Alec Baldwin Shooting Victim was wife of Latham-Watkins Lawyer, Clintoncide?

a reply to: vonclod

I would assume some sort of a revolver, obviously double action, likely a Colt (they were popular) and also likely a Colt .45 (movies like big guns that make a lot of noise in their films).

I don't consider the exact model to be all that relevant. They all work about the same way.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



One of your lot is he?

originally posted by: Edumakated
This seems to be a stretch...

First, Latham-Watkins is a major law firm. Known as a "BigLaw" firm which is what attorneys call the largest and most prestigious or what used to be called white shoe law firms.

The firm is huge. They have about 3,000 attorneys. Firms like this have all kinds of practice areas. Article notes her husband was an Associate (which means he wasn't a top dog Partner) in entertainment practice area. His being at L&W doesn't mean he has any connection or knowledge of working with other attorneys in litigation or other area involving Clinton.

Aye, it may be a large company, but to me that makes sending a message all the more important no?

Considering the Durham investigation is moving forward, I am expecting to see a lot of anomalies that make no sense on a surface level, but has meaning.

I am still of the opinion that this was a message.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: elementalgrove

Why are live rounds any where near a movie set? And why are there
not laws against them being with in a certain distance of any stage
or set?

Clearly I myself as a strong gun advocate. I can see no reason why
a common sense law of such isn't absolutely warranted. Having live
rounds and blanks anywhere near each other is asking for this to
happen. Why would live rounds ever be considered around people
who live their whole lives pretending?

Why is the potential for confusion even allowed to exist? It may be as
simple as arrogance.

I am agree with you here.

There are simple steps one can take to mitigate this kind of risk.

a reply to: Randyvine2

That is a piece of terminology that confused me at first as well. It turns out that movie sets do not have live ammo on site, as in, ammo that can spit lead out of the barrel. The movie industry uses the term "live gun" to indicate one that can fire blanks (or actual ammunition).

"Cold gun" is used for a gun which has no powder of any kind in the ammo *including primers) and thus cannot fire.

Another confusing term is the MSM's continual use of the term "prop gun." This was NOT a "prop gun." A prop gun is physically incapable of firing as this one did. This was a real gun being used as a movie prop, not a "prop gun."

That is what caused me to look into this in the first place. How could a prop gun, with no firing pin and possibly a plugged barrel, fire anything? Answer: it couldn't. Shows just how little the MSM knows about weapons to start with.

TheRedneck

Since some of the crew walked off and some came back to find they were replaced makes me think that one of them loaded the gun in anger before they left.

Maybe they didn’t intend for anyone to die because they thought no one would point the weapon because they aren’t suppose to.

I find it odd that guns had been misfiring? How does a six shooter misfire unless you pull the hammer back first?

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

That looks like a single-action revolver. It would be quite difficult to accidentally fire it during a quick-draw. I was expecting to see something like the Colt M1878, a double-action model that was manufactured between 1878 and 1907.


Unless, of course, he was actually practicing firing as well as drawing the gun. In that case, he is guilty of extreme negligence for doing so in the direction of anyone else, and should be tried for manslaughter.

TheRedneck

a reply to: elementalgrove

I cannot imagine, with the police investigation, there not being an autopsy. I have never heard of an autopsy report that indicated death by projectile and did not fully describe the projectile.

If the projectile itself is not disclosed, I would take that as an indication of the worst possible case: a .45 caliber slug.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I’m hearing it went through her chest and then hit the director. It had to be a round of some kind and .45 is capable.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

How does a six shooter misfire unless you pull the hammer back first?

Double-action revolvers do not require the hammer to be pulled back. Simply pulling the trigger will do that as well, although the pull force and travel are substantially greater. Either a single-action or double-action revolver can go off if sufficient pressure is applied to the hammer, even if "uncocked." That pressure is pretty extreme, though, as in, hitting it hard with a hammer in just the right spot. That's where the idea of a dropped gun going off when it hits the floor came from; it is actually possible if it hits just right on the hammer.

Modern revolvers have "floating" firing pins which are loosely connected to the hammer to further decrease the chance of accidental discharge. Not sure about 1880s-era weapons. Someone else will need to inform us on that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Edumakated
This seems to be a stretch...

First, Latham-Watkins is a major law firm. Known as a "BigLaw" firm which is what attorneys call the largest and most prestigious or what used to be called white shoe law firms.

The firm is huge. They have about 3,000 attorneys. Firms like this have all kinds of practice areas. Article notes her husband was an Associate (which means he wasn't a top dog Partner) in entertainment practice area. His being at L&W doesn't mean he has any connection or knowledge of working with other attorneys in litigation or other area involving Clinton.

Aye, it may be a large company, but to me that makes sending a message all the more important no?

Considering the Durham investigation is moving forward, I am expecting to see a lot of anomalies that make no sense on a surface level, but has meaning.

I am still of the opinion that this was a message.

No. It is like claiming that anyone who went to Yale university is also connected to Clinton.

The connection just isn't that strong. Thousands of people work at and leave a firm like Latham Watkins yearly.

He is an associate (underling). If there is evidence he worked for the partner directly handling Clinton's affairs then it might make sense. However, I fail to see what an entertainment associate has to do with political law...

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

I’m hearing it went through her chest and then hit the director. It had to be a round of some kind and .45 is capable.

If a single projectile were fired, that's about the only way it could strike two people. I'm still theorizing that perhaps a bad blank shot shrapnel from the casing. That would be deadly at the range the victims were from Baldwin, and multiple pieces could have exited the barrel.

You're right about the .45 Colt having sufficient power. Of course, a .45 Colt slug would also leave a pretty damn impressive hole, especially exiting. That would be pretty hard to cover up. In contrast, a piece of shrapnel would just "hamburger" whatever it hit, which would make the actual cause of death loss of blood instead of internal organ injury. A person can bleed out from a sufficiently shredded artery in a matter of a few minutes, and a sharp piece of brass casing at sufficient velocity can shred an artery pretty well, pretty fast.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: crappiekat

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: crappiekat
If I could Triple Flag, I would.

This is going to be fun.

GO ATS

I was laughing so hard about the meme with Charlie, I knew it had to become a thread.

To freaking perfect!

ATS has a crack crew actively breaking down events, the heavy digging is gong on over here in Dashens epic saga!

Yes. I've been watching. Hope everyone else is too.

Woa! Did she really post this??

Not the Q part but the Tweet about Hillary?

Halyna Hutchins:


Her last film..

a reply to: Edumakated

He is an associate (underling). If there is evidence he worked for the partner directly handling Clinton's affairs then it might make sense. However, I fail to see what an entertainment associate has to do with political law...

I appreciate your insight and measured take here Edumakated, perhaps you are absolutely correct.

All I know is that in this clown world, things are never as they seem.

The idea that this was just an accidental incident is not sitting right with me even if you take away the shaky connection to the law firm. For me that is just icing on the cake.

Thank you for your contribution!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Randyvine2

That is a piece of terminology that confused me at first as well. It turns out that movie sets do not have live ammo on site, as in, ammo that can spit lead out of the barrel. The movie industry uses the term "live gun" to indicate one that can fire blanks (or actual ammunition).

"Cold gun" is used for a gun which has no powder of any kind in the ammo *including primers) and thus cannot fire.

Another confusing term is the MSM's continual use of the term "prop gun." This was NOT a "prop gun." A prop gun is physically incapable of firing as this one did. This was a real gun being used as a movie prop, not a "prop gun."

That is what caused me to look into this in the first place. How could a prop gun, with no firing pin and possibly a plugged barrel, fire anything? Answer: it couldn't. Shows just how little the MSM knows about weapons to start with.

TheRedneck

i think I'm confused

Was there not a bullet fired from the weapon that struck and killed and struck and injured?
Or do we lack that information because the MSM is more than anything just in the way?

a reply to: Edumakated

The conspiracy could be he was hired as a plant and somebody high up didn't like it 😎

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wouldn't most of the badly loaded blank just dump it's energy in the first target and not have much, if any energy left, to hit the second target?

Older pistols could fire if you jar them on the back, it was one of the reasons for carrying them with an empty chamber. The floating firing pin was a genus idea that kind of solved this issue.

It would seem to me that unless they were using real firearms on this film, this event couldn't have happened. Prop guns have barrels that have obstructions in them. They get safety inspected before they leave the armory to ensure that they are safe to be sent out to the film sight. This is done for two major reasons; The Filming insurance would be astronomical if usable pistols were sent out with high priced actors, and the other reason is if a misfiring happened it could damage the camera equipment. Don't go off on me about peoples lives and crap, that doesn't count on an insurance form, and for the most part the actors are covered in the filming part of the policy. Go look it up, Hollywood doesn't care about it's talent as much as people think it does.

I will admit though, that I may be wrong about these pieces of data. I haven't done anything with insurance for a couple of decades, nor have I done anything in SAG for a few years.

Does anybody know if her camera was rolling when this happened ? 🚬

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm only concerned because my wife (rip) would have been
devastated to see this happen to Baldwin. In fact if she were
still with us? She would've ripped me out of this seat by now
where I rest MY ASS behind MY COMPUTER just to defend Alec
Baldwin.

And yes I loved the abuse.

Sorry if a stupid question, but from the beginning of the thread I think I saw
post re when in a shooting scene that you aim slightly down or up & not directly
at the person for protective reasons...Where was the the person that was suppose
to be shot in relation to the people shot?
Sorry if it was already addressed.

Cheers
Ektar