loaded the weapon with live rounds? Is it that he inspected the gun and knew it to be loaded and used it anyway? Is it that he had a vendetta against the director? That seems unlikely given that the charge is involuntary manslaughter, but I really don't understand what ax the prosecution is trying to grind here if it's just a tragic accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

This is good information and what I've been thinking too. That said, what is the idea the prosecution has in this case? Does it revolve around an idea that AB intentionally loaded the weapon with live rounds? Is it that he inspected the gun and knew it to be loaded and used it anyway? Is it that he had a vendetta against the director? That seems unlikely given that the charge is involuntary manslaughter, but I really don't understand what ax the prosecution is trying to grind here if it's just a tragic accident.

---

I have not followed this case closely, but from what I have followed, we don't really know the evidence they gathered or the precise theory they have for charging either of them. All speculation right now. Which is why SJG has such a field day and why so many people entertain his dipshit material.

Like most tragic accidents, there were a lot of unlucky factors at play that all came together.

Baldwin say he did not pull the trigger. He could be lying or misremembering. Does it really matter?

The FBI reported the gun could not have gone off without pulling the trigger, "proving" Baldwin lied. Seems odd when they also reported they were able to make it go off without pulling the trigger.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...t/10330160002/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garbowski

\Seems odd when they also reported they were able to make it go off without pulling the trigger.

---

This report feels vulnerable and easy to exploit and cast doubt.... this sounds bad (from AB's attorney):

"The gun fired in testing only one time—without having to pull the trigger—when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places," Nikas alleged. "The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition."
...
The FBI report notes that the firearm was "significantly damaged at the time of examination," but does not state when or how it was damaged.
....
It also clarifies: "When an accidental discharge examination is performed, it may not be possible to recreate or duplicate all of the circumstances which led to the discharge of a firearm without a pull of the trigger."
...
In an interview with ABC News in December, Baldwin said he cocked the gun, "but did not pull the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMega

So, I think this local news story is somewhat interesting in regards to Alec Baldwin's cases.

https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...ting-shooting/

tldr: A muzzleloader hunter shot and killed a bow hunter. Texas and Pennsylvania tourists. Gah.

So from my perspective, there's no legitimate defense. You need to know your target and control your firearm, full stop. I deal with these out-of-town knuckleheads all the time and their firearm/hunting practices are abysmal.

But what I think is interesting is the defense challenging the investigation and more specifically the shooter's interview:

"During testimony, psychologist Rita Baker said the shooting was a traumatic event for Morosko that affected his mental ability to initially describe what happened. Upon an examination of Morosko, she concluded he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from the event. Baker cited information that a person experienced trauma will be confused immediately after the event and have trouble explaining and remembering what happened or forming organized thoughts."

I believe a similar counter will be used by AB's defense team should the prosecution lean too hard into 'he lied about pulling the trigger'. We'll see tho.

---

Remembering the details of any traumatic or emotional experience is notoriously unreliable, whether you are a participant or an onlooker. The guy who's lying is the one who is certain of every detail. Of course lawyers make it seem the opposite when it suits them. In AB's case it doesn't matter unless his defense hinges on his recollection, which I don't suppose it will.

The prosecution will need to prove that AB should have known that the bullets in the gun, which were supposed to look exactly like real bullets but NOT live rounds, were actually real bullets at the time he was pointing the gun.. after the guns and ammo experts told him quite clearly the gun was not loaded with REAL bullets.

Good luck with that..

Now as for hiring and trusting people who cleary fucked that up with deadly results, there may be some culpability there..

So Alec Baldwin personally hired the armorer?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

So Alec Baldwin personally hired the armorer?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I don't know. Did he? That's why this says MAY BE SOME... instead of some level of certainty.. if he didn't then he skates from everything..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Now as for hiring and trusting people who cleary fucked that up with deadly results, there may be some culpability there..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

I don't know. Did he? That's why this says MAY BE SOME... instead of some level of certainty.. if he didn't then he skates from everything..

---

Why speculate?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Why speculate?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I don't know, maybe because there's 900+ posts of other people also speculating??

Piece from the NYT about how Baldwin should not have talked to the police: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/o...smid=share-url

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Piece from the NYT about how Baldwin should not have talked to the police: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/o...smid=share-url

---

Pretty solid argument there...if he goes through his attorneys from the start he's probably not in this legal situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Pretty solid argument there...if he goes through his attorneys from the start he's probably not in this legal situation.

---

maybe, maybe not. "Don't talk to the police" is solid advice in general, but I think it is jumping the gun to say that is why he is in hot water.

+1 to lawyer up immediately if ever called in for questioning even if you have nothing to hide and are completely innocent.

https://img.ifunny.co/images/1352fc3...a09ab2ba_1.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

Relevant to the article I posted up above, here's a clip that I find hysterical and useful (I've posted it on the forum before):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontuckyFried

100% And in Baldwin's case, it's absolutely a valid defense. If you recall the images of him right after the incident, he is visibly shaken. Completely comatose looking, understandably. There is no way he remembers what happened precisely to any kind of accurate degree.

---

the silly bastard talked to the police without a lawyer and now he is charged

never ever talk to the cops

shut the fuck up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

This is good information and what I've been thinking too. That said, what is the idea the prosecution has in this case? Does it revolve around an idea that AB intentionally loaded the weapon with live rounds? Is it that he inspected the gun and knew it to be loaded and used it anyway? Is it that he had a vendetta against the director? That seems unlikely given that the charge is involuntary manslaughter, but I really don't understand what ax the prosecution is trying to grind here if it's just a tragic accident.

---

Maybe…. And hear me out here…. Maybe the prosecution is just chasing the headlines and notoriety? I’m sure that’s a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

Maybe…. And hear me out here…. Maybe the prosecution is just chasing the headlines and notoriety? I’m sure that’s a factor.

---

Politically, I think DA was in a corner. I wonder if they believe in the merits of their case and charges; their scalp may be a plea of some sort. But if this was some 18 year old starlet who was well liked, I don't think we'd be seeing charges. This case is driven by sensationalism and optics.

i think some people have the perception that he shouldn't be convicted but he should at least be charged. I'm not saying I'm one of them but just that perspective is out there.

^yeah, I get that.

btw - that hunter trial I linked earlier resulted in a full conviction: https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...ting-incident/

He’s going to jail. Dumb as spoke to the cops without an attorney.

In the interview he admits to not checking the gun after the armor handed it to him and asked him if he wanted to safety check it.