Alec Baldwin's Rust Case Is Over, Prosecutor Drops Manslaughter Appeal
The prosecutor in Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' manslaughter case has dropped her appeal, ending the case that dogged the actor for three years.
You're viewing a single thread.
What a nightmare to find yourself in. Poor guy.
Manslaughter charges on Baldwin never made sense to me. Who the fuck gives a loaded gun to an actor on set, and how the hell is he supposed to know.
Seriously. I see so many people in other threads bitching about how the rich never get held accountable and I don't disagree but that was NOT the issue here.
In movies they do take after take after take. They fire the gun, hand it off to an armorer, get it back, fire, repeat. I've watched it happen, a lot. And I get it, people think the actor should be opening and checking every round before firing every time, and yes that is conventional firearm wisdom that does not work in that scenario.
That's why you hire experts to ensure this process is done safely and the armorer did not do that, period. And it should be pointed out that this process is followed in movies and TV shows over and over again safely, this time it did not happen and that is squarely on the fault of the armorer.
The armorer was especially incompetent and lazy. Nic Cage walked off the set of the first film she was armorer for.
She got 18 months in prison for this stupid shit.
The people I've seen saying it's his fault say it's because he was involved in production as well as acting in the film. At the most though, that sounds like negligence, not full on manslaughter. There's something to be said for holding the owners accountable for any accident that injurs or kills a worker or customer, but Baldwin just isn't that level of in charge
Exactly, there were a dozenish producers on that movie, he was the only one charged.
It's not negligence on his part unless he directly hired her knowing she was negligent.
As I recall, Baldwin wasn't charged simply because he pulled the trigger. He was also a producer and so was involved in hiring the armorer in the first place.
I don't have an opinion on how the case should have turned out, it's just not so silly to bring the charges as is commonly assumed.
There were a dozenish producers on that movie, which ones were responsible?
Don't know. I'm just saying it wasn't as silly as it commonly seems.
It is though. Unless the producer knew the armorer was unqualified or potentially risky/negligent (e.g. drug use or other errors on set) then there's no grounds to hold them liable.
If every hiring manager or corporate financier were directly culpable for their subordinates crimes/negligence — without probable cause to believe so — there would be no capitalism.
The attacks on Baldwin were specifically because he's liberal and pro gun regulation.
Unless the producer knew
So there's a possible source of liability. Court cases are used to determine whether that's an actual liability. So a case went to court.
The attacks on Baldwin were specifically because he's liberal and pro gun regulation.
Quite likely, but not what I'm addressing. My point is simply that there was also a non-silly reason for why these charges were laid. If there weren't then this wouldn't have gone on as long as it did.
Well if they released the org charter we could trace it from armorer to the head guy.
The manslaughter case was about him a producer on the film who ignored repeated warnings about the armorer and her repeated safety violations. So in theory he would have faced the same charges if another actor had fired the gun.
