Let’s just hope for a better caliber of “gun expert” than that idiot at the Gutierrez-Reed trial who actually pointed a gun AT the judge.
Come to think on it further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense makes a motion to exclude any testimony about the gun’s firing capacity after repairs based on spoliation of the evidence.
Spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent alteration, hiding, withholding or destruction of pieces of evidence relevant to a trial by a party connected to the case. Manipulation or destruction can occur before or after filing or data preservation notices or at any other point.
Oh, further down in that article I came to this:
Federal statutes criminalize the purposeful alteration or destruction of evidence to influence a trial.
I got that!
My work here is done.
My bolding, TokyoBayer
I hope this isn’t confusing anyone, but when you @Joey_P emphasised only “without a pull of the trigger” you left off the critical condition “when the hammer was struck directly by another object”
This is a known condition of certain models of single action revolvers. When the hammer of this model is not cocked, (when it’s in the “rest” position), the firing pin (attached to the hammer) rests against the primer, if a cartridge is in the chamber. This is a safety issue and owner’s manual for this particular model says to not carry the firearm with a round in the chamber.
Dropping the gun or other actions could result in enough force applied to the hammer in such a manner that sufficent force is transmitted to the firing pin to cause a discharge.
The test performed simply demonstrated that the gun was working in that aspect, as designed. The forensic expert hit the hammer with a mallet and could cause a discharge. No surprise there.
However, there is no evidence that Baldwin or anyone else was hitting the gun with a mallet so this is completely irrelevant to this case.
When people say that the gun wouldn’t discharge without the trigger being pulled, then they mean that the gun wouldn’t discharge after the hammer had been pulled back and held back or cocked.
As such, it’s not a false statement because it’s simply not mentioning the obvious.
This was clarified during Gutierrez’s trial and it’s been discussed by various YouTuber lawyers as well.
The FBI analysist conducting the test describes the FBI standard operating procedures in testing for the possibility of an accidental discharge. This includes hitting the gun from the six planes (top, bottom, and each side), including directly hitting the hammer.
In this model are internal safety positions so that if the hammer somehow slips when fully cocked it will get caught on the 1/4 cock or 1/2 cock notches, unless the trigger is pressed.
The only way in which the gun could be discharged without the tripper pressed was if the firearm was hit sufficiently hard enough with the mallet that it broke internal parts of the gun that would have normally stopped the hammer at the safe positions.
The FBI’s standard operating procedure for this accidental discharge testing is potentially destructive. This is known and unavoidable.
Although the expert didn’t specifically state this during the Gutierrez trail, it seems reasonable to assume that he applied greater and greater force on the gun until it discharged. The force required to cause a discharge without pressing the trigger also broke the gun.
The reasonable conclusion was that the because there wasn’t damage to the gun prior to the test, and that the gun was operating correctly, then the trigger must have been pressed if there was a discharge.
In the trial for the armorer, this was only a side issue, so the defense did not challenge it. As this is a major issue in Baldwin’s trial, I expect that they will have their own expert witness to provide a rebuttal.
The testimony of Bryce Ziegler FBI - FIrearms and toolmarks examiner can be seen here, starting at 39:23.
ISWYDT and exactly, and note that this was a “gun expert” for the defense. Baldwin’s defense team will do much better.
He charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is the killing of another person without the intent to kill, but where the person’s death occurs as a result of the negligent or reckless actions of the defendant.
From the Firearm Industry Trade Association website
If someone is recklessly waving a gun around at a party, for example, and accidently pressed the trigger, discharging the gun and killing someone, then ISTM that that person could be charged with involuntary manslaughter because of the recklessness. This would be true, even if the person didn’t intentionally press the trigger.
The expert witness in the Gutierrez’s trial, a professional film armorer, stated that actors should never point muzzles at other people, except in specific situations. According to him, this is dangerous, even without live rounds because blank rounds (note) are still potentially dangerious and accidents have injured or killed people. If there is something in the barrel, a blank round can cause that obstruction to be shot out of the barrel. There are various levels of blanks, with quarter load, half load and full load, depending on the amount of powder.
(Note: there are normally two types of rounds used in films. Dummy rounds look similar to live rounds, but have had the gunpowder removed and don’t have working primers. They are safe. The second type are blank round which have gunpowder and working primers, but have had the bullet removed.)
Brandon Lee was killed in this type of accident.
When they are shooting scene where the gun is pointed in the direction of the camera, the expert said that they take extreme caution to ensure safety. It’s important to not point muzzles of guns loaded with blanks in the direction of people.
An argument has been made in this thread that because there wasn’t an expectation of a live round, Baldwin couldn’t possible be guilty. However, this is mistaken because there is the danger of a blank round being accidently loaded in the gun. Proper gun safety needs to be taken at all times.
This will become a much larger question for the upcoming trial, as the jury will need to determine if they believe Baldwin acted recklessly.
At the Gutierrez trial, the prosecution’s expert witness has already testified that he believed Baldwin was reckless. At the upcoming trial, it’s expected that the defense will offer a dueling hired gun.
We haven’t seen all the evidence yet, either from the prosecution or the defense.
What they mean, or what you infer from what they’ve said, is irrelevant. Either the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled or it cannot. The people testing the gun have proven that it can be fired without the trigger being pulled.
Do we know the exact procedure they used? Just because the gun fired when they hit it hard enough to break it doesn’t mean it won’t go off if it wasn’t hit that hard. If I break my new truck’s “unbreakable” windows with a brick, the manufacturer can’t say “we meant the windows weren’t breakable under normal driving conditions and getting hit with road debris, that they can be broken with a brick proves this”. Well, no, it doesn’t prove that. Especially when a brick is the first thing I tried.
(and that’s what I get for starting a reply before I finish reading the entire post)
I don’t think that’s reasonable to assume at all. If this is documented somewhere that’s one thing, but you can’t assume they used a specific set of test procedures just because it would make sense.
From the very beginning there was never any evidence (that I know of anyway) of him physically hitting the gun with a mallet. So why do you think they even did this test? The expected outcomes of the test are either ‘hitting it with a mallet caused it to fire’ or ‘hitting it with a mallet did not cause it to fire’. But if the gun firing leads to a conclusion of ‘but they hit it with a hammer and that didn’t actually happen’, why even bother with the test? My assumption is that if it didn’t fire, they could say ‘even if we hit it with a mallet, it wouldn’t fire’, and in that case, at best, the test would be inconclusive.
IMO, A reasonable conclusion to the question “can this gun discharge without the trigger being pulled” is “yes, it can and we have documented proof”.
“The gun can discharge without the trigger being pulled” is a false statement. You said it can happen, apparently the directions for the gun said it can happen and the people testing it said it can happen. If there’s an obvious part that wasn’t mentioned, then why wasn’t it mentioned? This is a huge case, not a casual conversation about guns.
“The gun can’t discharge without the trigger being pulled” isn’t the same as “The gun can’t discharge without the trigger being pulled unless the hammer is in the rest position and it gets bumped just right, then it can”.
To be clear, I’m not saying he didn’t pull the trigger, I’m saying this test doesn’t prove that he did.
Your expertise seems reasonable and compelling. I’d say it’s likeliest that he pulled the trigger. But not from a reasonable doubt perspective. In fact, if that “hit it with a hammer a few times till we shatter something” is part of standard testing, it seems designed to create reasonable doubt.
I also acknowledge that I can’t envision a test for whether a gun would fire without anything discernible occurring. Would you sit it on a table and stare at it for a few hours? “Hasn’t gone off yet.” And I’m easily bored. I’d probably look for a hammer after a while, too.
I still think either
a) he technically wasn’t pulling the trigger because it was already being held down while he was manipulating the hammer and then he dropped the hammer or
(b) he dropped the hammer from less than the first cocked position and the gun was loaded with a poorly reloaded cartridge with an extra sensitive primer
Absent more, I am in this camp as well. It seems to me like the key question is one of law: was it negligent for Baldwin to point a gun at someone on set while preparing for (but not actually filming) a scene?
The factual question, did Baldwin pull the trigger? is almost moot to me. I leave that qualifier, “almost”, in there only to accommodate the possibility that someone might be able to explain why, in this situation, pointing a gun at someone was totally okay, but pulling the trigger was not. Even though the whole reason that part of the safety instructions for us non-specials who don’t make movies is “never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.”
And I get it. There is a large camp that believes the standard safety rules cannot reasonably apply on set. Maybe that’s as it should be (although I don’t take it for granted). However, if, for the sake of argument, it is acceptable to point a gun at someone on set in either filiming or preparing to film a scene that requires certain motions with the gun, then I think that implies it may be acceptable to pull the trigger as well, particularly as some guns might, particularly when the hammer is already drawn back (was it here?) have a very light trigger, such that even a slight, accidental brush of the trigger (maybe by getting caught on part of a glove- was Baldwin wearing gloves? IDK, just positing ideas here) could be enough to depress it and case the hammer to fall.
Point being, once you remove the safety factor that consists of “never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot,” you have implicitly also removed the safety factor (inherent in the other one) of “don’t pull the trigger while pointing the gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot.” Because it’s a lot easier to accidentally, perhaps even without realizing it, pull the trigger and shoot something (or someone) once you’re already pointing the gun in that direction.
Is the legal situation different if he accidentally pulled the trigger as compared to if the gun fired without the trigger being pulled?
It’s a different act giving rise to culpability. What would make Baldwin negligent here, assuming in all cases the gun discharges and Baldwin doesn’t know it’s loaded:
(a) Pointing the gun at someone?
(b) Pointing the gun at someone and intentionally pulling the trigger?
(c) Pointing the gun at someone and depressing the trigger by mistake?
I see (b) and (c) as very distinct. To say that neither (a) nor (b) is negligent, but (c) is would be to essentially give credence to the—frankly absurd and rightly ridiculed—assertion “my finger is my safety.” The risk of pointing the gun at someone is that the trigger gets pulled by mistake. (c) isn’t so much an act of negligence or even the creation of a risk on its own as it is the realization of the risk inherent in (a). That is, (a) either is or is not a negligent act, and (c) is merely a consequence of the negligent (or not) act from (a) happening.
ETA: I’d even go so far as to say that if (c) is where you draw the line, that (a) is not negligent but (c) is, then it’s not really a question of negligence as you have in effect created a strict liability regime, such that even an involuntary act can trigger criminal liability.
Post-ETA: that should read “To say that (a) is not negligent”.
Because of course if (c) is negligent, then (b) would also, surely, give rise to criminal liability.
The problem is that we have heard from the FBI expert, but his findings weren’t challenged that much in the Gutierrez trial because that wasn’t the main focus of that case. Her case was concerning the question of how live ammunication could have been gotten onto the set.
In Baldwin’s trail, I expect a much more detailed explanation of the testing as well as a greater push back by the defense, as this is one of the key points.
Exactly.
The reason for hitting the gun in various ways is to simulate what would be required for an acidental discharge. Absent some sort of force on the gun, when it’s in the full cocked position, it’s not going to discharge without the trigger being pulled. It had been alleged that the gun had been modified to allow it to fire more easily, but that has disproven.
Revolvers require the firing pin to strike a live primer in order to discharge.
There are only a few possible ways for that to occur.
When at rest, as I wrote above, the revolver could fire if a force is applied to the hammer at the rest position. That is not thought to have happened and Baldwin has stated that he cocked the hammer at Hutchins’ direction. Thus, this does not need to be considered.
Second, when the hammer has been pulled back to either the quarter cocked or half cocked position, it’s technically able to fire if sufficient force is applied to the trigger. This has not thought to what has happened, as would have meant that Balwin would have had to intentionally pulled the trigger hard.
At full cocked position, the gun normally fires when the trigger is pulled, either intentionally or accidentally.
At full cocked position, the safety notches prevent accidental discarge, as noted in my previous post. In normal operation, unless the trigger is pulled, the hammer will be caught by those notches. This is important, and will be a key point in the trial.
The prosecution will argue that the gun was functioning correctly, and will certainly have the same FBI expert testify again. The defense will probably argue that it could have accidently discharged even without the trigger being pressed.
Next, the gun can discharge if the hammer is brought back far enough, and the trigger has already been pressed and held first. The causes the safety notches to not be engaged.
In one interview, Baldwin stated that he didn’t hear the normal clicks the gun should make as it goes though the quarter and half notched positions and then to the full cocked position. If that were true, it would is an indication that the trigger was already depressed. It will be interesting if that is going to be argued in court.
In the Gutierrez trial, the expert witness testified that Baldwin should not have pointed the gun in that circumstance. IIRC the shot they were scheduled to rehearse was simply drawing the gun and not pointing it at people.
This will become a key point in the trial as Baldwin is now arguing that Halyna Hutchins directed him to point the gun at her and also to cock the gun. Prosecution has noted that Baldwin did not state that in early interviews and also noted that it’s blaming a person who cannot testify in the case.
In the upcoming trial, we will find out a lot more details which will answer many questions in the thread.
Absolutely. The special prosecutor previously dismissed charges pending the investigation into the gun’s functionality because there was a question if the gun could have fired without the trigger being pressed. She did so conditionally waiting for the outcome of the testing.
After the gun was found to be operating correctly, the charges were reinstated.
The second aspect is if was proven that the gun fired without the trigger being pulled, even if the prosecutor were to take the case to a grand jury, they may not indict him or if it went to trial, the jury may not convict.
It’s missing a key step.
(a) Pointing the gun at someone?
(b) Pointing the gun at someone and intentionally cocking the hammer?
(c) Pointing the gun at someone, intentionally cocking the hammer and intentionally pulling the trigger?
(d) Pointing the gun at someone, intentionally cocking the hammer and untintionally pulling the trigger?
The question will be asked as to why Baldwin pointed and cocked the gun. Expect a lot more about that to come out at his trial.
When are dummy rounds used inside a gun? A scene with someone loading/unloading? A closeup of a loaded cylinder? Are there other cases?
Let’s not forget this one.
And this is one of the areas where I think we will see dueling experts. I suspect the defense will produce an expert saying “it is accepted practice in the film industry to point a gun at someone when setting up a scene like this.” And I am sure the prosecution will produce an expert who says the contrary.
That’s why I got so hung up on the question of why industry standards are even necessarily dispositive. What the prosecutor should do, IMHO, in addition to producing an industry expert, is produce a more general expert on gun safety to testify that even if the defense’s expert is correct about industry practice, industry practices are unreasonable and unsafe and Baldwin should not be excused for merely adhering to them if in fact he did, but death nevertheless resulted.
Nothing stops the prosecution from doing that unless the judge rules as a matter of law (in response to a defense motion to exclude such evidence) that only industry standards are relevant.
If the prosecution limits itself to an industry-only evaluation of Baldwin’s conduct, I strongly suspect it will lose. Because there’s too much room for doubt provided the defense does its job and produces credible competing experts on whether (1) Baldwin intentionally pulled the trigger (if he pulled it at all) and (2) what industry standards are.
I have questions. The scene was supposed to include Baldwin firing the gun at the camera. In rehearsal, couldn’t this have been practiced with the dummy gun on the cart? If so, why didn’t Hall hand Baldwin the dummy gun?
Also, how do you film someone shooting into the camera without him pointing the gun at the people standing behind the camera, such as the camera operator?
I could swear I read, somewhere, at some point in time, that once the camera was setup, the crew was supposed to be monitoring it remotely. But maybe that’s just my brain making things up.
The picture from earlier in the day seems to show a rig attached to the camera operator.
This is going more from memory, so grain of salt. What I remember though is that it was supposed to be a cross draw with the camera then focusing in on Baldwin cocking the gun. That’s why they were practicing the angles to actually be able to get the shot.