339
Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
339 points (95.7% liked)
News
23284 readers
4082 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find that to be a pretty big leap. When she took the role of armorer she assumed all responsibility on set to ensure the safety of the crew, which was the entire point in Baldwin hiring someone to that position in the first place. Her gross negligence if not outright fraud is a result of her own actions and nobody else.
At most I'd give 20% responsibility to Baldwin for not examining her background more closely.
I completely agree with you that technically the armorer is at fault traditionally in these types of situations and a jury may in fact find that to be true in the eyes of the law eventually, but I find it interesting that in this case the armorer was a younger attractive female on a rough n tumble set and I can only assume there was pressure on her from the other people there shooting if not Baldwin himself to go shooting. Hell she may not have even known the guns were used but that's not really an excuse.
What is a meditating factor is what Baldwin said, told her and ordered her to do. Remember he's her boss. I'm assuming there's evidence he told her to do blah. If so imo he deserves more than 20%.
The way I see it, if your responsibility is the safety of firearms and someone tells you to violate that responsibility, that reflects a lot on you and you're not cut for the job. If there is a contradiction between what the boss tells you and that which you're held liable for, you better choose wisely. You're hired for this role specifically when death is on the line no less.
Why do you think the grand jury, which certainly has seen more evidence than you, felt differently?
The Grand Jury is subject to a narrow perspective of evidence framed solely by the Prosecutors. The bar is pretty low.
If Grand Juries were fullproof, why even proceed to a trial...?
And it's quite possible I'm missing something, sure. I don't really have a horse in this race either way.
A grand jury found him guilty! I guess that settles it!
Maybe you shouldn't comment on things that you don't know the first thing about
A grand jury will in a ham sandwich
I would still say Baldwin is at fault since he wasn’t doing what he could to ensure safety on the set with real guns and live ammunition. The armorer fucked up 100% for sure, but they shouldn’t be the first and last line for following safety policies and SOPs - anybody in a leadership or managerial role should also be enforcing it.
I find it highly unlikely that a film producer is going around checking weapon props on the vast, vast majority of Hollywood sets. I would be shocked if that ever happens.
People were literally walking off set before the shooting happened because of this exact safety issue. Baldwin knew about the safety issue. He ignored it.
He's negligent for not firing the negligent armorer the moment he undoubtedly heard about there being live ammo on set.
He doesn’t need to check them, but he can certainly go “hey, make sure we’re following safety protocols!” so others can actually do that work - or at least, Baldwin can cover himself by saying he was trying to follow safety protocol.
You say it’s the armorer’s fault (which it is), but Baldwin still could’ve done more to ensure safety on his end without checking every weapon prop like you said. Ask yourself: if the people in charge don’t follow policy and procedure, do you think the people below them would?
What policy/procedure did Baldwin not follow exactly?
I would hate to work under you. I hope you're not in charge of anything OSHA related.
Ok. I'd hate to have employees who need convenient scapegoats to deflect their basic job responsibilities for which they were, you know, hired to perform.