Guilty: Alec Baldwin’s GUN!!!

I’ve been following the Rust Incident on-and-off with unmitigated glee. Hollyweird’s split personalities between making violent movies and endorsing hardline Leftist policies finally collided in the corpse of a feminist cinematographer!

There should be no doubt about who is criminally responsible: the head armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, being responsible for all firearm safety on the project, is by default, guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

…And probably guilty of some other things, too. Pro-tip, don’t hire a sexually deranged Satanist with a tattoo of a black widow to keep you safe on the job.

The obvious and legally defined conclusion being unacceptable, after furious and hilarious investigation by all interested parties, the inevitable CORRECT conclusion is reached: Alec Baldwin’s gun fired itself!!!

It’s possible, but not likely, Alec Baldwin’s gun fired without him pulling the trigger

h ttps://www.yahoo.com/news/possible-not-likely-alec-baldwins-192107429.html

By Stephen Gutowski, 8 December 2021

Alec Baldwin made a surprising claim last week during his first major interview since he shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust”: He never pulled the trigger.

Despite his lies, I believe Baldwin is innocent. He was rebooting his career and industry after the Plandemic… not a likely time to risk homicide. Nobody has proposed a motive for him to intentionally waste his cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. But that makes Baldwin trying to explain his innocence funny, because he’s trying to shift the guilt onto anybody except Hannah whom he PAID to be the responsible party. Pussy pass!

Despite how often people will say a gun just “went off” on its own, it’s an extremely uncommon phenomenon. Modern guns have internal safeties that make it impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled – even in cases where the gun is dropped while loaded. Even antique gun designs have features that prevent the gun from firing on its own.

Baldwin said the gun went off after he pulled the hammer back and released it.

“I cock the gun. I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ ” Baldwin told ABC News. “And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.”

What about fan firing?

Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said Baldwin was using a replica of a single-action revolver chambered in 45 Long Colt and made by Pietta. That design has three sears where the hammer rests as it is pulled back.

It is not possible to pull the hammer on a single-action revolver of that design back far enough to create enough force to strike the primer of an ammunition cartridge and set it off without the hammer catching on one of those sears when it’s released. The hammer will catch on a sear after being pulled back even a short distance on a properly functioning gun. That will keep it from moving forward and striking the round underneath.

That is, unless the trigger already is depressed.

If you hold the trigger down while you manipulate the hammer on a single-action revolver, you can pull the hammer back and release it without it catching on any of the sears.

The trigger drops the sears down and out of the way. If you pull the hammer back far enough while holding down the trigger, it could certainly fall with enough force to set off a round in the same way pulling the trigger with the hammer cocked would do.

Yep, that’s fan firing. Keep the trigger depressed and slap at the hammer. Although I hear it doesn’t work well without a specially designed hammer, it’s exactly the horseplay I’d expect to happen at a Western-genre film set.

First, the gun could have a serious mechanical defect. Perhaps one or multiple sears are worn out or broken? It’s possible and the police should be able to tell by examining the gun. But it likely would have been fairly obvious to anyone who handled the gun on set before the shooting that it was broken.

Anyone, such as head armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed? Whose job was checking for exactly that kind of thing? How would a casual handler detect an internal malfunction… except during its operation?

The other possibility is that the police misidentified the gun.

“We accidentally misgenderized the firearm of color involved in this particular incident. It has an actuator crank, not a trigger.”

Even if it turned out the gun fired without the trigger being pulled, as unlikely as that would be, it wouldn’t absolve Baldwin and others on set who handled the firearm before the fatal shooting. Ultimately, it took a string of negligent acts for this tragedy to unfold.

No, it took exactly two acts.

It began when somebody brought live ammunition onto the set…

One.

…and loaded it into that firearm.

Two. Additional precautions are good but the negligence has already happened. Baldwin should have checked just on general principles but in this tightly controlled context, it wasn’t his responsibility to ensure the gun was safe.

It was Hannah’s.

The reports of target practice with the prop guns? Head armorer should have busted heads over that. Careless mixing of ammunition? Head armorer should have had a safety stand-down. That’s their job on a movie set: ensure the guns are safe. Prepare the guns to be safe. Observe that the guns are used safely.

Other people should do their part, too, but everything about the Rust shooting is…

It continued when neither the first assistant director nor the actor who handled the gun loaded with that round actually checked to ensure it was safe. It culminated when the gun was pointed at members of the crew and then fired, whether by trigger pull or manipulation of the hammer.

Gutowski is trying to excuse Hannah. This entire debacle exists for one reason only, that nobody wants to hold Hannah responsible for not doing her job.

And speaking of Hannah, she has a motive for intentionally loading that gun with the intent of killing nonspecific coworkers… particularly Baldwin’s inner circle. Not saying she did it, but there is a motive.

‘Rust’ budget reveals armorer was slated to earn under $8,000 for work

h ttps://nypost.com/2021/11/05/rust-budget-reveals-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-was-slated-to-earn-under-8000/

By Yaron Steinbuch, 5 November 2021

The rookie armorer on Alec Baldwin’s Western flick “Rust” was slated to earn under $8,000 for her work on set — while the producers were earmarked to take home upwards of $100,000 each, according to a draft of the production budget.

The producers of the independent movie — which had a total budget of $7,279,305 — set aside $650,000 to pay themselves and allocated $350,000 as a contingency should anything go wrong, according to The Hollywood Reporter, which obtained a preliminary budget dated Sept. 8, 2021.

Meanwhile, head armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, 24, who was working on only her second film in that capacity, was expected to earn $7,913.

Did Baldwin neglect to pay his staff?

The young armorer’s seemingly low salary for the movie, which was made under the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees’ Tier 1 contract, was not unusual, experts told the entertainment publication — but the number of producers was, according to one source.

Assuming that an armorer was needed for only one month, to film the action scenes, $8k is not bad. Unless it was your only armorer gig for the year, of course. And in the context of Hollywood, it’s not moving you up the social ladder.

“I would say this movie will be a struggle, but I wouldn’t say it would have crashed and burned,” one person with knowledge of similar productions who reviewed the budget told THR.

“I’m not sure why they needed six producers taking fees. They’d be falling all over each other if they’re really on set. But it’s not unheard of,” the source added.

“Rust,” which began filming in early October, employed 75 crew members, 22 principal actors and 230 background talent from New Mexico, according to THR, which cautioned that the budget it reviewed reflected a spending plan only and not the amount actually spent.

Oh, they’ve surely spent more than $8k on Hannah by now.

But the outlet said the paperwork provides some insight into the filmmakers’ priorities before the Oct. 21 tragedy in which Baldwin, 63, fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, and wounded director Joel Souza with a .45-caliber Colt revolver that he believed was loaded with dummy rounds.

Baldwin was slated to earn $150,000 for his starring role while El Dorado, his production company, was taking a fee of $100,000, according to THR, which noted that the Hollywood star’s modest take reflected the fact that “Rust” was a passion project for him.

Another argument against Baldwin being responsible for the shooting.

Meanwhile, Souza was expected to make $221,872, Hutchins was slated to earn $48,945 and assistant director Dave Halls was to earn $52,830, the outlet said, citing the budget.

Did envy over money make Hannah a little… careless? While this is not a smoking gun (heh) for murder. Hannah did have means, motive and opportunity, plus was a recent graduate of Marxist U School of Envy. And her tramp stamps indicate that by age 24, she was already not making good life decisions.

I am morbidly fascinated that it’s not all being pinned on her where the blame contractually falls. As I indicated at the beginning, preventable death happening on the safety officer’s watch is generally a no-brainer. The pussy pass is strong with this one!

No criminal charges have been filed and the shooting remains under investigation by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.

Then a wrongful-death civil suit, perhaps, although as this article indicates, Baldwin has the deeper pockets. Put the blame where she belongs, Alec, and save yourself before it’s too late!

4 thoughts on “Guilty: Alec Baldwin’s GUN!!!

  1. There’s a good reason not to blame Hannah: she’s not a Deep Pocket.

    The cinematographer’s family will sue. They can sue Baldwin for hiring Hannah, in which case they must prove that:

    1. Hannah was negligent, and

    2. Baldwin was negligent in hiring her.

    But if they can prove Baldwin himself is to blame, it’s one less thing (one less stage) to prove. It’s a more direct attack at the Deep Pocket.

    Like

  2. Since you live in California, you should know that if Roe is overturned, California intends to became a “sanctuary state” for abortions: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10289121/California-plans-abortion-sanctuary-Roe-overturned.html

    California will pay for the abortions for out-of-state women, AND pay for their travel and hotel expenses if they come for an abortion.

    Want to visit Disneyland? Pregnancy wins you a free trip to the Golden State! Abort your baby in the morning! Get a selfie with Mickey Mouse the same afternoon!

    Like

  3. The pussy pass is strong with this one!

    And in every other case in the U.S. Matter o’ fact, it’s probably easier to just cite felony cases involving female defendants where the PP has NOT been issued.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s