He owns the production company
Hell, Roman Polanski raped a gal.Another Doug said:Unless there is some shocking news of a cover up or the like he will continue to act. He and others will have to write a big check. This isn't a cancelable offense, and IMO, not the worst thing Baldwin has ever done.PatAg said:
Potentially Bold Take: Alec Baldwin will still work as an actor after this.
BadMoonRisin said:Hell, Roman Polanski raped a gal.Another Doug said:Unless there is some shocking news of a cover up or the like he will continue to act. He and others will have to write a big check. This isn't a cancelable offense, and IMO, not the worst thing Baldwin has ever done.PatAg said:
Potentially Bold Take: Alec Baldwin will still work as an actor after this.
But it's executive, it's got what studios craveTCTTS said:
Producer is above executive producer. Executive producer is basically an in-name-only position. Like, Christopher Nolan is an executive producer on Man of Steel, but basically did nothing on that movie, and certainly didn't produce it.
While his roll as a producer might make him partially liable, everything so far indicates it was an accident (caused by lots of screwups). Lots of people have accidentally shot and/or killed a person and faced little to no repercussions.maroon barchetta said:Another Doug said:Unless there is some shocking news of a cover up or the like he will continue to act. He and others will have to write a big check. This isn't a cancelable offense, and IMO, not the worst thing Baldwin has ever done.PatAg said:
Potentially Bold Take: Alec Baldwin will still work as an actor after this.
He's done something worse than killing a person?
Kevin the 3-legged dog said:
Is producer a title that can mean pretty much anything?
Sea Speed said:
You rank killing someone below mean words?!?!
and was then given an Oscar while the audience emphatically cheered the winKevin the 3-legged dog said:BadMoonRisin said:Hell, Roman Polanski raped a gal.Another Doug said:Unless there is some shocking news of a cover up or the like he will continue to act. He and others will have to write a big check. This isn't a cancelable offense, and IMO, not the worst thing Baldwin has ever done.PatAg said:
Potentially Bold Take: Alec Baldwin will still work as an actor after this.
A 13 year old girl. .
Swarely said:
I don't like even pointing airsoft guns at people.
To me... if it were the set of Private Ryan where they are firing off 100s of rounds of ammo, then I wouldn't expect the actor who is shooting to check to see if every bullet was a blank. But if an actor is handed a gun to shoot one bullet, then I would expect him to check. It's not that hard to look. And who wants the guilt of shooting a person for the rest of their lives?jeffk said:
Really this is just a huge exercise in confirmation bias for a lot of people at the ends of the political spectrum. I honestly haven't seen anyone on here saying Baldwin is somehow blameless as he's in a leadership role for the production of the film.
The rational take is that he accidentally killed someone on a movie set that was rife with corner-cutting and gross mismanagement. How culpable Baldwin is will likely get settled in court (criminal and civil).
I think that is reading the law to get the result of convicting Baldwin.Sea Speed said:
Reading some stuff on 16, it sounds like there is a good case for involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin. I'm no lawyer but they cited some case law including NM Supreme Court i believe.
NM LAW:
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission .... of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Yep, that's the definition of manslaughter.Sea Speed said:
Reading some stuff on 16, it sounds like there is a good case for involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin. I'm no lawyer but they cited some case law including NM Supreme Court i believe.
NM LAW:
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission .... of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
gotsand said:
Great link. It changed my mind, particularly this bit:
The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:Quote:
It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.
I think it is a reach and no prosecutor is going to risk their career on it. I think that required Baldwin knowing more than he did re: the gun, real ammo on set, etc.Sea Speed said:
Could be, but this was the line that stuck out to me, as it did this guy who I stole it from.gotsand said:
Great link. It changed my mind, particularly this bit:
The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:Quote:
It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.
Agree. I think there will be a fall guy or two that take the heat and get a relative slap on the wrist.Sea Speed said:
You are probably right and I would also be surprised if he is prosecuted. The whole thing is going to get very political, but not in the D vs R sense, if you know what I mean.
These guys have to take training on how to shoot a gun so that they don't look like morons who have never held a gun before. Surely part of that training could include "THIS is what a bullet looks like" and "THIS is what a blank looks like".jeffk said:
Ideally, yeah, it'd be nice if the actors would inspect the gun they were handed before every take to make doubly-sure it wasn't carrying a lethal load. BUT I have zero confidence that all actors know enough about firearms and ammunition to be able to tell that. Also, that would often require them to unload said firearm and then reload it... also dangerous. So instead of that, the film industry has set standards that require someone knowledgable about weapons to perform those safety checks. Which in 99% of the cases seems to avoid incident. Obviously not the case here.
Thats not what he said. He said they should be able to recognize it in the firearm. no load it themselves.jeffk said:
You'd prefer actors load all of their own firearms. I think that's better handled by a professional.