Alec Baldwin And Death on the RUST Set

[Alk8944]

For all of you that thought Mr. Baldwin should be hanged for the unfortunate death on the set of "Rust", all charges against him have been dismissed. It was finally determined that the Pietta revolver was in fact defective and could fire without the trigger being pulled!

The Property Master for the movie admitted too that she had loaded the live round into the revolver, mistakenly believing it was a blank per the article. Now that is negligence!

I couldn't link to the Internet article about this, so if you are interested you will have to search it yourself. I am sure this will be all over the news because the celebrity was involved!

 

[Doug627]

The article said the charges may be refiled in the future.

 

[Onomea]

Just read three short articles on this. Basically they all say that since the revolver was modified with — had added to it— new parts, the prosecution's case, that it only could have fired if Baldwin pulled the trigger, fell apart.

Further detail would be nice.

---

• All guns are loaded
• Never point your gun at something you are not willing to destroy
• Be sure of your target and what's behind it
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target

 

[alwslate]

Regardless of the ridiculous decision to drop charges my opinion remains the same. The responsibility for what happens with a gun rests completely on the person who has the gun in their hand.

 

[Alk8944]

The article said the charges may be refiled in the future.

The article stated charges were dismissed without prejudice, which means that they can be re-filed in the future, but went on to state that this is unlikely.

 

[Chuck24]

Everting flows downhill, the little guys will take the fall

 

[chief38]

Personally I believe the story stinks! IMHO the charges were dropped simply because of the fact that he stands on the other side of the street.

Don't be surprised if you see him start doing gun control commercials soon - as part if his deal!

 

[WR Moore]

Gee, I recall reading that the FBI lab tested the gun in question and determined that it could only fire if the trigger was pulled. IIRC, there was a further note that the firearm was damaged during testing and no further testing could be done. If that's the case, exactly where did the "evidence" that the gun could fire unintentionally come from?

 

[DWalt]

Gee, I recall reading that the FBI lab tested the gun in question and determined that it could only fire if the trigger was pulled. IIRC, there was a further note that the firearm was damaged during testing and no further testing could be done. If that's the case, exactly where did the "evidence" that the gun could fire unintentionally come from?

When I saw the news broadcast earlier today, I thought exactly the same thing - what happened to the FBI investigation of the gun that determined that nothing was amiss about it? There was also a comment made to the effect that some of the gun’s parts were worn, and that the gun could fire without pulling the trigger. Just who made that determination was not stated, but evidently it was not the FBI. Something is very fishy here.

 

[Truckman]

Mistakes were made, others will take the blame......Ben

 

[Hair Trigger]

Another case of "he who has the deepest pockets gets the "justice" ".

They'll probably hang the armorer out to dry.

 

[Racer X]

Regardless of the ridiculous decision to drop charges my opinion remains the same. The responsibility for what happens with a gun rests completely on the person who has the gun in their hand.

And what makes me furious, is Baldwin REFUSED firearms safety training. They have an e-mail chain proving it. Maybe then, he would know that if someone hands you a firearm, and claims its safe, you don't trust them and check yourself.

 

[glowe]

Another case of "he who has the deepest pockets gets the "justice" ".

They'll probably hang the armorer out to dry.

You mean gets no justice. Baldwin lied about many things during his various TV interviews. Most of all, he said he would NEVER aim a gun at anyone. He also never said he pulled back the hammer and the gun fired all by itself. He also did not check the gun that was handed to him before using it. Not to mention that the new DA decided not to go against probably the best defence attorneys in the country. Money is no object to Baldwin, but is a big object to the Prosecuting attorney.

I cannot for the life of me understand why both sides have not tested and reported on the revolver, but if the armorer loaded the gun with live ammo, I agree she is partly responsible for what happened.

 

[Rudi]

We have a 2 tier justice system.

 

[DWalt]

I had not read that the gun gal put a live round in it. What is the story on that? How does an “Armorer” mistake a live round for a blank? That also smells fishy.

 

[Rudi]

I had not read that the gun gal put a live round in it. What is the story on that? How does an “Armorer” mistake a live round for a blank? That also smells fishy.

This whole thing stinks to high Heaven.

 

[M29since14]

We have a 2 tier justice system.

Actually, its infinitely variable - depending on your net worth, and a few other things.

 

[Tom K]

I had not read that the gun gal put a live round in it. What is the story on that? How does an “Armorer” mistake a live round for a blank? That also smells fishy.

Since the OP couldn't link to the article we don't know what it actually says, but I will wager that whether it said "blank" or not, what they really meant was "dummy round". From the descriptions of the scene that was being set up, the camera was looking directly at the front of the gun. That situation would have called for dummy rounds (that would look like real cartridges from the front), not blanks which don't.

Probably the writer of the article doesn't know the difference between blanks and dummies, and thinks it's two different words for the same thing.

However the armorer should absolutely know the difference between a dummy and a live round. A dummy will typically have at least one hole drilled in the side. That way even if they want to do a closeup of a cartridge being loaded into a gun, it can be oriented with the hole away from the camera.

It goes without saying that having live ammo on the set in the first place was an act of gross negligence, regardless of who was responsible for that.

 

[LVSteve]

Gee, I recall reading that the FBI lab tested the gun in question and determined that it could only fire if the trigger was pulled. IIRC, there was a further note that the firearm was damaged during testing and no further testing could be done. If that's the case, exactly where did the "evidence" that the gun could fire unintentionally come from?

I'd like to see a link to where you read the FBI report.

Oh, and if it was damaged during testing, who's going to jail for the destruction of evidence. FBI love throwing that catchall out there, so maybe it's about time they got hoisted with it.

 

[Harmonica]

....almost unbelievable --police get convicted when they are ordered to respond to an incident, and someone points a pistol at them, or an irrational, crazy human attacks them, etc and they kill them...some people go super crazy about that
...if you aim and fire the firearm, and kill an innocent person, you should go to jail--..but in many instances, that doesn't happen -- like the lady hunter that shot her husband thinking he was an animal!!