Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
I had Alec Baldwin's alibi a bit wrong yesterday, based on the heavily edited clip I saw: He's not saying the gun had a hair trigger. He's now claiming he did not touch the trigger at all. He's saying that he pulled back the hammer, and then was letting it down per the cinematographer's orders -- following the orders of the woman he killed-- to see if it looked right for a shot.
I guess his claim is that when he let the hammer down it somehow set off the bullet. I mean, he's claiming he let it down with great care, which would not ignite a bullet, but he's saying somehow this magic bullet was set off by his careful, proper safe letting down of the hammer.
But... he says that you'd still need to really jolt the gun to get the hammer to deliver the striking power to ignite the bullet.
Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza identified the gun used in the shooting as a modern Pietta replica of a single-action army revolver. Those guns can be bought either with a transfer bar that makes it impossible for the firing pin to strike the primer unless the trigger is pulled or without one. Often, enthusiasts and collectors prefer the models without modern safety devices because it's more authentic and perfectly safe when handled properly.
A single-action revolver usually requires the hammer to be manually cocked, and the trigger be pulled for a shot to be fired. That’s why it's referred to as a single-action: because the trigger performs just one action. It drops the hammer. In a double-action revolver, on the other hand, the trigger can both cock and release the hammer.
However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round's primer with enough force to set it off.
This is why the "cowboy load" was developed. When carrying an old-style single-action revolver, it's best practice to leave the chamber underneath the hammer unloaded. That way, a jolt can't unintentionally set off a round.
Still, it seems like he's making some kind of an allegation about this gun being faulty, ready to fire if merely handled slightly.
I think it's clear he's claiming the armorer is guilty of some kind of murder or negligent homicide. And I think he's come up with this story after a strategy huddle with lawyers.
I think he did not want to admit anything or commit to a story that would leave him without a defense to even lesser charges like criminally negligent homicide -- which probably befuddled his lawyers, who probably thought "If you shoot a woman and everyone sees you do it, you're probably going to be open to some charges" -- and so he concocted a story in which a Magic Gun fires a Magic Bullet all on its own and it's this armorer woman (who I think it's been leaked is a Trump supporter, so you know she's a wrong 'un) is The Real Killer.
He also says he feels "no guilt" about killing the woman because it wasn't really him who killed her.
And I still get vibes that he is laying down the foundation for a claim that someone -- he won't say who -- gimmicked or trapped the gun to fire with only the merest touch.
He's not saying that. Yet.
For now, he's just laying the groundwork. Establishing the predicate. Preparing the battlespace. Making the public receptive to the claim.