Steve McQueen, Charlie Bronson and most of the old-school actors owned guns and never pointed real gun at anybody before checking the chamber. back in the day, Hohn Houston and Bogart would hunt while shooting on location...they had live rounds all over the place. they checked for blanks before pointing. It is ok to be antigun, but gun safety is imperative when handling a real gun.
Explain how a 10 yr old girl will check whether a bullet is real or fake when handed a weapon to shoot at someone in a movie scene. That is why we rely on weapons expert on site.
@@DN-kz7xlmaybe her parents should teach her gun safety before letting the 10 yr old touch a gun. There are millions of legal and illegal firearms in America. I don’t care how many laws you pass guns will never be eradicated from our country. Since that’s impossible why not teach gun safety to our children and start putting all that energy on fixing our healthcare system and providing mental health services . There is a reason why the majority of most Americans refuse to let the government be the only ones to have all the firearms. Our government is already slowly taking away our rights. Sadly some American citizens are even helping the government to do it !!
@@JC-di4uz o.k. Good for you. You miss the point. We cannot expect everyone to be an expert on weapons therefore we have experts on site. Just as you won't test every meal you order for poison, as you would expect the person who prepares it, not to use poison or have poison in containers which may be mistakenly used in normal food preparation.
I know I feel like I'm living in a crazy world where people can't get that through their thick head. It doesn't matter whether he pulled the trigger or not. There should never have been a loaded weapon on site
Yes, there is nothing complicated about it... There were no need for live ammunitions on the set... Why were they there... A simple question to answer...
@IamG3X 1. ALWAYS treat ALL firearms as if they are loaded, at ALL times. 2. NEVER point a firearm at ANY innocent person. 3. NEVER put your finger on the trigger unless and until you have taken aim AND made the decision to fire. 4. ALWAYS be sure of your target AND what's behind it.
Bottom line: there should never have been live rounds on that set period. All of this testimony, although educational, does not take away that fact. I would argue too that there should be no gun on a set capable of firing live ammunition. It seems really frigging simple. The buck stops at the armorer.
@@DJ-hf1zoI disagree. She was the sets armorer. That was her role and what she was hired to do. It should not matter if she had a supervisor. She was the last line handing actors their weapons and as the armorer she is by definition, the expert. Her cavalier attitude during interrogation was troubling and highlighted her immaturity as well. I will say that if there are other people up the chain of command that participated in the delivery of LIVE ROUNDS to a movie set, they should be prosecuted as well.
@@alexanderstavroudis6901 Wrong. Obviously you have zero professional training, knowledge, experience, or skills in this area. The job of an armorer is to inventory and maintain firearms, and she did that just fine- Baldwin's gun didn't get lost, and it functioned exactly as designed. She didn't hand Baldwin his gun- she wasn't even on set when Baldwin killed his victim- he kicked her off the set beforehand. There is no "Live rounds on a movie set" crime in New Mexico. There IS an Involuntary Manslaughter crime in New Mexico, a crime that Baldwin committed by choosing to violate every single basic rule of firearms safety, pointing a loaded firearm at innocent people, manually cocking the hammer all the way back, putting his finger on the trigger, and pulling it, killing his victim through his own negligence, in violation of New Mexico's Involuntary Manslaughter statute 30-2-3.
@@Gurn_BlanstonThanks for mansplaining that. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around in this incident. But, she is the the armorer. Making sure there are no live rounds in these weapons is her area of responsibility.
There is footage of Hanna with the assistant talking outside right after the accident and he looks like he was putting bullets in his pockets. Hanna is just beside herself and didn't see it.
Explain why destroying evidence (the gun) was necessary? To prove it would NOT fire unless destroyed? Having it in the same condition as last used, while still showing how it would not fire, fully cocked was not good enough? Strange to anyone else?
Alec Lied ..and Stands by that Lie. The "Breakage was to prove the integrity strength of the Hammer and Sear" So the Breakage Proves Alec's a Lair which we all knew
Murder is murder no matter WHO pulled the trigger. The ultimate blame is the person that pointed the firearm at another person, and pulling the trigger. Two MAJOR gun safety rules: Treat EVERY firearm as if it is loaded, and NEVER point the firearm at something you don’t intend to shoot. Baldwin is obviously very ignorant of ANY firearm safety rules and it the person responsible for pulling the trigger. They are going to put the ENTIRE blame on that girl, and baldwin is going to walk ……. Bet the farm on it. 🤔
Your leaving out the point that when on the set of a movie or television show in which guns are used each of the 4 primary safety rules that those of us in the real world(those of us who are responsible) observe everytime we handle a firearm are necessarily violated by the actor(s) during the filming of a scene. Gun safety rules on a movie set do not apply in the same way they do for we in the real world anymore than the rules of safe driving on public highways apply to stunt drivers in a car on a movie set. Some safety practices must be observed of course in but to argue that the same rules that apply in the real world should or could apply on a movie set is not realistic.
@@trailerparksupervisor5378 But I didn’t say that . Key word “ Normal”. AB was under no legal obligation, standard, rule or law to check each cartridge of the firearm he was handed that was declared “ Cold” by a professional armorer.
Leave it to a lawyer to over complicate a single action revolver . The public has no clue how firearms work . Make it easier to understand . No matter the type of firearm , single double action , rifle or pistol , they all require a cartridge with gunpowder and a projectile ( bullet). If the cartridge ( ammo) is live and real it will kill . It’s simple . Why would it be real in this case a movie set with props ?
The witness was the problem. He was ok at first but when he was supposed to be answering Yes or No, he kept going into unecessary re-explanations and she didn't want to tell him that for some reason, so she kept trying to rephrase the question to get him to say that the gun had to be fully cocked in order to fire. Because that would mean Baldwin would have had to pull the trigger, even though he said he didn't.
How do we know she gave the saftey talk. Other testimony says it didn't happen. This isn't a summer internship she got from her uncle. She is trained, certified, and insurance for this job. She belongs to a union that backs all that up. She didn't do her job.
Alec Baldwin is an actor & we mustn't expect a whole lotta smarts from him, that's a given. The REAL issue is that he hired a un-qualified youngster to do a crucial, safety-related job, and this young dimwit brought/allowed live ammunition on a movie set! Everybody would still be alive/un-shot if there'd been no live ammo! Case closed.
Wrong. Firearms safety is the product of safe gun handling, not the absence of live ammo. Baldwin chose to violate every single basic rule of firearms safety, pointed a loaded gun at innocent people, manually cocked the hammer all the way back, put his finger on the trigger, and pulled it, killing his victim through his own negligence, in violation of New Mexico's Involuntary Manslaughter statute 30-2-3.
The person who is holding the gun is totally responsible for it’s safe handling, and that is Mr. Baldwin. No matter what he says he cannot escape responsibility since the weapon was in his hands.
Nice to see that the lady at the defense table toned it down a bit. She looked like a fictional character at the start of this trial. Long nails, long eyelashes and night club hair/wardrobe.
That is not the same person. You can't shrink your cosmetically blown up lips overnight. Yesterday's character was probably trying out for a part on the Jerseylicious after the trial...
Ew I don't like Hannah's vibe she gives off. She acts entitled, and doesn't portray the appearance of someone whose negligent behavior caused someone to be killed.
@robertunderdunkterwilliger2290 Yep, but this was a recently purchased Pietta Colt clone that was allegedly only used as a 'prop" gun to fire blanks. I have several of them and I load for them so I understand. My point is that someone had to have shot actual loaded rounds through it and quite a number of them to have fouled it. Let that marinate awhile...
Hannah never should have been hired in the first place. The film producers (ie: Alec Baldwin and others) were recklessly cutting corners on the budget by bringing her on.
Guns are made to be fully loaded and you do it that way at the range. You leave an empty chamber under the hammer if you're carrying it loaded, and the old timey gunslingers didn't do that. The owners manual isn't about how you handle the gun. It just tells you how it works and how to take care of it.
They normally only loaded 5 rounds, always leaving the hammer on the empty cylinder. Because it was safer riding, roping, and being a working cowboy. If you're not doing a movie, they still like to have only 5 in it. But this was a movie, most people are ignorant of this gun, it's history, or anything other than its a cowboy style gun.
@@girlinvtYou're one of the ignorant ones. These guns have a hammer block safety, and could never, I repeat, could never goo off just because it has all six chambers loaded. Not only do most reproductions made have this feature, but the law requires a hammer block safety for all imported single action revolvers. The gun control act law of 1968 requires a safety on every imported firearm coming into the US, and single action revolvers are required to have a hammer block safety before coming into the country. The 1968 law is why old pistols like the Tokarev, old CZ pistols like the 52 etc, which never had a safety, have safeties on them. Tovareves are probably the worst example, because importers put safeties all over them. One importer may put the safety on the slide, one put it on the frame, and the safety is never in the same spot. Nonetheless, not only has the hammer block safety been put on these guns since way before 1968, but since 1968 the law has required them to have one before coming into the country. The hammer block safety simply means it cannot fire when the hammer is fully dropped.
@chrisgullett4332 But isn't that exactly what the expert is saying actually happened, though? Granted, he had to hit it so hard with a mallet that it broke the gun, but it DID go off with the hammer in the down position.
I mean, you have to open the loading gate to get the cylinder out of the gun, so why not just keep it there and reload through the gate? Plus the ejector rod is positioned there-- popping the cylinder out means you'll need some other way to poke any spent brass out of the chambers.
Why wouldn't they just have a replica in court to demonstrate the working of the pistol? If they find it necessary to point out something as elementary as the barrel, you may as well be speaking Chinese to someone with such little knowledge.
I’m fascinated by this gun expert’s BLUE buzz haircut! I’ve never seen anything like that! Is it just the lighting where he’s sitting? I really like it if it’s dyed! ❤❤ 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The live ammunition is the problem. The armor was careless. Im sure AB is sorry they trusted her. There were 2 other incidents on that set before the deadly incident. The defendant was doing drugs its in her texts. She had coke in her pocket when this happened. She sure cleaned up for court! Unrecognizable compared to how she looked on set.
Did the defense helper read comments about her outfit? She looks totally different. If 2 people before you tell you the gun is safe, then you think it is.
So if 2 passengers say the road is clear pull out do you just do it or do you check? It’s his responsibility and you never aim a gun at a person and it didn’t fire without him pulling trigger
@@100Micklright! Good analogy. While driving we always look ourselves before driving on the road. We don't close our eyes and drive. Should be the same when handling a fire arm.
This girl was setup 1 why were there real bullets 2 and why was the other girl picking up shells from the ground when two of your co-workers have just been shot
They are going to find a way to blame everyone else but Baldwin. Now i am not saying no one else is culpable but any moral prudent gun owner knows....you are responsible for what happens while weilding a firearm. Always check. Always act responsibly.
The million dollar question - Defense says it came from Seth Kenny, prosecution says Hanna’s bag - the bigger question is the negligence of loading live cartridges in the gun
I would bet money it came from Seth Kinney, there is a video of his interagation where he laughs when he tells the investor that he found live 45 long colt rounds in his van under a box. This guys office, warehouse and vehicle are absolutely disgusting and disorganized, he has live ammo and blanks all over the place with zero inventory records and nothing is labeled correctly
Person handing any gun to someone should open the action and present it showing it is unloaded and receiver verifies that it is unloaded before closing cylinder. It never would have fired if no live rounds were put in it. Whoever had live rounds on a movie set ?? What were you thinking ?
I've seen a video of a gun expert, bringing a gun of the same model and caliber into the court and give a much better explanation of how the gun works.
Everyone already knows a bullet left the barrel and injured one and killed another. The issue isn’t whether the gun was in working order, the issue is who was handling the gun when it fired and who allowed live ammo on a movie set.
It’s Baldwins mistake, they handed him a firearm. It was his and only his responsibility to check the weapon to ensure it was unloaded and safe. No one else. His alone. I’m a former range coach in the Marine Corps
@@stevenodell4323 absolutely not. A weapon is a weapon. All the procedures are the same. There is no difference. I have handled revolvers, M1911s and M9s when handing that weapon to another person you do it the same way every time. The person has the weapon pointed up. He looks into the chamber and declares the weapon safe. He hand the weapon to me I look into the chamber and declare it safe. I then point the weapon into the clearing barrel and dry fire it. I then stow the weapon in the rack and put the live rounds in the safe. This procedure goes from the .32 Smith and Wesson all the way up to our M16s We even had an AK47 and an M14.
The 1st click was actually the safety as intended by Col. Colt. It gets the solid cone firing pin off the primer, hammer is rear of the frame by about 1/8".
So the fbi expert says the gun could discharge without pulling the trigger when the hammer was in the resting position (with the firing pin resting on the primer) The question not specifically answered is - could the gun discharge if the hammer was pulled back to just before the first position and let go on a live cartridge?
The live ammo is the problem . That’s it . Don’t get confused on the mechanism . The rounds were live . No matter what type of firearm. Or it’s mechanisms
@@joshuasmith9350 doesnt really mean much for her but for Alec its his whole defense - he didnt pull the trigger (so he claims) However its still his production.
That first position on a four-click 1873 SAA is about 1/8th of an inch of travel. The energy needed to lift the hammer 1/8th of an inch against the mainspring is what would fall on the primer should the hammer slip before crossing that first position notch. That's not a lot of energy and it is unlikely (I won't say impossible, though) a primer would be set off by such a light strike.
People in the jury are getting a better firearms education than Alec Baldwin ever had. The fact they have to explain this 100 times in this trial is crazy. Is Baldwin even here? Is his lawyer asleep?
I can't believe the government pays these kids for things all us old hillbillies have known all our lives about SAA revolvers. But now I know us hillbillies are expert experts
Single-action revolvers have "hair triggers" (requires only a hair of pressure on the trigger to discharge the weapon)... Whereas double-action revolvers have "stiff" triggers (requires considerable amount of pressure to operate the hammer, to discharge the weapon), it's been my experience
There's a LOT of court testimony, and this is only part of it. I am an expert on both firearms and criminal law. If you have questions, I'll try to help. The short version is that Baldwin killed someone through his own negligence, which is a felony crime in New Mexico- Involuntary Manslaughter statute 30-2-3.
It appears that Hannah was overloaded with responsibilities. I would think that the personalities she had to interact with didn’t take ‘no’ as an answer, imho. But what do I know
This is the most excruciatingly boring trial in the world. I feel so sorry for the jury. Sometimes it’s overboard and unnecessary. No? Or is this fascinating to some?
The problem with guns on location is related to unknown history of the gun. Actor doesn’t know where the gun came from, was it modified or not, was the bullet inside modified or not, the gun could be defected, with sand inside it, and as the result it could blow up in actors hands, Now, if the Actor would test the gun before he would use it on location, we should consider the result. Let's say the gun is defected, and it not only blows up when Actor pushed the trigger, but also the bullet could hit someone into eye, making this person blind, or even dead. Actor obliged to test the gun before use, could lost his arm, and blind person would accuse him, that he is responsible for the loss, because he shouldn't test it if armorer didn't do it before. If it would happen to Alec, who would be guilty? Alec, and why? Because he tested the gun and he shouldn't do ut before the armorer Gutierrez tested it! So, if Alec would test the gun, would be guilty, and if not, also would be guilty. Alec would be guilty in all scenario, once because he din't test the gun, as in this case, and once because he tested it, and it also could happen. Now armorer Gutierrez claims that Alec should test the gun, and he is guilty because he didn't, however she claimed the gun was cold and it wasn't, and once Gutierrez would accuse Alec that he is guilty, because he tested the gun without her statement that the gun is cold. He would be always guilty, in both cases. The only reason Alec is accused is that he has money, and plenty of lawyers, very expensive, some victims, even Gutierrez simply want his money. If Alec would be poor, he wouldn't be accused. Most of viewers never was on location, they think that the gun on location is brand new, clean, never used, protected, safe: as we see, the gun was used out of location, in dirty area, in sand, Gutierrez organized "private shooting" with unknown types of ammo, probably with excessive power of the poder (special bullets, non commercial bullets, gun dropped from high altitude, gun with rust inside etc, gun repaired by armorer, sand inside etc.) This is simply not true. Personally, I would never check the gun before armorer does it in front of me, not outside the building. Lack of imagination, too much mesh, too much vodka after work, and we see what we see. The question: was Gutierrez mature or not? Responsible for herself and her duties or not? Because Alec and many others were responsible. Gutierrez not. The second crew left the location the day before, due to safety concerns related to armorer. Should she improve her level of responsibility after that or fall into drugs and ignorance? Such a person o location is a disaster, as we see. And now she dares to say that Alec was guilty!
Why do they re-use the the ammunition etui. Something must happens, when metal gets heated. When air is heated the molekyles in the air move, more quickly.
Interesting stuff. Seems like a dangerous gun, only intended to be a range toy. Probably not fit for cross drawing stunts. But Gutierrez ammo blunders got the poor woman killed.
Well at 27:00, an FBI firearms examiner finds numerous ways around answering a yes or no question. A basic, did someone have to pull the trigger with a finger to fire the gun before you broke components, type question. Apparently this gun could only fire if the hammer was struck with a leather mallet. Did he ever put a live round in the chamber, point it down range at a safe target, and squeeze the trigger with his finger?
@@Gurn_Blanston I was getting the impression from the Lawyer's questioning whether there was any way for the pistol to discharge prior to the FBI expert hitting it with a hammer and breaking internal components. No photos of internal parts taken for evidence prior to knowing damage would probably occur using a mallet on it. Were the 12 shots taken with a Ransom Rest type of apparatus or was a human finger used? Just seemed like his pausing, looking skyward, then giving a rehearsed "In my lab I had to use a mallet." Sorry if I missed something, just seemed like a typical government non comital answer.
I am still not clear as to the criminal liability of an actor on set handling what he or she rightfully would assume to be a "safe" prop gun. Im not referencing potential civil liability involving a producer responsibilty for providing for a safe movie set. That is a different matter in which the actor, in this case Mr Baldwin, might certainly well have something to answer for. Yes, I understand that Mr Baldwin has been in the business for many decades in roles involving the handling of "prop" guns. Yes, even though it is a "prop" gun he should have treated it as a live gun out of habit. It would be more understandable if it was a young actor who has zero experience or understanding with or about firearms handling them casually. That obviously was not the case with Mr Baldwin. Yet, he had every reason in that moment to believe that the firearm was "safe" because he was told by the armorer, whos job it is to ensure the prop gun is "safe", that the gun was good to go and safe. His own personal views on gun ownership, idiotic though they may be, have no bearing on this case. This was a movie set. The normal, real world, safety and proficiancy practices and standards that responsible gun owners observe and practice do not always apply because its the world of make believe. The majority of Hollywood gunplay in both film and tv, including some of my favorite films, display unsafe, ignorant, and irresponsible handling of firearms because the purpose is to entertain not to educate or reflect responsible real world behaviors or practices.
That was the fbi “firearms” expert!? Wow no wonder we are so screwed. Any gun store commando could have done a better job explaining the function of a replica single action pistol
When alx felt a gun kick he knew it was a real bullet. Then he ran out and finished shooting the rest of the round. She and alx had a coke relationship.
