Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[10ofRods]

From reading the report, the gun wasn't destroyed. It was damaged internally during testing; that came about because, as the FBI pointed out in the report, the only way they could make it fire was by putting so much force on the hammer it smashed the internal safety mechanisms causing them to be overridden.

Far from it giving AB a free pass it proves absolutely that the only way he managed to shoot two people was because he was pulling the trigger!

Even if the FBI had managed to blow the thing to pieces during their resting it still doesn't change the conclusions of their report - namely, at the time AB shot two people with it, it was in perfect working order and could not have discharged without the trigger being pressed!

This all just comes over as lawyers being lawyers and trying to get the thing thrown out, rather than actually putting up a defence case, quite frankly.

Yes, a really gun-knowledgeable person will accept that.

But, typically, the defense has the right to examine the evidence (which was, originally, a working handgun). Now it is inoperable. That may disqualify it from being brought in as evidence (in terms of speaking about how much force it would take to operate it).

I agree that no conclusions are changed, but I do believe that it will be a big sticking point. The defense is going to claim they were denied the chance to have independent analysis of that gun.

This isn't just "lawyers being lawyers" imo, this is how our legal system works. I was shocked to learn that the FBI didn't stop amping the force up when they had concluded (rightly) that it took "a lot" of force to fire the gun. They applied more force, damaged the evidence and now the defense can claim the results are non-replicable.

The FBI learned, first, that the gun was operable and second, that it took some force to fire it. That's all that was needed. No one was claiming that Alec Baldwin needed superpowers to fire that gun. Now the defense can spin it in many different ways. Legally, it's a pity and I am somewhat appalled. People who distrusted LE - and esp. people who distrust FBI, could be on that jury and now, the defense will claim the gun was made inoperable by the FBI.

Hopefully, the entire subject can be set aside at trial (but I'm not sure it will be).

IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yes, a really gun-knowledgeable person will accept that.

But, typically, the defense has the right to examine the evidence (which was, originally, a working handgun). Now it is inoperable. That may disqualify it from being brought in as evidence (in terms of speaking about how much force it would take to operate it).

I agree that no conclusions are changed, but I do believe that it will be a big sticking point. The defense is going to claim they were denied the chance to have independent analysis of that gun.

This isn't just "lawyers being lawyers" imo, this is how our legal system works. I was shocked to learn that the FBI didn't stop amping the force up when they had concluded (rightly) that it took "a lot" of force to fire the gun. They applied more force, damaged the evidence and now the defense can claim the results are non-replicable.

The FBI learned, first, that the gun was operable and second, that it took some force to fire it. That's all that was needed. No one was claiming that Alec Baldwin needed superpowers to fire that gun. Now the defense can spin it in many different ways. Legally, it's a pity and I am somewhat appalled. People who distrusted LE - and esp. people who distrust FBI, could be on that jury and now, the defense will claim the gun was made inoperable by the FBI.

Hopefully, the entire subject can be set aside at trial (but I'm not sure it will be).

IMO

I don't think it's the case that a person needs to be "really gun-knowledgeable" to see the blatant untruth in the statement "...the gun was destroyed". Nor do I think that anyone needs to have any pre-existing knowledge of firearms to have explained to them the workings of a very simple mechanical device if they are sitting on a jury and certainly not a judge. New Mexico is a state full of pretty gun savvy people so I think everyone on a jury will see straight through rubbish like this from the defence.

IMO it's absolutely a case of "lawyers being lawyers" because the whole aspect of bringing the gun into disrepute as a piece of evidence is patently ridiculous. AB lawyer said:

"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."

The prosecution's response was:

"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 defence to review."

​

Prosecutors deny claim that authorities destroyed gun in Rust movie set shooting

Baldwin is the star and producer of the film and he was holding the gun when it killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, although he has denied pulling the trigger.

news.sky.com

So, one side is not telling the truth. There is nothing in any of the evidence we have been privy to that reveals anything remotely close to the gun being "destroyed". The FBI managed to break an internal component or two but that could in no way be interpreted as the whole thing being destroyed.

It is a blatant untruth to state that it has been destroyed - especially as the defence have clearly not even seen it! So, IMO, AB's lawyer has two personal issues here; he is either a) telling lies to the court as to the gun's destruction or, b) he isn't bright enough to understand the result of a fairly simply worded evidence report on a firearm. I have my own opinion as to which of the two is correct. Either way, should he really be a practicing criminal defence lawyer?

In any event, the only parts likely to have been broken are the sear face and the other stand-off notches on the hammer or the trigger sear as these are the only parts which physically meet each other in the firing sequence (they stated the exact parts in the report but I can't recall off the top of my head). These are very easily replaced if the defence wants to conduct their own testing.

Furthermore, the test conducted by the FBI which caused that damage involved a sequence of events which no one, let alone the defence, has alleged happened in the shooting. The defence case is, essentially; "I pulled the hammer back - I didn't pull the trigger - the gun went off". There is nothing alleging the hammer being smashed with a heavy object. The whole point of the FBI conducting that test was, IMO, to see precisely how much extreme force was needed to make it discharge and how far away from the agreed narrative those actions would need to be.

Even if we agree that the gun was totally destroyed and no further examination of it was possible then so what? Evidence is destroyed as a matter of course in investigations - you can't test a small blood spec for DNA without destroying it, for example - yet it doesn't get rejected by the court because it no longer exists.

The defence will have every opportunity to examine the gun and to allow their own experts to examine it; any unbiased expert, though, will look at the gun, it's back story and chain of custody and conclude that it is inoperable (or at least unsafe) due to extreme force applied in previous testing. That isn't going to get the defence anywhere, IMO.

 

[CGray123]

I don't think it's the case that a person needs to be "really gun-knowledgeable" to see the blatant untruth in the statement "...the gun was destroyed". Nor do I think that anyone needs to have any pre-existing knowledge of firearms to have explained to them the workings of a very simple mechanical device if they are sitting on a jury and certainly not a judge. New Mexico is a state full of pretty gun savvy people so I think everyone on a jury will see straight through rubbish like this from the defence.

IMO it's absolutely a case of "lawyers being lawyers" because the whole aspect of bringing the gun into disrepute as a piece of evidence is patently ridiculous. AB lawyer said:

"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."

The prosecution's response was:

"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 defence to review."

​

Prosecutors deny claim that authorities destroyed gun in Rust movie set shooting

Baldwin is the star and producer of the film and he was holding the gun when it killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, although he has denied pulling the trigger.

news.sky.com

So, one side is not telling the truth. There is nothing in any of the evidence we have been privy to that reveals anything remotely close to the gun being "destroyed". The FBI managed to break an internal component or two but that could in no way be interpreted as the whole thing being destroyed.

It is a blatant untruth to state that it has been destroyed - especially as the defence have clearly not even seen it! So, IMO, AB's lawyer has two personal issues here; he is either a) telling lies to the court as to the gun's destruction or, b) he isn't bright enough to understand the result of a fairly simply worded evidence report on a firearm. I have my own opinion as to which of the two is correct. Either way, should he really be a practicing criminal defence lawyer?

In any event, the only parts likely to have been broken are the sear face and the other stand-off notches on the hammer or the trigger sear as these are the only parts which physically meet each other in the firing sequence (they stated the exact parts in the report but I can't recall off the top of my head). These are very easily replaced if the defence wants to conduct their own testing.

Furthermore, the test conducted by the FBI which caused that damage involved a sequence of events which no one, let alone the defence, has alleged happened in the shooting. The defence case is, essentially; "I pulled the hammer back - I didn't pull the trigger - the gun went off". There is nothing alleging the hammer being smashed with a heavy object. The whole point of the FBI conducting that test was, IMO, to see precisely how much extreme force was needed to make it discharge and how far away from the agreed narrative those actions would need to be.

Even if we agree that the gun was totally destroyed and no further examination of it was possible then so what? Evidence is destroyed as a matter of course in investigations - you can't test a small blood spec for DNA without destroying it, for example - yet it doesn't get rejected by the court because it no longer exists.

The defence will have every opportunity to examine the gun and to allow their own experts to examine it; any unbiased expert, though, will look at the gun, it's back story and chain of custody and conclude that it is inoperable (or at least unsafe) due to extreme force applied in previous testing. That isn't going to get the defence anywhere, IMO.

I accept what you say about the probable damage to the gun during the test and the ability to restore the damaged parts. But the primary question for me is, will the damage prevent defense experts from examining whether these parts or others in combination could occasionally produce the kind of hair trigger effect that AB says he experienced.

If that's a real question (i.e. supported by expert testimony) and not just my speculation, it won't be a "lawyers being lawyers" charade: it involves a material fact in dispute and inability to test the gun as it was before the prosecution's test will put the defense at a serious disadvantage.

There is also the question how the gun was damaged, and the related question of the prosecution's good faith for the court to consider.

In sum, this will be a serious issue and the court will treat it as such. If the court agrees that this is a material issue or that the prosecution acted in bad faith, it may restrict the prosecution from using this evidence to contest AB's testimony.

If the court does restrict use of this testimony, AB will argue that the prosecution unfairly prejudiced the case by publicizing their test results. This could result in other sanctions, up to and including dismissal.

So for now, I'm with @10ofRods - not ready to dismiss this as legal posturing just yet.

All speculation and MOO.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't think it's the case that a person needs to be "really gun-knowledgeable" to see the blatant untruth in the statement "...the gun was destroyed". Nor do I think that anyone needs to have any pre-existing knowledge of firearms to have explained to them the workings of a very simple mechanical device if they are sitting on a jury and certainly not a judge. New Mexico is a state full of pretty gun savvy people so I think everyone on a jury will see straight through rubbish like this from the defence.

IMO it's absolutely a case of "lawyers being lawyers" because the whole aspect of bringing the gun into disrepute as a piece of evidence is patently ridiculous. AB lawyer said:

"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."

The prosecution's response was:

"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 defence to review."

​

Prosecutors deny claim that authorities destroyed gun in Rust movie set shooting

Baldwin is the star and producer of the film and he was holding the gun when it killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, although he has denied pulling the trigger.

news.sky.com

So, one side is not telling the truth. There is nothing in any of the evidence we have been privy to that reveals anything remotely close to the gun being "destroyed". The FBI managed to break an internal component or two but that could in no way be interpreted as the whole thing being destroyed.

It is a blatant untruth to state that it has been destroyed - especially as the defence have clearly not even seen it! So, IMO, AB's lawyer has two personal issues here; he is either a) telling lies to the court as to the gun's destruction or, b) he isn't bright enough to understand the result of a fairly simply worded evidence report on a firearm. I have my own opinion as to which of the two is correct. Either way, should he really be a practicing criminal defence lawyer?

In any event, the only parts likely to have been broken are the sear face and the other stand-off notches on the hammer or the trigger sear as these are the only parts which physically meet each other in the firing sequence (they stated the exact parts in the report but I can't recall off the top of my head). These are very easily replaced if the defence wants to conduct their own testing.

Furthermore, the test conducted by the FBI which caused that damage involved a sequence of events which no one, let alone the defence, has alleged happened in the shooting. The defence case is, essentially; "I pulled the hammer back - I didn't pull the trigger - the gun went off". There is nothing alleging the hammer being smashed with a heavy object. The whole point of the FBI conducting that test was, IMO, to see precisely how much extreme force was needed to make it discharge and how far away from the agreed narrative those actions would need to be.

Even if we agree that the gun was totally destroyed and no further examination of it was possible then so what? Evidence is destroyed as a matter of course in investigations - you can't test a small blood spec for DNA without destroying it, for example - yet it doesn't get rejected by the court because it no longer exists.

The defence will have every opportunity to examine the gun and to allow their own experts to examine it; any unbiased expert, though, will look at the gun, it's back story and chain of custody and conclude that it is inoperable (or at least unsafe) due to extreme force applied in previous testing. That isn't going to get the defence anywhere, IMO.

I agree the word "destroyed" is a bit extreme. OTOH, it is the firing mechanism (the subject of Alec's alleged defense - which is that he did not pull the trigger; it was broken; etc). The firing mechanism is now broken (per the LE release of FBI documents on this gun).

All it takes is one pro-Baldwin skeptic on the jury.

Defense experts are never unbiased, but that's the way the system works. I am well aware of the problems with DNA - and yes, it is a huge issue. If ALL of the sample is destroyed before the defense gets to test it, that's usually a problem here in California. Sometimes such DNA samples do get thrown out as evidence (we are not always privy in open court to what has been decided in chambers - I've been fortunate to get to observe some of those conversations as part of the work I do).

Defense will likely claim the gun was previously damaged (which is why it failed upon the testing bench). Prosecution will deny that; defense will say "We can't know for sure, because gun is inoperable."

It's up to the jury to decide if that means "reasonable doubt." All around the internet are literally thousands of people who defend Alec at every turn and think he's being "bullied" by the State of NM because he's famous. It sure would have been nice if the gun had not been damaged. While "destroyed" is a strong word, it's obvious the gun is no longer operable as it was before the FBI bench testing.

It is at least a good thing that most New Mexicans are familiar with guns and may see through this. We shall see.

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Alec Baldwin 'wants his day in court' as district attorney disputes claim 'Rust' firearm has been destroyed

The Santa Fe, New Mexico, district attorney is disputing Alec Baldwin's lawyer's claim the gun used in the fatal "Rust" shooting has been destroyed. Dates were also set for key hearings in the legal battle.

www.foxnews.com

March 9, 2023 5:59pm EST

Alec Baldwin's lawyer told a judge Thursday the former "30 Rock" star "wants his day in court," and claimed the gun used in the fatal "Rust" shooting was destroyed by the state.

However, Heather Brewer, spokesperson for the office of the New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney, confirmed with Fox News Digital that the gun has "not been destroyed by the state."

"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," Brewer said.

"The defense's unexpected statement in the status hearing today that the gun had been destroyed by the state may be a reference to a statement in the FBI's July 2022 firearms testing report that said damage was done to internal components of the gun during the FBI's functionality testing. However, the gun still exists and can be used as evidence."

 

[PrairieWind]

I agree the word "destroyed" is a bit extreme. OTOH, it is the firing mechanism (the subject of Alec's alleged defense - which is that he did not pull the trigger; it was broken; etc). The firing mechanism is now broken (per the LE release of FBI documents on this gun).

All it takes is one pro-Baldwin skeptic on the jury.

Defense experts are never unbiased, but that's the way the system works. I am well aware of the problems with DNA - and yes, it is a huge issue. If ALL of the sample is destroyed before the defense gets to test it, that's usually a problem here in California. Sometimes such DNA samples do get thrown out as evidence (we are not always privy in open court to what has been decided in chambers - I've been fortunate to get to observe some of those conversations as part of the work I do).

Defense will likely claim the gun was previously damaged (which is why it failed upon the testing bench). Prosecution will deny that; defense will say "We can't know for sure, because gun is inoperable."

It's up to the jury to decide if that means "reasonable doubt." All around the internet are literally thousands of people who defend Alec at every turn and think he's being "bullied" by the State of NM because he's famous. It sure would have been nice if the gun had not been damaged. While "destroyed" is a strong word, it's obvious the gun is no longer operable as it was before the FBI bench testing.

It is at least a good thing that most New Mexicans are familiar with guns and may see through this. We shall see.

IMO.

Yes, this a good analysis I think. The gun was not destroyed, but probably is "functionally destroyed." It is important I think. The FBI expert will explain what they did and why it happened, and that is all well and good. But it has been stated the FBI will say this gun can't be fired without pulling the trigger. I have been around firearms most of my life, fired a lot of revolvers. That statement is simply not true, and a defense attorney will shred that opinion in 5 minutes. I think the defense would be better off to not go down they "I never pulled the trigger" path too much however. It sounds bad. AB is better to focus on other areas.

 

[SteveS]

But it has been stated the FBI will say this gun can't be fired without pulling the trigger. I have been around firearms most of my life, fired a lot of revolvers. That statement is simply not true, and a defense attorney will shred that opinion in 5 minutes.

Really? You think the FBI can do extensive testing, to see what really is possible with this piece of equipment, and then a defense attorney can idly negate that testing result with a few words? Wow, I have serious doubts.

You state you have experience regarding firearms/revolvers in general. But how about this specific type of revolver, with the way it is made, and this specific example of that firearm? Couldn't those offer MUCH different possibilities and limitations than those in your experience? If so, who might be able to tell us what can or can't be done?

ETA - Here's an explanation of how this particular gun works, with a reminder of how things were supposed to be done on that set when using firearms.

 

[PrairieWind]

Really? You think the FBI can do extensive testing, to see what really is possible with this piece of equipment, and then a defense attorney can idly negate that testing result with a few words? Wow, I have serious doubts.

You state you have experience regarding firearms/revolvers in general. But how about this specific type of revolver, with the way it is made, and this specific example of that firearm? Couldn't those offer MUCH different possibilities and limitations than those in your experience? If so, who might be able to tell us what can or can't be done?

I'm saying I doubt the FBI will testify that the gun could not fire without the trigger pulled. I have never handled this make of revolver, true. But revolvers largely work the same. There is a reason you don't normally load a revolver fully and keep one chamber empty. So the hammer isn't over a live round. If you pull the hammer back and before hitting at the half-*advertiser censored* release it, the hammer will fall on the chamber. Once you reach the half *advertiser censored*, if the gun is fully functional, the trigger would need to be pulled to allow the hammer forward. So all the talk about "trigger pull" really misses a lot. Was the gun in poor condition and not working properly? The FBI can testify to that but can no longer demonstrate it with this gun. But as I said before, I think the whole "was the trigger pulled" argument will not be the focus.

 

[GRT]

From reading the report, the gun wasn't destroyed. It was damaged internally during testing; that came about because, as the FBI pointed out in the report, the only way they could make it fire was by putting so much force on the hammer it smashed the internal safety mechanisms causing them to be overridden.

Far from it giving AB a free pass it proves absolutely that the only way he managed to shoot two people was because he was pulling the trigger!

Even if the FBI had managed to blow the thing to pieces during their resting it still doesn't change the conclusions of their report - namely, at the time AB shot two people with it, it was in perfect working order and could not have discharged without the trigger being pressed!

This all just comes over as lawyers being lawyers and trying to get the thing thrown out, rather than actually putting up a defence case, quite frankly.

The problem with this account--just my opinion--is that if it is a correct indication of the way the gun fired, why was AB able to fire it without putting so much pressure on it that it broke the internal safety mechanism?

 

[DI_Isokawa]

The problem with this account--just my opinion--is that if it is a correct indication of the way the gun fired, why was AB able to fire it without putting so much pressure on it that it broke the internal safety mechanism?

His account was that he pulled back the hammer without pulling the trigger, released the hammer, and the weapon fired. This sequence of events was not tested by the FBI laboratory, and cannot be tested today.

AB's account is supported by the earlier accidental discharge when the prop master was loading the same gun with blanks. If the prosecution asserts that the weapon could never discharge under any circumstances unless the trigger was pulled, then they are also asserting that the prop master had to have pulled the trigger when she was loading the weapon. We'll see what she says on the stand.

The FBI test, again, did not involve a premature hammer drop with no trigger pull. It involved banging on the hammer after it was in the fully latched position. There is nothing in the publicly released material that indicates why the FBI thought this constituted a relevant test. No one to my knowledge has asserted that the hammer fell as a result of being struck.

I have analyzed my share of forensic laboratory reports and I agree with Prairie Wind that (assuming all they have is what we have seen) the FBI techs are going to be in for a rather rough ride during cross-examination. I would not be surprised if the defense emphasized the report's shortcomings because of the exaggerated claims made by the DA about its importance, in support of a "witch hunt" theme.

 

[SteveS]

I'm saying I doubt the FBI will testify that the gun could not fire without the trigger pulled. I have never handled this make of revolver, true. But revolvers largely work the same. There is a reason you don't normally load a revolver fully and keep one chamber empty. So the hammer isn't over a live round. If you pull the hammer back and before hitting at the half-*advertiser censored* release it, the hammer will fall on the chamber. Once you reach the half *advertiser censored*, if the gun is fully functional, the trigger would need to be pulled to allow the hammer forward. So all the talk about "trigger pull" really misses a lot. Was the gun in poor condition and not working properly? The FBI can testify to that but can no longer demonstrate it with this gun. But as I said before, I think the whole "was the trigger pulled" argument will not be the focus.

That's not right, amigo. I wonder if you re familiar with THIS particular revolver, because the things you describe are not really possible. Obviously you didn't watch the video I included, in the post you replied to. It shows there are multiple mechanisms that prevent the "falling on the chamber by accident" outcome.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of you speaking so adamantly, but I would posit you too haven't watched either video, to know how this gun works -- because you are theorizing the FBI test and the possibilities of "accidental discharge" would fall in ways that really don't align with how the gun works, or is supposed to work. If it worked properly, it had safeguards. The real question is simply whether those safeguards were inoperable and somehow didn't work when the gun was used here.

Please review this CNN report on video, with the same firearms EXPERT who also works in the film industry and has decades of experience. Same info, just a bit better demonstration. He shows the revolver, demonstrates it, and shows clearly (making it simple to see) why the idea it might have gone off on its own is fairly preposterous. There are MULTIPLE safety stops built into such a weapon to prevent something like you describe from being able to occur.

 

[RANCH]

If the defense convinces a judge that they cannot adequately test the gun because of the damaged internal parts, will that mean they can prevent the FBI testing results from being presented to a jury by the State?

 

[Betty P]

That's not right, amigo. I wonder if you re familiar with THIS particular revolver, because the things you describe are not really possible. Obviously you didn't watch the video I included, in the post you replied to. It shows there are multiple mechanisms that prevent the "falling on the chamber by accident" outcome.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of you speaking so adamantly, but I would posit you too haven't watched either video, to know how this gun works -- because you are theorizing the FBI test and the possibilities of "accidental discharge" would fall in ways that really don't align with how the gun works, or is supposed to work. If it worked properly, it had safeguards. The real question is simply whether those safeguards were inoperable and somehow didn't work when the gun was used here.

Please review this CNN report on video, with the same firearms EXPERT who also works in the film industry and has decades of experience. Same info, just a bit better demonstration. He shows the revolver, demonstrates it, and shows clearly (making it simple to see) why the idea it might have gone off on its own is fairly preposterous. There are MULTIPLE safety stops built into such a weapon to prevent something like you describe from being able to occur.

JMO (and I'm not a gun expert) the video vs PrairieWind's statement is a distinction without much difference. As the man demonstrated in the video, it would be rather easy for an actor to accidentally fire the gun by putting minimal pressure on the trigger, then pulling back the hammer and letting it fall.

IOW, it would be easy for an less experienced person to accidentally fire the gun by pulling back the hammer and letting it drop if he accidentally put a small amount of pressure on the trigger.

I'm not sure where the prosecution is going with their argument about this. Are they trying to claim that AB deliberately killed Halyna? I think they'll have a difficult time convincing the jury of that.

JMO

 

[SteveS]

JMO (and I'm not a gun expert) the video vs PrairieWind's statement is a distinction without much difference. As the man demonstrated in the video, it would be rather easy for an actor to accidentally fire the gun by putting minimal pressure on the trigger, then pulling back the hammer and letting it fall.

IOW, it would be easy for an less experienced person to accidentally fire the gun by pulling back the hammer and letting it drop if he accidentally put a small amount of pressure on the trigger.

I'm not sure where the prosecution is going with their argument about this. Are they trying to claim that AB deliberately killed Halyna? I think they'll have a difficult time convincing the jury of that.

JMO

Actually, the idea you add -- that the trigger WAS pulled -- makes all the difference in the world.

PrairieWInd (and others) have been saying that the gun can be fired without the trigger being pulled at all. And, to be clear, that is AB's claim, saying he never pulled the trigger. And that he knew better. And he would never. And etc.

But the gun is made in such a way that the trigger MUST be pulled, in order for it to fire. AB said he knew better than to having his hand on the trigger, and never would, so clearly AB must have lied about that.

As you say "it would be easy for an less experienced person to accidentally fire the gun" but by his own admission, AB is very experienced in such matters, and knew the safety protocols and precautions and so on. That he failed to follow the precautions he knew, and killed a person, that's the trial's pivotal question right there.

Those theorizing the hammer could simply have been pulled, and let go (accidentally or prematurely) and dropped on the firing pin, to cause it to fire, that's NOT a possibility for this gun. Unless the gun's mechanisms (several of them) didn't work. That's what the FBI tested, and I don't think it will be hard for them to show their testing proved those safety mechanisms worked just fine.

 

[10ofRods]

IMO how this particular gun, the item in evidence, works is not as relevant because it no longer works and its functionality cannot be tested.
iME trials are about the specific evidence, not things in general. When I read the LE evidence dump more than a month ago, my concern became how the jury may react, not how revolvers work.

…’and I grew up with a Colt 45 in my house. Alec will be able to pay someone far more expert than any of us to try and raise reasonable doubt.

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Alec Baldwin Sued Over Alleged Car Accident Months Before ‘Rust’ Shooting

Actor Alec Baldwin is facing a lot of lawsuits lately! On October 21, 2021, a gun that he was holding on the set of the Western film “Rust” went off and struck cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, killing her. Director Joel Souza was also hospitalized in the incident. In January 2023, Baldwin and...

www.yahoo.com

 

[CGray123]

That's not right, amigo. I wonder if you re familiar with THIS particular revolver, because the things you describe are not really possible. Obviously you didn't watch the video I included, in the post you replied to. It shows there are multiple mechanisms that prevent the "falling on the chamber by accident" outcome.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of you speaking so adamantly, but I would posit you too haven't watched either video, to know how this gun works -- because you are theorizing the FBI test and the possibilities of "accidental discharge" would fall in ways that really don't align with how the gun works, or is supposed to work. If it worked properly, it had safeguards. The real question is simply whether those safeguards were inoperable and somehow didn't work when the gun was used here.

Please review this CNN report on video, with the same firearms EXPERT who also works in the film industry and has decades of experience. Same info, just a bit better demonstration. He shows the revolver, demonstrates it, and shows clearly (making it simple to see) why the idea it might have gone off on its own is fairly preposterous. There are MULTIPLE safety stops built into such a weapon to prevent something like you describe from being able to occur.

Mr. Wolf makes some interesting points about how a single action pistol with a 1mm trigger pull could have fired without AB perceiving that he pulled on the trigger as he drew the gun. But he leaves open the question whether worn parts in the gun could have caused the hammer to drop without a pull on the trigger, stating that can only be determined by testing. Because we now have a situation in which further testing of the gun as it was on the set is not possible, AB cannot verify the opinion of the FBI expert. So, it seems there is a good faith basis for AB to ask the court to exclude the FBI's opinion on the gun's operation. Whether that will happen can't be predicted IMO.

I found Mr. Wolf's other statements in this interview much more interesting, as to AB's prior experience with how an armorer works on the set. He raises a good question as to why AB did not insist that the armorer be present on the set, show the blank ammunition to everyone, show the empty gun to everyone, and load it in front of everyone before it was used in the scene. is this a standard set out somewhere? Do practices vary so much that one cannot say this is the standard? IDK.

 

[BeachSky]

JMO (and I'm not a gun expert) the video vs PrairieWind's statement is a distinction without much difference. As the man demonstrated in the video, it would be rather easy for an actor to accidentally fire the gun by putting minimal pressure on the trigger, then pulling back the hammer and letting it fall.

IOW, it would be easy for an less experienced person to accidentally fire the gun by pulling back the hammer and letting it drop if he accidentally put a small amount of pressure on the trigger.

I'm not sure where the prosecution is going with their argument about this. Are they trying to claim that AB deliberately killed Halyna? I think they'll have a difficult time convincing the jury of that.

JMO

Alec Baldwin skipped a mandatory firearms safety training for 'Rust' and was on the phone with his family during a private, on-set session, prosecutors allege

The lead armorer on set told investigators the proper firearm training with Baldwin was essential and could have prevented the fatal shooting.

www.insider.com

If the above is true.
He seemed deliberately negligent IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Mr. Wolf makes some interesting points about how a single action pistol with a 1mm trigger pull could have fired without AB perceiving that he pulled on the trigger as he drew the gun. But he leaves open the question whether worn parts in the gun could have caused the hammer to drop without a pull on the trigger, stating that can only be determined by testing. Because we now have a situation in which further testing of the gun as it was on the set is not possible, AB cannot verify the opinion of the FBI expert. So, it seems there is a good faith basis for AB to ask the court to exclude the FBI's opinion on the gun's operation. Whether that will happen can't be predicted IMO.

I found Mr. Wolf's other statements in this interview much more interesting, as to AB's prior experience with how an armorer works on the set. He raises a good question as to why AB did not insist that the armorer be present on the set, show the blank ammunition to everyone, show the empty gun to everyone, and load it in front of everyone before it was used in the scene. is this a standard set out somewhere? Do practices vary so much that one cannot say this is the standard? IDK.

Other actors – including “A-list” celebrities – consulted by prosecutors said they “always check their guns or have someone check it in front of them,” Carmack-Altwies told CNN shortly after announcing her intention to file involuntary manslaughter charges.

George Clooney emphasised the importance of gun safety on set and mentioned that every time he is handed a gun on set, he opens and checks it. He also mentioned that he shows it to the person he will be pointing it at on-screen and to the crew too. He revealed that he follows the protocol because of what happened to Brandon Lee and it is something everyone on set should follow.

He mentioned that he hopes Baldwin did so as well, but also said that 'dummies are tricky' because they look like real rounds. He mentioned that every time he is handed a 'six-gun' or a gun with six cartridges on set, he points it to the ground and must 'squeeze it six times' before his scene. he mentioned it would be 'insane not to' do so.

George Clooney speaks out about importance of gun safety on film sets after 'Rust' tragedy

George Clooney recently opened up about the unfortunate incident involving Alec Baldwin and Halyna Hutchins and spoke about gun safety on the sets of films.

www.republicworld.com

Why Santa Fe district attorney decided to charge Alec Baldwin over 'Rust' shooting | CNN

Actor Alec Baldwin will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of cinematographer  Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western movie "Rust," as will the armorer who oversaw all weapons used in the production.

www.cnn.com

 

[Cool Cats]

This is strange. The testing the FBI did on the gun actually changed the gun, now causing the gun to fire when cocked without pulling the trigger. Since Baldwin's team cannot test the gun using their own experts I wonder if the defense will file a Motion to get the FBI evidence tossed out?

That is, if the judge decides there is even enough evidence to proceed to trial.

‘The trigger had to have been pulled’​

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked.

The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.

The prop gun was being held by Baldwin, who has maintained he did not pull the trigger.

“The FBI lab is one of the best in the world,” Carmack-Altwies told CNN. “And we absolutely believe that the trigger had to have been pulled in order for that gun to go off.”

From above link - 2nd article