I would have preferred this outcome on the photo for his negligence. :D

Oddly, TV and Film were my 'day jobs' to pay for my rent and flying lessons. (Even with the GI bennies, I still had to pay 10%.)

Quantifying that level is difficult.
We could all start at a commonly understood point and just say "zero" - but even saying "zero" in a world that has been ass fucked by liberal fact-checkers can be tricky. (the same ones that are currently trying to call Baldwin's murder weapon a prop)

It's all about the science with these mother fuckers.
Let me explain:

Water freezes at zero - well, it freezes at zero degrees Celcius. Water also freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit - well, FRESH water freezes at 32 - saltwater freezes at 28. Immediately we see that trying to quantify a "level" of regard for someone can't be done with numbers in the classical sense - because water also freezes at 273 degrees Kelvin. Science can be one tricky son of a bitch - all of these numbers will produce the same ice cube but who the hell really cares about Kelvin and Celcius?

So much confusion with context and facts.

So, someone could honestly report that the "love rating" for someone was a steady 273.
That's not a bad number - Phil Rizzuto made it into the baseball hall of fame on a 273 batting average.
273 is higher than Mike Schmidt, Brooks Robinson, Willie McCovey, Carlton Fisk, Joe Mrgan - the list goes on.
Arec is certainly no Brooks Robinson - in fact, Arec can't even carry that man's jockstrap.

What about "zero"
Mariano Rivera and Jack Morris both made it into the Hall of Fame on a "zero" career batting average but they were both pitchers...
...and Arec can't hold a candle to Mariano Rivera

So - big numbers aren't all that important and a "zero" doesn't always apply even when we are using the same set of numbers. It would seem like some situations transcend numbers or levels that can measure any given amount of regard or disregard. In such cases, I have always found it easier to rely on more non-traditional terms - in this case...

...fuck that guy. Fuck him in his stupid ass.

Ahh, yes. The old GI Bill; we were livin' large back then. Have a VFR day. :)

Just a data point:

There has been a lot of talk about the weapon used in the shooting.

This is a short video reviewing the actual weapon used, as I understand the police have reported.

Pietta Colt 1873, SAA, 45LC, quote "a faithful reproduction the original Colt 1873 SAA"

The "original" Colt did not have a transfer bar..
Nor does the Pietta copy.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w32RHdFyCI

I guess that lends credence to Baldwin saying he never pulled the trigger?? Some body loaded the thing with out an empty chamber??

The court fight should be ... interesting... :munchin

Wait until you read it in the trial transcript...

I don't have a source, but it was quoted that Baldwin said in his interview he was " fanning " the hammer. :eek:

I wish the DA would move a little faster. :(

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to fire a revolver like this one with finger off the trigger while pulling the hammer back half way and letting the hammer slip off the thumb?

Until we get to the trial, see the forensic evidence, and hear the X-Spurt witnesses babbling,, who nos??
As I remember the briefing when we were issued the 1873,

• the first notch was called the safety notch,.
• the second notch aligned with the cylinder disconnect for loading
• the 3rd was full cocked.

The 1st pic shows the details of the notches
The 2nd pic shows the other parts in relation
The 3rd pic shows the notches in a like-new and well-worn state.

With any used/abused weapon there can be wear....

Here is an explanation of the Colt 1873 hammer and its usage.
Old safety briefing was to only load 5 rounds and leave an empty cylinder under the hammer.

https://www.bevfitchett.us/colt-army...positions.html

Alec thinks everyone is more stupid than he. His defense team is making an argument unsupportive of the firearm in question. The Colt SAA or an equivalent copy will not fire unless you first cock the hammer. Once you’ve done that and depending on wear and tear on the sear (or holding the trigger back) the gun will fire with as little as one pound of pressure.

Alec failed every “safe” firearms handling “rule” from the cardinal four to all the others and the film crew was negligent in following guidelines established since the Brandon Lee shooting to prevent what happened.

Everyone who had a role in this should be found guilty of negligent homicide and Alec should be charged with first degree manslaughter, and second and/or third degree murder and let a jury decide based on evidence presented in a trial.

IIRC, the Uberti and Pieta Single Action Army clones have three clicks to full cock, the genuine Colt has four. The first click is the safety notch engaging. The second is for loading, etc.

The reason for the load five and leave the chamber under the hammer empty is that it is entirely possible that when fully loaded, the hammer is directly in contact with the primer of the sixth round and if dropped or struck on the rear of the hammer, it may strike the primer with sufficient force to fire.

First, if he fanned the revolver, I wonder who, if anyone told him to fire in that manner. Once the hammer is being fanned to the rear, should it slip with a round in the cylinder aligned with the hammer, it can fall with sufficient force to discharge the round. Fanning is inherently inaccurate in the absence of a lot of practice. The standard cowboy action shooting practice is to hold the weapon in the strong hand and cock the action with the support hand.

All of these points are moot if someone loaded a prop gun with live rounds and handed it to an ignorant actor to be used in a film shot.

YMMV-

TR

I am a cowboy action shooter...

I have several of these Model 1873 SA replica firearms. The ones in question are in fact "3 click" pistols. I can also state that "fanning" the hammer on one of those pistols only cocks the hammer - once the hammer makes that first click - it will not fall unless you pull the trigger.
...mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep could of course lead to a legit malfunction

If you have a newer Uberti with the floating firing pin - you can just about hammer nails with a loaded pistol and the hammer will not strike the primer until the trigger is pulled. If you have a Ruger or other clone that has a transfer bar - you can just about hammer nails with it and it wont fire until the hammer is pulled.
...mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep coupled with deactivating or removing these added safety features, could of course lead to a legit malfunction

If you have an "older" 4-click or a Pietta/ Ruger clone that does NOT have a transfer bar and the hammer is down on a live round - you can hit the hammer hard enough to ignite the primer but if you pull the hammer past that first click - you still have to pull the trigger to lower the hammer.
...mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep could of course lead to a legit malfunction

If you pull the trigger on an uncocked Uberti/Pietta/Ruger clone - nothing will happen. If you pull and hold the trigger - every time you pull back and release the hammer - the gun will fire. Fanning one of those old (or or new) pistols without a transfer bar in that manner will shoot exactly the same way as a new model with a transfer bar or floating firing pin.
...mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep could of course lead to a legit malfunction

If you have one without a transfer bar or floating firing pin and pull the hammer back juuuust far enough to NOT get that first click and then let it go on a live round - who knows - it "might" have enough force to ignite a primer. I can also say as a point of fact - there are tons of competition guns that have had trigger jobs done that fail to ignite the primer because the "springs" have been lightened too much. An antique or worn spring on one of these pistols could result in frequent "light primer strikes" which would make such a malfunction unlikely but possible.
...mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep could of course lead to a legit malfunction

Arec Barwin is quite possibly full of shit - maybe he had his finger on the trigger the entire time and didn't realize it - or he could just be a big fat sack of shit telling a big fat lie in an attempt to get a not-guilty verdict in the court of public opinion because nowadays the court of public opinion seems to be an important juror to win over.
...or he could be the unfortunate victim of a rare mechanical failure based on poor maintenance and upkeep that could have led to a legit malfunction in which case the films producers should be held liable in a civil case for not providing a safe environment for his crew knowing that real firearms and not "props" were being used during production.


We should follow the science on this one.

Well, as Baldwin is one of the listed "Producers" I'd say if one line of reasoning doesn't get him, the other will. Course, as I see it, he's guilty of both. Can we hang him twice?? :munchin

The very first rumor that I heard out of Hollywood was that Baldwin was tired of rehearsing but was told to do it again. Supposedly he said something like, "Maybe I should just shoot you." He pointed the gun at the director and pulled the trigger. Again, just a rumor, but I was working on a film when our director of photography got a call from his wife about Freddie Printze the day he died and her "rumor" turned out to be correct. And it fits his personality, angry but hiding it behind humor.

Hollyweird, where cowboy six shooters kill 18, an M16/M60 never runs dry, and 1911s are double action… but only if you rack the slide every time you walk through a door!