Posted on 11/02/2021 1:17:07 PM PDT by conservative98
Should’ve checked the chambers.
So she lived for a minute or two....damn
Shouldn’t have pointed it anyone and pulled the trigger.
Spoiler from NCIS last night.
*
*
*
*
*
In the show, a man was killed buy a starter pistol with a blank round in it.
I assume this was filmed weeks/months ago.
“What the f-— was that? That burns!” Souza screamed.”
Is it true that a person who is shot will not hear the sound of the gun?
Single action revolver. He had to cock the pistol first, or the trigger wouldn’t drop the hammer.
Also many (all?) of these types of single action revolvers do not have a pull out cylinder. They have a portal and you have pull that portal aside and load a few bullets at a time, then rotate the cylinder to load the rest. Same with unloading it. In my opinion its a lot easier to make a mistake with this kind of weapon because there is no quick inspection method and no quick unloading of all rounds method as you would find with double-action revolvers where the cylinder can pop out sideways to inspect (and press a button that will discharge all the shells) or even semi-autos to clear them (remove the magazine, then rack the slide to discharge any loaded round).
Some training on how to check and clear a single action revolver was necessary. However, ignorance is not an excuse. The person who held the weapon should know. And they should’ve used a disabled replica for rehearsals.
I do not wish on my worst enemy to watch a person die slowly, knowing it is coming, but the body is fighting for life.
Had they used remote monitors, those people would not have been in the line of fire.
Well explained - thanks.
Hollywood has a rule that no live ammo is allowed on set....that was violated.
They need another rule that no firearm (prop or not) should be pointed at staff for any reason. Remote cameras and monitors MUST be used for those scenes.
Firearm owners live by the mantra that no firearm or toy should be pointed toward people. It is time that Hollywood catches up.
There should NEVER be an intermediary between the armorer and the actor.
The armorer should be on-site and be the person to hand the weapon to the actor....not someone else.
Watch for a future movie: The Man Who Shot Halyna Hutchins.
I agree. And even still, it is the actor’s responsibility since he/she will be pulling the trigger. That’s just routine weapons safety. Someone, anyone, even an expert, hands you a weapon you check it yourself.
I saw a clip of the Assistant Director’s attorney, she was a bit evasive (which I understand because she has to protect her client) but she claimed there is testimony that Baldwin had the weapon but wanted/needed to adjust his holster so he handed the weapon to the AD to hold for a few seconds while he fiddled with his belt. That isn’t necessarily the true account, just what the lawyer claimed from 3rd party witness statements.
FWIW, she also said maybe it went from the armor to the AD to the actor all in one fast motion. E.g. like baton hand to hand.
It's becoming clear that Hannah Gutierrez was an "Armorer In Name Only". Other people had the combo to her safe, handled and issued weapons, etc. It doesn't appear she was in control of the weapons at all.
A little basic morality also comes into play. A bunch of Hollywood types were having great fun portraying a man shooting someone in a church.
Not exactly John Wayne kind of behavior.
Normally they use ballistic shields to protect the people AND the cameras.
The person that pulled the trigger is the one responsible, regardless of whoever else was involved. Period.
What happened?
You just murdered someone because you are way too stupid to know how to handle a gun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.