Alec Baldwin shooting

[ClydeR]

More, this time from lawandcrime.com.


The questioning might go like this..

Q Did you conclude that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger?

A Yes, the gun could not be fired without pulling the trigger.

Q How many times did you fire the gun in testing?

A Just once.

Q And did you pull the trigger that time?

A Well, no. The gun was too damaged to pull the trigger.

FBI Reports

Several of the law enforcement documents prepared by the FBI were obtained Tuesday by Law&Crime after terse and conclusory sections from the materials were published by ABC News late Friday.

The tests performed on the gun Baldwin used in the since-scuttled film indicate as follows:

Accidental Discharge Testing

Hammer at rest (de-cocked on a loaded chamber)

With the hammer at rest on a loaded chamber, Item 2 detonated a primer without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly. With a revolver of this design, when the hammer is at rest on a loaded chamber, the firing pin sits directly on the primer of the cartridge. When force is applied to the hammer, such as striking or dropping, it can fire the cartridge without a pull of the trigger. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Hammer at 1/4 and 1/2 cock positions

With the hammer in the 1/4 and 1/2 cock positions, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger. When enough pressure was applied to the trigger, each of these safety positions were overcome and the hammer fell. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

With the hammer in the 1/4 cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the firing pin did not have enough force to detonate the primer and resulted in light firing pin strikes.

With the hammer in the 1/2 cock position, pressure was applied to the trigger and the hammer fell, however the cylinder could not be properly aligned to the bore, the firing pin struck the outer headstamp area and did not detonate the primer.

Hammer at full cock position

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

Those tests, however, came with significant caveats, as the report explains:

Accidental Discharge

An accidental discharge test is conducted in all modes of fire for a particular firearm, utilizing a primed cartridge case or shotshell case. The firearm is struck with a rawhide or similar styled mallet on its six planes: front of muzzle, butt plate, top of breech and chamber, bottom of trigger guard and frame and both sides of the receiver/frame. If necessary, tests can be undertaken in order to attempt to duplicate the conditions under which the firearm discharged.

“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,” the reports also indicate.

It is unclear whether any any test involving “fanning,” the technique described by Baldwin, was requested; however, the reports suggest such a technique was not directly performed.

The FBI reports also say nothing of the weight necessary to “pull” the trigger. So-called “light” guns — with hair triggers — require as little as two pounds or fewer for a successful trigger pull; “heavy” guns require approximately eight pounds of force. Guns used for self-defense purposes tend to be heavier because the purpose of discharging the weapon is a deliberate act of protection; sport shooters sometimes prefer lighter guns because they can be more accurate. The latter, however, carry a greater capacity for accidental discharge.

More...

[Suppressed Poet]

Can any of you who have a good understanding of the mechanical working of a single action revolver explain what Baldwin's attorney said below? It is from an interview the attorney gave in August.

So the way a single action revolver works you have to pull the hammer on the back of the gun back each time you want to fire it. Single action means the trigger does just one function, which is releasing the sear for the hammer to fall thus striking the cartridge. (As opposed to double action which means the trigger does two functions which is cocking the hammer back + releasing the sear for the hammer to fall once cocked).

The reason I have said before that Mr. Baldwin was lying when he said he never pulled the trigger is if the hammer was down, the revolver can’t fire. You can pull the trigger all day long but it won’t do anything if the hammer isn’t fully cocked. You have to both cock the hammer and pull the trigger to fire the gun which are two deliberate actions. It is unsafe to carry a single action revolver with the hammer cocked, because the trigger only needs very light pressure & a short travel distance to discharge. When carried correctly in a holster with the hammer down, the only way that thing would accidental discharge is maybe possibly if you bashed the back of the revolver really effn’ hard with a mallet to make the firing pin strike the primer (meaning virtually impossible).

It sounds like his attorney are making the argument that something with the hammer was broken in such a way that when you cocked the hammer, it didn’t catch to hold it in place and dropped without pulling the trigger as soon as he let the hammer go. I suppose that is possible…never seen that happen before. I own a Colt Single Action Army made in the 18th century in not the best shooting condition, have done my fair share of cowboy shooting, and never heard or seen anything like that happen. Again, I suppose it’s possible though.

[ClydeR]

The reason I have said before that Mr. Baldwin was lying when he said he never pulled the trigger is if the hammer was down, the revolver can’t fire.

Baldwin did not say the hammer was down. He said he was fanning the hammer. As I understand it, fanning means to hold the gun with one hand, probably the right hand, and then repeatedly cock and release the hammer with the other hand for quick firing. You see it a lot in Westerns, mainly when an actor is running across an exposed space and wants covering fire.

It sounds like his attorney are making the argument that something with the hammer was broken in such a way that when you cocked the hammer, it didn’t catch to hold it in place and dropped without pulling the trigger as soon as he let the hammer go. I suppose that is possible…never seen that happen before. I own a Colt Single Action Army made in the 18th century in not the best shooting condition, have done my fair share of cowboy shooting, and never heard or seen anything like that happen. Again, I suppose it’s possible though.

It is definitely possible. The FBI said in their written report that it happened during their tests with this weapon.

The FBI report says that the FBI fired the gun by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger. They said that would not have work except that the gun was broken. They said that the gun broke during their tests, implying that it was not broken at the time Baldwin fired it. Because of the damage, they did not get to test it by fully cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger.

To summarize, the FBI concluded that Baldwin must have pulled the trigger because he claimed that the gun fired for him under the same circumstances that it fired for the FBI -- by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger.


Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.

[Suppressed Poet]

Baldwin did not say the hammer was down. He said he was fanning the hammer. As I understand it, fanning means to hold the gun with one hand, probably the right hand, and then repeatedly cock and release the hammer with the other hand for quick firing. You see it a lot in Westerns, mainly when an actor is running across an exposed space and wants covering fire.





It is definitely possible. The FBI said in their written report that it happened during their tests with this weapon.

The FBI report says that the FBI fired the gun by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger. They said that would not have work except that the gun was broken. They said that the gun broke during their tests, implying that it was not broken at the time Baldwin fired it. Because of the damage, they did not get to test it by fully cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger.

To summarize, the FBI concluded that Baldwin must have pulled the trigger because he claimed that the gun fired for him under the same circumstances that it fired for the FBI -- by fully cocking and releasing the hammer without pulling the trigger.


Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.

Yeah we’ll see after more people look at the gun and how this case plays out. Typically a single action revolver has quarter and half cocked positions that are safety mechanisms that block the hammer from falling unless the trigger is pulled. Colt SAAs have the 4 clicks as you cock the hammer. I find it unlikely (possible but not probable) those hammer safeties would all be broken. It would take less than 30 seconds for any experienced gunsmith or gun handler to function check the firearm.

[ClydeR]

I like this opinion piece from Fox News, because it agrees with my earlier post about the prosecutor's behavior..

The proper thing, moreover, is simply to drop the charge and move on. If a prosecutor says anything at all, it should be to fall on her sword. But far from admitting error, this prosecutor pretends that she is dismissing a charge because it would be too much of a bother to answer the defense motion – which would certainly make me angry if I were a member of the Hutchins family. And then she takes a gratuitous shot at Baldwin’s high-price "big-city attorneys" – which would certainly make me angry if I were the judge.

More...

[ClydeR]

OSHA has delivered a measure of vindication for Baldwin..

“We believe Baldwin, as a producer, knows everything that goes on, on the set,” prosecutor Andrea Reeb said on Fox News’ “The Five” last month. “There were a lot of safety concerns that were brought to the attention of management, and he did nothing about it.”

But in a parallel proceeding, the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that Baldwin was not in charge and was not the one culpable for lax oversight.

“He didn’t actually have employees on-site that he or his delegated persons would manage or oversee,” said Lorenzo Montoya, OSHA’s lead investigator, in a deposition last month. Aside from his personal assistant, Montoya said, “He has no employee presence. He’s just him.”

The divergent conclusions could complicate efforts to hold Baldwin criminally responsible. They also raise questions about why, if the prosecutors wanted to pursue management failures, they did not charge others in the production’s hierarchy.

More...

[Methais]

OSHA has delivered a measure of vindication for Baldwin..

Sounds to me like gun safety classes should be mandatory in Hollywood. Mainly because most of the people there are retarded like Baldwin.

[ClydeR]

Too much Alec Baldwin news today.

Two days after Baldwin’s defense filed the Feb. 10 motion, special prosecutor Andrea Reeb wrote in an email: “We are a tad confused on your motion on the firearm enhancement.” A spokesperson for the prosecution had also spoken to CNBC, saying that the motion to reduce the charges was only an attempt to distract from the criminal case. Prosecutors have referred to Baldwin’s lawyers as “fancy attorneys.”

More...

If the events described below are accurate, I will be very surprised is the prosecutor does not face disciplinary charges before the New Mexico Bar. As a government agent, a prosecutor has a duty to see that the defendant's rights are protected. This prosecutor seems more interested in promoting her political career.

Below is the text of a document filed with the court by Baldwin's attorneys on Monday..

2. Given that the Motion set forth substantial—indeed, clearly correct—legal arguments showing that Mr. Baldwin is legally innocent of the portion of the Original Information carrying the greatest penalty, it demanded careful consideration by the government. Instead, a spokesperson for the government immediately issued an extraordinary statement to the media characterizing the Motion as an “attempt to distract” from the case by Mr. Baldwin’s “fancy lawyers.” [citations omitted]

Two days later, on Sunday, February 16, Andrea Reeb, the putative special prosecutor,1 sent a lengthy email to Mr. Baldwin’s counsel in which she accused Mr. Baldwin’s counsel of failing to follow proper procedure, demanded Mr. Baldwin withdraw the Motion, and even threatened counsel with sanctions if they refused to do so. [citations omitted] Approximately twenty minutes later, before Mr. Baldwin’s counsel had responded to the initial missive, Ms. Reeb sent another email, noting that she would “look at the specific numbers and sections to make sure [they had] it correct”—apparently indicating that up to that point, the government had never undertaken to examine the statutes charged in the Original Information. [citations omitted]

Less than two hours later, Ms. Reeb emailed Mr. Baldwin’s counsel a third time, now noting that she had been “busy in session all week” due to her simultaneous service in the New Mexico Legislature, but that she had finally taken the time to examine the enhancement statute and now “100 percent agree[d]” with Mr. Baldwin’s “assessment of the issue.”2 [citations omitted] She promised that the government would “amend the criminal information to take off the firearm enhancement.” Id. And she requested that Mr. Baldwin withdraw the Motion in light of the government’s change in position.

3. After waiting more than a week, on February 20, 2023, the government filed a First Amended Criminal Information (the “Amended Information”), which omits the unconstitutional enhancement. The government has nevertheless continued to issue statements to the media criticizing Mr. Baldwin and his counsel for filing a meritorious motion, stating that the government’s withdrawal of the enhancement is intended to “avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys” and that the prosecution’s priority is “securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.” [citations omitted]

More...

The judge should remove this prosecutor. That's what the judge should do. Baldwin should hope that the judge doesn't, because it's very unlikely that her replacement would be so bad at the job.

[ClydeR]

Normally, the prosecution would get an analysis done of the weapon, as happened in this case with the assistance of the FBI. Then the defendant would get his own analysis from an independent expert. Both the prosecution's and the defendant's experts would appear in court to explain their conclusions to the jury, who would decide which was more persuasive. Since the FBI broke the weapon, Baldwin will not have a full opportunity to have his own expert test it to defend against the FBI's conclusions.

The person who wrote the above was spot-on, as usual, as proven by today's development in the case..

“The court, I don’t think is aware of this point, but I think I should tell the court that the firearm in this case ... was destroyed by the state,” Alex Spiro, one of Baldwin’s lawyers, said during a hearing Thursday. “That’s obviously an issue and we’re going to need to see that firearm, or what’s left of it.”

Prosecutors didn’t respond to Spiro’s assertion during the hearing, but in a statement to CNBC said that Spiro’s claim is false.

“The gun Alec Baldwin used in the shooting that killed Halyna Hutchins has not been destroyed by the state. The gun is in evidence and is available for the defense to review,” said Heather Brewer, spokesperson for New Mexico’s First Judicial District Attorney’s office.

More...

To protect Baldwin's right to defend himself, the court should not allow the government to introduce its test results into evidence in the court case.

[Gelston]

The person who wrote the above was spot-on, as usual, as proven by today's development in the case..





To protect Baldwin's right to defend himself, the court should not allow the government to introduce its test results into evidence in the court case.

Nah. The state will show the FBI wasn't acting maliciously and in good faith. Evidence will be fine.