this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
919 points (96.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26820 readers
3250 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 84 points 10 months ago (29 children)

Wait he was handed live gun, which was supposed to fire blanks and yet it's him getting charged and not the propmaster. what the fuck? what am I missing?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It's never as simple as you think.

Analysis of the events and circumstances, and commentary by a lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmAeMQCvZQ

[–] [email protected] 81 points 10 months ago (4 children)

He says that Baldwin is unlikely charged for firing the gun but more likely for being a producer who failed to ensure that the set is safe.

The thing is that he right now is being charged for firing the gun not for falling as a producer, that's why it seems pretty weird like they are really trying to sack him for some reason.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I love me some Legal Eagle, but this video is 2 years old and at the beginning he says they don't have the full facts yet and everything is speculative since they don't know what happened. I'm wondering if there's anything more recent with more info about what actually happened.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=wXmAeMQCvZQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, there is a part where he's an executive producer and may have ignored warnings regarding safety.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

According to a Wikipedia article on the incident it was the armorer that had previous experience with accidental discharges of firearms and I guess it's the mere point of their presence during filming to make sure all guns are handled safely. Their job was to hand a safe gun to the actor, they didn't do it and a person died. I don't fucking see one reason to charge the actor, regardless of whether they happen to be a producer or not, and not charge the person actually responsible for the accident.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

He was the armorer’s boss, and the producer, so it was his job to make sure everything was as required. He failed his responsibilities, someone died. It’s pretty simple.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's maddening the amount of people deflecting responsibility off of him. If a workplace safety incident happened, and the boss has cultivated the lax culture against safety AND is involved with said incident, but he's not responsible? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Tbh, my first reaction was that it wasn’t fair; then I read more details as they were reported and had a moment of clarity. People get comfortable and mess up, it happens. This time, it cost someone their life.

For those worried about Alec, he has plenty of money. His ego and wallet will take a hit, but he’s not going to prison. He may or not be in a mental prison, but he can afford quality therapy, so if he is and chooses to stay there, that’s on him.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps because Baldwin, as far as we know, did everything correctly? He had the armorer prepare the gun and assistant producer check it. The armorer failed to do it correctly and the assistant producer failed at their part of the job. They are guilty of the accident, because they did not follow the procedure required, not the person who gave them the task

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

No one is absolving responsibility from the armourer.

But if I'm the boss of a warehouse, never enforce any OSHA safety standards against my staff, and one of them just signed off that they inspected the forklift that day without actually doing so, and I drove the forklift and killed someone because of the forklift's malfunction, I am, as the boss, partly responsible for the incident.

To say otherwise is flying against rules and regulations written in blood, as we can clearly see.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not that simple because there were a lot of producers and we don't know what his involvement in her hiring was. A producer can do anything from practically everything to literally nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think it would be fair to charge him with reckless endangerment if he was involved with her hiring and there were clear red flags, but producers have extremely varied roles and I don't know what his personal involvement was.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

The US film industry has been operating for over a hundred years, routinely works with firearms, and yet only 3 people have died in firearms accidents that whole time.

I'm saying this for all the gun safety "experts". I don't care if you're military, law enforcement, or a private gun owner, your embarrassing yourself by lecturing Hollywood on gun safety.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sir / madam, this is a shitpost, not a lecture on gun safety

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Shitpost about human deaths, deal with the lectures on human deaths in the comments.

Dont like it? Shitpost about puppies. No one lectures puppies.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

yeah we do if the puppy is a bad breed like pug or chihuahua

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Try telling the puppy that

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

i tell every puppy they're bad until they cry

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

This is Lemmy, you will receive a lecture.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they practiced proper firearm safety there wouldn't have been real bullets in a gun that's supposed to be loaded with blanks, no?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If they had practiced actually firearm safety on the movie set, the guns would have been blank guns incapable of firing live ammunition.

In fact they'd should have had no guns capable of firing live ammunition on set.

All they should have had were blank firing guns and disabled firearms (e.g. firing pin removed)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I mean, tbf, you do not need live ammo to make a film... The other examples do need -want for the private case- so I do not think is comparable.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (3 children)

How he can be tried for the duty of a prop person or the director who hired that person is beyond ludicrous. The man showed up to do a job. That job was not to keep the props safe. He was handed a tool and told it was ok to use. Fuck this system. Let him go about his life. I'm sure the trauma of having shot someone for real is enough to make him double-check for the rest of his life. That's enough.

[–] [email protected] 100 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (14 children)

Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.

There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.

Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.

Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.

Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.

Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.

During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.

Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn't. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.

The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.

Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else's death you gotta pay up when you lose.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I enjoy having my mind changed by well-written, well-reasoned posts from people who are informed. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Thank you for having your mind changed!

A lot of people fall into error regarding common sense safety on set...like I have heard people go on about how "brave" Lady Gaga was to throw her weight around to film her video in an actual thunderstorm because the outcome was "worth it" not realizing how many injuries, including potentially fatal injuries could have resulted on the crew. People tend to sympathize and uncritically digest what people they "know" and respect tell them versus the rest of us who are relatively faceless.

The particularly upsetting thing is I know people who have literally ruined people's lives and not only are they still working but overall they don't change. The presumption that someone actually feels bad and applies that later isn't my experience. At some level they find ways to self justify that what they did was reasonable and then they just blindly trust that lightning won't strike twice.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Lemmy needs a Best Of so this could be posted to it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Damn this should be a best of Lemmy post if we have a community for that

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Baldwin didn't "show up to do a job." He was a producer on the film, not just an actor.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Producer is a broad term, there are many producers for a movie. He was likely just overseeing casting and other actor stuff.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

"The trio behind the monitor began repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, and Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm. He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'" When he removed it from the holster, the revolver discharged a single time. Baldwin denied pulling the trigger of the gun, while ABC News described a later FBI report stating that the gun could only fire if the trigger was pulled. Halls was quoted by his attorney Lisa Torraco as saying that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, and that Baldwin's finger was never within the trigger guard during the incident. When the gun fired, the projectile traveled towards the three behind the monitor. It struck Hutchins in the chest, traveled through her body, and then hit Souza in the shoulder. Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell called 9-1-1 at 1:46 p.m. PT and emergency crews appeared three minutes later. Footage of the incident was not recorded."

"In August 2022, FBI forensic testing and investigation of the firearm determined the Pietta .45 Long Colt Single Action Army revolver could not have been fired without a trigger pull from a quarter cocked, half-cocked, or fully cocked hammer position. It was also determined that the internal components of the revolver were intact and functional which ruled out mechanical failure as a reason for an accidental discharge. Baldwin stated during a December 2021 interview for ABC News that "the trigger wasn't pulled" and "I didn't pull the trigger."

So he most likely lied about it. Maybe he was drunk or on drugs..

"On January 19, 2023, New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said she would charge Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed with two counts each of involuntary manslaughter. Halls agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon, and received a suspended sentence and six months of probation."

"On June 22, 2023, Gutierrez-Reed faced a second charge of tampering with evidence, in which the special prosecutors allege that she transferred "narcotics to another person with the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of herself.” They later specify from a June 29 court filing that she attempted to conceal a small bag of cocaine the night of the fatal shooting after her initial police interview. On August 4, 2023, Gutierrez-Reed waived her right to a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the criminal charges would stand, thus allowing the trial to move forward and on August 9, she pleaded not guilty to both charges. On August 21, a New Mexico judge scheduled her trial to run February 21 through March 6, 2024."

There were drugs on set.

"On November 10, Rust gaffer Serge Svetnoy filed a lawsuit against the production for general negligence. A second lawsuit was filed on November 17 by script supervisor Mamie Mitchell, who says the script did not call for the discharging of a firearm. On January 23, 2022, Baldwin and other producers filed a memorandum that asked a California judge to dismiss the November 17, 2021 lawsuit by Mitchell. In November 2022, the court rejected a request to dismiss Mitchell's lawsuit against Baldwin and his production company"

I didn't know it is his own company as well..

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I don't stand with anyone because i don't know all the facts.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Yeah but I'd still stand behind him when the gun is pointed the other way

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

If there's evidence, then let a jury decide. Having this take so long isn't justice to anyone

load more comments
view more: next ›