this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
1497 points (96.8% liked)

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3818 readers
1 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
  4. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  5. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
  6. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  7. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  8. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  9. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GillyGumbo 217 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I do agree, but the reason Baldwin is even being looked at is because he was also the producer, if I'm not mistaken. So it could be related to some negligence on that end. But yeah, as far as what he was doing as an actor, it doesn't seem like he should have any responsibility.

[–] moistclump 107 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s a few reasons why he was charged, both as an actor and producer. Gun safety just can’t be fucked around with.

In the document, prosecutors accused Baldwin of “many instances of extremely reckless acts” during the film’s production.

They wrote that Baldwin “was not present” for mandatory firearms training before filming began. He was instead provided on-set guidance but prosecutors allege he was “distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family.” The training session was scheduled for an hour but was only 30 minutes long due to Baldwin’s “distraction” on the phone.

… The prosecutor’s statement described several “acts or omissions of recklessness” on the set of Rust. This included foregoing the use of a prop gun during unscheduled rehearsals, willful ignorance toward on-set safety complaints and a lack of armourer-performed safety checks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9451182/alec-baldwin-rust-manslaughter-charge-phone/amp/

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I'm no lawyer or anything, but Baldwin has been an actor in professional movies with prop guns for a long time, I think it's going to be hard for them to pin it on him (as an actor) for supposedly blowing off a single firearms course, and even that's unconfirmed right? I think it's unlikely that they'll charge him as a producer as well, because it sounds like they hired all the right people for the job and had firearms training and everything.

This whole thing just sounds like lawyers passing the buck back and forth, so who even knows what actually happened at this point. Will be interesting to see what comes up over time.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago

I kind of agree but if an incident happens on a site where the shooter wasn't paying attention to training and never attended the initial safety briefing then that's their own problem.

Working in construction, if I never turned up to a health and safety briefing ( and let me tell you they're repetitive as fuck) and something went wrong but my excuse was "I didn't need to go cos I've been to these before" it wouldn't go in my favour whatsoever. I don't think it's a reasonable excuse either. If there's potential for lives to be at stake, you should be paying attention. At the very least, even if not for other people's lives, just go so you can say you listened and followed every instruction but the mistake still happened. That way youve covered your own back.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weren't they using the guns for target practice for fun at some point?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

I've heard that too, but I think at this point even that's unconfirmed and we still aren't sure who was actually shooting live rounds from them.

Also is that not allowed? I honestly have no idea how that works. You'd think a movie set gun shouldn't have live rounds in it ever, but I guess the production could be renting the gun from someone and they'd take it home every night...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a construction worker or an engineer, you need to take a safety training for each new construction site you go on, even if it's your 40th worksite. So I feel like it's not so hard to pin Baldwin for not taking the hour course properly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

In a civil suit maybe, but for criminal charges you'd have to prove that he did blow off the course and the shooting was a direct result of him blowing off the course. Both are just very hard to prove.

[–] beetus 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Yeah he blew off this years mandatory training, but he showed up to last years training, it can't be his fault!".

Idk that doesn't really seem like a valid excuse

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're talking manslaughter charges here, Baldwin's lawyer doesn't have to prove he's not at fault, the prosecution has to prove without a reasonable doubt that he is at fault. Very different things.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He has both criminal and civil charges being brought against him though, and the civil charges have a much lower standard. He might not be charged with manslaughter, but still be liable as the one at fault

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah for sure, but I mean the context of this conversation is him being actually charged.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

But if he has so much experience with guns on movie sets, then he knows how to property handle firearms safely, and if he followed proper gun safety he wouldn't have shot anyone

[–] Mr_Pap_Shmear 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that the only reason he SHOULD have been looked at is his role as a producer but I don't think that was the case at all. The ad got a plea deal iirc. It seemed more like the police wanted to get a famous feather in their cap and focused on him as the shooter which was obviously bullshit. Alec Baldwin is a dickhead at least and his wife is weird but blaming him for that was dumb from the get go