New forensic analysis of the gun used by Alec Baldwin demonstrates that there was no malfunction, he had to have pulled the trigger

[Coyote3855]

She still has charges pending. Notice what I said in my first post about her being at the bottom of the hill.

Different incident.

 

[1976B.L.Johns.]

I was being sarcastic.

 

[herrwalther]

Imagine needing forensics to determine what most children can understand about firearms.

 

[Bill M.]

Could someone provide a summary of Hanna Reed's history on this set? Is it her attorney who got the gun retested? I heard the original firearms person quit and that Hanna had taken over the job only 2 days before the incident? Is that factually correct? Was she already on the set in some other role? and the guns were added? Or was she brought in from outside just for the gun job? Was she a part of the original gun crew? Is she a professional movie gun prop person? Would she be insured? Or is she really as dumb and unlucky as she looks in the very few pictures we have seen? Did she go around the set wearing those crossed bandoleers? The police supoosodely confiscated about 500 rounds of ammo. They must know what was live and where it came from? Why is everybody involved playing mind games with public opinion? I am sorry I asked that last one. I guess that is all there is.

I doubt she will go to trial but I would really like to see it happen. A long, drawn out trial that covers the whole incident with people under oath.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That's the part that is not cut and dried, from what I remember...

There are multiple protocols in the film industry when it comes to handling firearms. One is that you never point one (even a blank shooter, from what I remember) at a person. Camera angles and cuts will handle that. That includes a cameraman... if you point at the camera, that camera is supposed to be operated by remote.

If Baldwin's "practicing the scene" was specific enough that he was "on his mark", meaning he was located where he was intended to be, and pointing the gun where he was supposed to, then cast and crew are supposed to not be downrange of him. That's on the director to ensure it's clear. If Baldwin could see her... but we don't know that. The report I read said that the bullet went through a moniter, and struck her in the chest. Not a laptop, a monitor. So, a workstation set up out of the camera POV. Now, I've got a cheap 32" monitor, if it's set up in a room and someone 30 ft away, sitting on a bench (which is what I read) facing it, they may well not see me.
If you make the assertion that he intended to point the firearm that direction, and also assert that he a) does not see a person downrange, and b) well-established rules state nobody is to be there when they do that- it really complicates things.

1. Actor is supposed to point prop at point A
2. Prop is not supposed to be a loaded firearm
3. Point A is supposed to be clear, regardless
4. Actor did not see crew member in point A region, behind an object that conceals her from Actor's vision
5. Director (or whoever is in charge of the scene) does NOT announce that stage is HOT, or is NOT COLD (I don't know what the protocol is, you would think they don't move to step 1 until SOMETHING is stated).

So, 1 is actor simply doing his job.

2 and 3 are both SUPPOSED to be set in stone; you're basically operating in good faith on that.
4 is the part that gives Actor protection from prosecution. 5 could enhance the Actor's defense, through negligence that puts Director at fault; or could hang Actor if it's established Director DID call Stop, or DID NOT call GO (whatever they're supposed to do).

If everyone is operating that the room is ready, and she wanders over into line of (what they supposed was imaginary) line of fire, then her getting shot is a terrible accident. What little I understood of her actions, I think she was trying to 'eyeball' the scene and get the camera lined just right. Sounds like a terrible logistics layout, and cutting corners to save time (and money) in lining things up remotely.

I have no attachment to Baldwin, think he's an ass from what I've heard. But if he's in good faith pointing a prop in a direction he's assured is 'safe', his prop goes BANG!, that would be scary and shocking enough. To then see someone fall over with a gunshot, in the direction he shot, was told it was clear and he didn't see her behind the equipment over there, that would be surreal and sickening beyond comprehension. "Why did this shoot? YOU TOLD ME IT WAS CLEAR. WHAT IS SHE DOING OVER THERE?!?"

He claimed he didn't pull the trigger. But he never claimed he didn't see Hutchinson.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Pardon me. What I said about Hanna Reed still goes though. If anyone is convicted and receives more than a suspended sentence it will be her.

Which she deserves IMO. An armorer needs to be a serious person, which based on her history she is not.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The video was made during the incident as part of the process of framing the scene (which is why the cinematographer and the director were both behind the camera). As you say, he was drawing the pistol and simultaneously cocking it. Depending on which version of the video you saw (I don't think the US media every showed the full video) you can see Baldwin point the gun off to the side, pull the trigger and ride the hammer down with his thumb. Apparently they went through multiple iterations of this as they tried different angles. It can only be assumed that as some point Baldwin must've been careless in handling the gun and did not point it in a safe direction when he was lowering the hammer. I think that being the case his is guilty at a minimum of negligence.

Full video in this report from the BBC. Jump to 0:25 if you don't want to watch all of the report.

That is damning. His finger is clearly inside the trigger guard.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Could someone provide a summary of Hanna Reed's history on this set? Is it her attorney who got the gun retested? I heard the original firearms person quit and that Hanna had taken over the job only 2 days before the incident? Is that factually correct? Was she already on the set in some other role? and the guns were added? Or was she brought in from outside just for the gun job? Was she a part of the original gun crew? Is she a professional movie gun prop person? Would she be insured? Or is she really as dumb and unlucky as she looks in the very few pictures we have seen? Did she go around the set wearing those crossed bandoleers? The police supoosodely confiscated about 500 rounds of ammo. They must know what was live and where it came from? Why is everybody involved playing mind games with public opinion? I am sorry I asked that last one. I guess that is all there is.

I doubt she will go to trial but I would really like to see it happen. A long, drawn out trial that covers the whole incident with people under oath.

Her father is a well-known movie armorer. This was her second film armorer job. On the previous one she reportedly walked around with guns under her arms instead of in cases. She has also posted numerous photos of herself online that look more like a wannabe Only Fans star than a film armorer.

 

[old lady new shooter]

people under oath

Sadly, that oath does not seem to be taken seriously by many people these days.

 

[Old Dog]

Her father is a well-known movie armorer. This was her second film armorer job. On the previous one she reportedly walked around with guns under her arms instead of in cases. She has also posted numerous photos of herself online that look more like a wannabe Only Fans star than a film armorer.

She's young. Probably a bit star-struck. Hard to blame her -- her first "real" job with real actors.

As I noted earlier, not really qualified, totally inexperienced, but she was working with a few folks that should've known better, and had everyone else done their jobs, the outcome wouldn't have been so bad.

Hannah's dad, Thell, is still a legend. Everything about what happened on the set of Rust is a real tragedy.

At the end of the day, Baldwin is still just an actor. For the life of me, I can't understand why we Americans worship these "celebrities" so much.

 

[Robert]

If this didn't involve a movie star would we even care? Doesn't really impact us or the 2nd Amendment. While it is horrible that someone died, it's really not that on topic for THR.